Yesterday I concluded my discussion of Iran’s nuclear program stating that I think that aggressive diplomacy is necessary. It is obvious through five years of continual demands made by the UN and the US that demanding action from Iran will do very little. Rather we need to make our requests known to the nation and then give them some incentive to cooperate. Also we need to work on our relationship with the leaders of Iran. This is imperative because the only relationship that has existed between the United States and Iran has been a relationship of hostility and animosity. If we can somehow bridge the gap between the two nations, we might be able to calm Iran and coerce them into conceding their nuclear program.
It has been suggested from many persons, including ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, that sanctions of Iran have done little more than cause more strife between Iran and the UN. ElBaradei also commented on the Iranian people saying that many Iranians dislike their leaders but the people have recently rallied around the government because they feel threatened by the UN.
I would like to know what the readers of this blog make of this current situation. Is military action the answer? Can we really afford another costly war? Or should diplomacy be employed? Is it permissible that we should slap more sanctions on Iran to get the job done? Are we out of options as a nation?
The last question I would leave you with is the greatest – is Obama better suited than Bush to handle this controversy? Whatever your response to that questions is, we can all hope that he is capable and ready to tackle this and many other issues.
