Obama and Iran

George Friedman, CEO of Strategic Forecasting, is a noted futurist, someone who predicts future trends in politics and business. According to a recent article of his, one of the biggest threats to the security of the world (and therefore one of the biggest threats to American military, political, and business interests) is Iran. Iran soon will acquire nuclear weapons, and they may just use them against Israel or other US allies in the region, or give them or sell them to terrorist groups out there who may use them to attack the United States. 9/11 was bad, but a suitcase nuke in New York City is an unimaginable tragedy. This is what Friedman wrote about Iran and the United States options, specifically the Obama administration, on how to deal with Iran:

Obama has three choices on how to handle Iran: First, he can impose crippling sanctions against Iran. But that is possible only if the Russians cooperate. Moscow has the rolling stock and reserves to supply all of Iran’s fuel needs if it so chooses, and Beijing can also remedy any Iranian fuel shortages. Both Russia and China have said they don’t want sanctions; without them on board, sanctions are meaningless.

Second, Obama can take military action against Iran, something easier politically and diplomatically for the United States to do itself rather than rely on Israel. By itself, Israel cannot achieve air superiority, suppress air defenses, attack the necessary number of sites and attempt to neutralize Iranian mine-laying and anti-ship capability all along the Persian Gulf. Moreover, if Israel struck on its own and Iran responded by mining the Strait of Hormuz, the United States would be drawn into at least a naval war with Iran — and probably would have to complete the Israeli airstrikes, too.

And third, Obama could choose to do nothing (or engage in sanctions that would be the equivalent of doing nothing). Washington could see future Iranian nuclear weapons as an acceptable risk. But the Israelis don’t, meaning they would likely trigger the second scenario. It is possible that the United States could try to compel Israel not to strike — though it’s not clear whether Israel would comply — something that would leave Obama publicly accepting Iran’s nuclear program.

And this, of course, would jeopardize Obama’s credibility. It is possible for the French or Germans to waffle on this issue; no one is looking to them for leadership. But for Obama simply to acquiesce to Iranian nuclear weapons, especially at this point, would have significant diplomatic and domestic political ramifications. Simply put, Obama would look weak — and that, of course, is why the Iranians announced the second nuclear site. They read Obama as weak, and they want to demonstrate their own resolve. That way, if the Russians were thinking of cooperating with the United States on sanctions, Moscow would be seen as backing the weak player against the strong one. The third option, doing nothing, therefore actually represents a significant action.

Elections have consequences. Obama is in office until 2012, and we have to hope that getting him out of office at that time will not be too late. In the meantime, there are Congressional elections in 2010, and Congress can put some pressure on the President in foreign policy, so make sure you vote correctly in the coming elections.