- Republican Wins Money Race in New York Special
- Congressional Hits and Misses: Week of April 20, 2015
- Pelosi Reacts to Death of Al Qaida Hostages
- Pelosi Calls Emerging Trade Deal a 'Pothole'
- Freshman's Campaign Issue Gets D.C. Attention
It was a brave decision for President Barack Obama to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and the right one. And he defended it eloquently in accepting his Nobel Peace Prize.
Now, of course, comes the hard part not just in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but in U.S. politics and, especially, Iran.
One major virtue of Obamas decision was to make it clear that, while his foreign policy approach is less bellicose than former President George W. Bushs, hes not a pushover for Americas adversaries.
Hes never been the wussy, apologize-for-America weakling portrayed by his right-wing critics, former Vice President Dick Cheney in the lead.
His apologies for past U.S. mistakes clearly have been part of a strategy to identify with suspicious audiences such as Muslims and hes invariably followed up with assertions of U.S. policy such as defenses of Israel that his audiences didnt want to hear.
On the other hand, the rulers of Iran, who are getting away with building nuclear weapons and sponsoring terrorism, may well have thought of Obama as another President Jimmy Carter, incapable of effective use of coercion.
Now, hes demonstrated that he is willing to use force and intensify it, against domestic opposition to defend Americas vital national interests. As he said at the Nobel ceremony in Oslo, there will be times when nations acting individually or in concert will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitlers armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaidas leaders to lay down their arms, he went on. And he concluded: I, like any head of state, reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation.
Because Iran shows no inclination to yield to international demands to stop its nuclear program, the question is: How do Obamas words resonate in Jerusalem?
Israel regards Irans nuclear program as an existential threat. If the international community cannot invent sanctions that will stop that program, by Obamas own logic, Israel would have every right to attack Irans installations.
Obama surely would not want that to happen, but time is running out. He said earlier this year that Iran had until the end of 2009 to come to terms on its nuclear program.
He said specifically in Oslo that nations like Iran and North Korea must not be allowed to game the system.
Regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with real pressure and such pressure exists only when the world stands as one.
The problem is that the world does not stand as one on any tough sanctions regime such as, for instance, a cutoff of Irans gasoline supplies.