James Martin, a senior in Silliman College and writing for the Yale Daily News, presents the consummate analysis of the U.S. versus Iran dilemma. My faith in the youth of this country is reaffirmed. Here is a brief extract:
As the United Nations opens the 61st session of its General Assembly this week, it is apparent that the international community has finally agreed to take seriously Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The assembly’s agenda is devoted to reaching common ground on how best to deal with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime and its quest for nuclear weapons. While some advocate diplomatic pressure, others dialogue and still others military action, each party privy to this debate has had an incredibly hard time trying to figure out what course of action Ahmadinejad intends to take.
In U.S. foreign policy circles, two principal positions in this debate have been articulated, each representing a different theory of international relations. But a proper response to the threat Iran poses should be found somewhere in between the pessimism of one and the optimism of the other.
The extract is just a brief teaser. The full essay is succinct rather than wordy, to the point rather than long, and it begs to be read. Click the headline for the rest of it.
Note: This essay does not mention the fact that there isn’t a shred of evidence, either empirical or circumstantial, that Iran has any desire or capability whatsoever to produce a nuclear weapon, nor does it address the fact that all evidence points to exactly the opposite proposition. Neither does it acknowledge the fact that Ahmadinejad, the elected President of Iraq, is known to have no substantive power in the setting of Iranian policy or the management of the country. However, the essay transcends these minor issues with its direct and unarguable presentation of the truth at the heart of the matter.