Om Pandya, Staff Writer
Ideology: Libertarian | Writing from: New York, NY

When voters turned out in droves to vote for Barack Obama, they were not just voting in a president, they were voting out George Bush and his foreign policy known as the Bush Doctrine. Change was what they wanted, and change is what we got in a complete 180-degree shift in foreign policy. The Obama Doctrine, while still early in its conception, is best summed up by Washington Times writer Frank J. Gaffney, who in a similarly titled piece referred to it as “capitulation sugarcoated with smart words”. It is hard to argue with this when confronted with footage of Obama’s apology tour four months into his presidency in which he poses with Hugo Chavez and even confesses to him that he “has a lot to learn”. Or afterwards when Obama meets with Daniel Ortega and then sits down meekly during Ortega’s 52-minute long rant on the problems the U.S. has caused.

More recently he reversed the Bush administration’s missile defense plan and deserted our allies in Poland and the Czech Republic for Russia’s assistance in controlling Iran’s nuclear ambition. Unfortunately, it seems as if Russia has no intention to sacrifice trade relations with Iran for a harder stance against their nuclear weapons, and our concession of good faith backfired.

Now, it is Iran’s turn to be given a concession, that instead of enriching their own uranium, someone else will enrich the uranium for them and then give it to Iran. The interests that the U.S. gains from this agreement is that Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon is delayed, but based on the fact that Iran will still enrich some of it’s own uranium, this agreement is a mockery of negotiation where nothing worthwhile is accomplished. Also, as of Friday, Iran was waffling on whether to agree with the deal or not, showing how they feel about negotiations even when they are in their favor.

We cannot allow Iran to even potentially build a weapon, and every concession we give up is part of their strategy of reaching their goal by “salami tactics”. Allowing them to create a nuclear weapon would potentially allow Iran to exploit and endanger our allies in the Middle East and Europe and become the dominant power in the region, which also would give it power over oil exports. It would also allow terrorist groups sponsored by Iran to act with impunity under the defense of a nuclear umbrella. Unfortunately, the probability they go through with the weapon seems high given the circumstances. They have everything to gain, and nothing to lose since they can act without fear of a strong American reaction. Just one example of a signal to the Iranian government that we do not intend to stop them was the comment by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was a front-runner to be appointed to the same post in Obama’s administration, who said that the United States should shoot down Israeli planes that fly over Iraq on path to bomb Iran.

Lastly, the waffling on troops in Afghanistan is another example of detrimental foreign policy. With the runoff election currently occurring between Karzai and Abdullah, we need more troops to stabilize the nation against a possible insurgent revival. However, whichever decision Obama chooses to make, he should make with force, either committing enough troops to take the battle to insurgents hiding in the rural countryside, or giving the order to withdraw and focus on protecting only the population centers. A silence gives encouragement to the opposition about American and leaves generals vulnerable and uninformed.

Attacks on Obama’s submissive foreign policy are expected from the neo-conservatives who led us into Iraq, but there are people from all sides of the spectrum who worry that his peace-at-all-costs position puts U.S. interests at risk. Peace is a great policy, but can only be achieved if one is prepared for war. Negotiations are fundamental to achieving goals, but must be entered into from a position of power as to extract more concessions from the other party and give them an incentive to follow through with agreements. As much as we would like not to get involved into a military conflict, we must keep that option open and use our military might as a deterrent to conflict.

Obama would be wise to heed the words of fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat, who once said “I have come bearing a olive branch in one hand and a freedom fighters gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall.” While Obama has definitely followed the first part of the famous quote, the part about bringing the olive branch, he has opened both palms to the world to make it clear that he has no gun in his other hand.