ul
Julia Heaslet
And an Iran because of its recent policy in recent years, particularly through the statements and actions of President Ahmadinejad, that has caused instability in its relations with most of the Arab world and the countries of the greater Middle East. Those three aspects are the challenges that are in front of American foreign policy, in front of those of us in our government. Our policy is to deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability. It is to diminish Iran's capability of being successful in supporting these terrorist groups. It is as the president said this morning in his press conference on Iraq is to prevent Iran from providing the type of sophisticated IED technology that currently is providing that is a great threat to the American and British troops in Baghdad, in Basra and other places. It is also to help over the longer term we hope the creation of a society and a government in Iran that will be democratically-based and pluralistic, an Iran that wants to be part of the region in a positive way and not a disruptive force in the region.
As we go forward, I believe that a diplomatic solution to the nuclear problem and all the other problems that I have mentioned is possible. If you look at the history of the last 2 years which we believe has been successful in creating a multifaceted American policy to deal with these many challenges from Iran as well as an international policy, we believe that a patient, carefully applied, skillful diplomatic approach by our country in concert with others can be successful in convincing the Iranians that there is another way forward with he international community. In that respect, I do not believe a conflict with Iran is inevitable, it is certainly not desirable, and we are trying to give every possible signal we can, the president this morning, Secretary Gates when he was in Werkunde, at the NATO Defense Ministers' meeting in Seville last week, Secretary Rice in her multiple comments over the last 2 weeks, our signal has been to the Iranians we are looking for a diplomatic way forward here and we hope the Iranians are going to respond to that.
What it did was it prompted a debate within Iran. Iran is a proud country. It is a country that wants into the Middle East, with the Japanese, with the Europeans, both economically, politically, and socially. It is not like North Korea, a country that appears to be happy to try to exist in isolation. So the symbol of a Chapter VII designation against Iran, again, there are only 11 countries of 192 in the General Assembly that are under Chapter VII sanctions, was a very powerful one in the Iranians political system. It is not a monolithic system, there are many voices, many different points of view, and I think we have seen a balancing of sorts.
As for Israel, all I will say is President Ahmadinejad has given the Iranian government a lot of problems through his statements. Here is the president of a member state of the United Nations which says the policy of his country is to wipe another country off the map of the world. That is an extraordinary statement by any standard in the sometimes cynical debates that you find at the United Nations. He also denied the historical fact of the Holocaust and held a conference to try to disprove what all of us know to be true, the horrors of the Holocaust in the Second World War.
I really am delighted to have been able to participate in this whole forum. And we are here to explore the challenges that the next president will face. Although it feels like this year's campaign began in the Mesozoic era -- (laughter) -- there are still five months to go before inauguration day. It is possible that the world will look far different on that day than it does now, but I doubt it. Even in the best case, our next president will inherit a list of headaches beginning with hot wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the global confrontation with al Qaeda. Because these conflicts are unconventional, they are unlikely to end conventionally through a clear-cut victory or a negotiated peace. They could well drag on, which is dangerous because time is not on our side.
A good dean usually associates himself with the views of one of the school's best friends, namely Madeleine. But as I was listening to her I thought perhaps we disagreed a little bit at the margin. She said we can't go back to the golden days of 1945. I thought -- and I was thinking about this because I thought you might ask a question like that -- that "back to the future" might be a theme because I think what the president needs to do -- despite the particularity of all the problems that he is going to face -- is an overarching theme, particularly since the president wants to change the overall image of American foreign policy. He wants to change the narrative about American foreign policy.
At this stage, the president's most pressing challenge is selling the deal to wary stockholders. He's hampered by a self-created credibility gap and a tenacious refusal to abandon campaign-style jingoism in favor of candor and clarity.
The 2016 election arrives at the juncture of our failures abroad, and restlessness at home. And soon, Americans will once again enter a time for choosing ... A chance to set a new course for the country. As you may have heard, last week, I was in Colorado for the third Republican presidential debate. If you watched the debate, you probably came away thinking this election is about sound bites...or fantasy football...or which candidate can interrupt the loudest.
Some people on the debate stage talked of a country that was once great, but now is in dramatic decline. They say our best days are behind us. I acknowledge the difficulties and challenges we face. But I reject this kind of thinking. Not because I don't understand it, but because I know it is not true. There is an important place in our politics for righteous indignation. But anger that leads to resentment without delivering results will take us down a path to perdition.
After seven years of massive deficits, historic debt, and a president who vetoes defense spending because he wants more reckless spending, we need a president who fixes our budgetary mess. I can fix it.
Americans are looking for a president, not a pundit...a leader and not an agitator. For seven years we have been led by a cynic-in-chief. It is time we elected a Commander-in-chief. A president who knows leadership involves summoning the will and creativity to solve tomorrow's challenges and seize tomorrow's opportunities.
aa06259810