It seems to me that the perfect platform for affect was President Obama’s speech to the General Session of the United Nations on Sept. 23, 2009; a full two days before this press conference.  Instead, President Obama used his speech for self promotion with comments like “For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.” [2] Additionally, he used this opportunity to stoke the anti-Semitic attitudes that are so prominent in the UN by overtly criticizing Israel – the first democracy in the Middle-East and a staunch ally of the U.S.

So, what was the desired “affect” the President was targeting?  Was he looking for an opportunity to force the Holocaust-denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to answer for his nation’s deception of the UN and IAEA or did he not want to put this lunatic in a difficult position when he took the platform later that afternoon.  President Obama, President Sarkozy, and Prime Minister Brown all spoke before President Ahmadinejad did during the Sept. 23^rd United Nations General Session.  Each had an opportunity to put the evidence of Iran’s deception before the General Assembly.  Instead, our President spoke with idealistic views of a world that would one day be rid of nuclear weapons – a view that totally ignores the undeniable truth of the existence of evil and of nations bent on the destruction or domination of other nations.

The next opportunity for maximum affect while confronting Iran was on Sept. 24, 2009 during the United Nations Security Council meeting.  President Obama, with much “historical” fan-far, became the first sitting U.S. President to preside over this body.  The focus of the meeting – nuclear non-proliferation.  Did the President use this opportunity to confront Iran?  No!  Instead, the council under Pres. Obama’s leadership passed Resolution 1887 supporting enforcement of old and the creation of new non-proliferation treaties. [3] No mention was made of Iran’s clandestine nuclear material processing facility at all despite the fact that our President clearly had knowledge of its existence.

Instead, Pres. Obama, Pres. Sarkozy, and PM Brown chose G20 summit on economic issues as the stage to confront Iran and announce their unified intention to pursue sanctions.  The three individually spoke firmly and resolutely about the need for Iran to “come clean” and comply with international treaties and UN mandates on non-proliferation.   It does seem to me though the three western leaders purposely let Iran off the hook on the world stage at the very least.

Just as Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel stood on the podium during his remarks to the General Assembly with physical evidence of the Holocaust - Obama, Sarkozy, and Brown each had an opportunity to present evidence to the world in a way that could not be denied by Iran and would have required a response when Iran addressed the same body later that afternoon.

Given this, I’m concerned that the “timing” of the confrontation was not for maximum impact at all, but to minimize the impact it would have had on President Obama’s “coming out party” on the world stage while minimizing the embarrassment to Iran.  The end result – what was intended to be a show of force by the U.S., France, and Great Britain was in fact a show of weakness to a region and a people that traditionally respect strength and abhors weakness.

I recall during the Cold War that one of the objectives of the U.S.S.R. was to have a warm-water port in the Middle-East.  The U.S.S.R. recognized the strategic importance of having a dominant presence there.  While Iran develops nuclear weapons, it’s clear that it can count on Russia’s support.  Russia is standing in the way of any meaningful sanctions while placing a missile defense system in Iran.  It would certainly appear that this long sought after goal by Russia is closer than ever to being achieved.

Peace through weakness has never been achievable.

Footnotes:

[1] The Wall Street Journal:  Iran’s Troubling Nuclear Disclosure Leaves Key Questions to Be Answered by Jerald F. Seib, page A2, Sept. 29, 2009

[2] The New York Times: Obama’s Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Sept. 23rd, 2009

[3] United Nations Security Council SC/9746 meeting communication to the media, Sept. 24, 2009