The Washington Times, September 7, 2008 – With both parties’ U.S. presidential and vice presidential nominees now set, American voters have their last opportunity to decide whether Democrats or Republicans can field the team best qualified to meet the challenges of the next four to eight years.
Voters’ primary concern in November should be the war – but not the one in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is the unavoidable war, already begun but not yet fully fought, that will be fully fought within the next one to two presidential terms. Our votes later this year will determine if we are prepared to do so.
This unavoidable war will be with Iran. Every American voter should understand this before casting a ballot. Every voter should understand the theocratic leadership in Tehran is of one dominant mindset. The Mullahs, led by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and current president, Mahmoud Ahamdinejad, who serves at the former’s call, are committed to developing a nuclear weapon for Iran.
When Mr. Ahamdinejad’s term in office ends in August 2009, he is eligible to run for re-election. And, in Iran, where presidential election outcomes are known ahead of time by the supreme leader, Mr. Ahamdinejad, absent a flagrant act of disloyalty, will remain in office through August 2013. This is more than sufficient time, by any conservative estimate, to make final Iran’s development of its first nuclear weapons.

Only by our next president aggressively taking very focused diplomatic steps is there any possibility war will be avoided. These steps, coordinated with our allies where possible, include maximizing economic sanctions against Iran, unleashing the Iranian MEK OPPOSITION group Tehran fears most by removing them from the State Department’s terrorist list and rearming them, funding all such Iranian OPPOSITION groups and taking whatever other actions are necessary to effect regime change in Tehran.

While most Americans fail to grasp it, the war with Iran unilaterally began three decades ago. The Islamic extremists who took power there in 1979 embarked upon a jihad which since then has claimed hundreds of U.S. citizens’ lives. We have failed to fight this war as it continues today in Iraq, where Iran’s Islamic Republican Guard Corps’ (IRGC) elite Quds unit is actively killing Americans.

Against this backdrop, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has proven himself dangerously naive about Iran. In 2007, he refused to support a nonbinding Senate resolution which recommended IRGC be designated a terrorist organization as he erroneously believed passage would authorize war with Iran. Too busy campaigning instead of voting on an immensely important issue to future world stability, Mr. Obama failed to vote, condemning the resolution as “excessively provocative.” Instead of condemning the IRGC, Mr. Obama introduced legislation specifying use of force against Iran is unauthorized by any previous act of Congress. Instead of keeping all arrows in our diplomatic options quiver to stop Iranian aggression, Mr. Obama sought to remove a critical one.
Also against this backdrop while campaigning earlier, Mr. Obama said he would meet with Mr. Ahamdinejad – without preconditions. Yet the one precondition to a meeting upon which all our allies agree is that Tehran stop its uranium enrichment program. Even Mr. Obama’s not-yet-selected vice presidential running mate at the time, Sen. Joe Biden, criticized Mr. Obama’s suggestion. And, his willingness to talk with Mr. Ahamdinejad suggests Mr. Obama naively sees him as rational – rather than the religious fanatic he is, undeterred about creating the world chaos he seeks.

November’s U.S. presidential election will seal America’s fate. The inevitable confrontation with Iran will boil over during the next president’s term. This is a time in which we can ill afford inexperienced leadership.