Dealing with Iran will be a major foreign policy challenge for the next administration.  And as Sen. Clinton stated repeatedly throughout the Democratic primary, the United States needs a president who can lead on day one.  Iran’s latest series of missile tests only reaffirms the need for the United States to emplace missile interceptors in Europe.  The successful shoot down of a falling satellite earlier this year by the Department of Defense validated the missile defense system, which is still wrongfully derided by critics.    

It is unclear what the Iranian leadership believes it gains by conducting these provocative tests and continuing to propagate belligerent rhetoric.  It is probably an effort to bolster its deterrence posture.  Unfortunately, Iran only increases the risk of miscommunication and thus increases the risk of conflict.  Iran test fired a new iteration of its long-range missile, the Shahab-3.  It is believed to have a range of 1,250 miles and is capable of carrying a one-ton conventional warhead.  Sen. McCain understands the threat Iran poses to U.S. interests and unlike Sen. Obama, he has a plan to contain Tehran.  Yesterday, Sen. McCain issued a statement:

Iran’s most recent missile tests demonstrate again the dangers it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel. Ballistic missile testing coupled with Iran’s continued refusal to cease its nuclear activities should unite the international community in efforts to counter Iran’s dangerous ambitions. Iran’s missile tests also demonstrate the need for effective missile defense now and in the future, and this includes missile defense in Europe as is planned with the Czech Republic and Poland. Working with our European and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy.

Sen. Obama, on the other hand, urged “diplomacy.”  Certainly diplomacy has its place, but years of multilateral engagement with our European partners have failed to change Tehran’s behavior, so why would Sen. Obama think more diplomacy would work when he’s president?  To think that bilateral engagement is appropriate in this situation is naïve and dangerous.  Meeting directly with the Iranian leadership will only provide them with undeserved legitimacy.  Sen. Obama has issued several confused statements regarding Cold War diplomacy, wrongly conflating the diplomatic efforts of two very different eras.  “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela–these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, ‘We’re going to wipe you off the planet.”  These are words you’d expect from an undergraduate writing a term paper for an International Relations course, not of a serious presidential candidate. 

The threat from Iran’s nuclear program is real and it is grave. As president, I will do everything in my power to eliminate that threat, and that must begin with direct, aggressive, and sustained diplomacy.

What’s most concerning is that Sen. Obama hasn’t held a consistent position on Iran.  One month he argues that the threat from Iran is exaggerated and then two months later he characterizes the threat as “real” and “grave.”  Let us not forget that Iran has supplied materiel to insurrgents in Iraq which has resulted in the deaths of American servicemen.  Iran poses a problem on several fronts.  The next president must be prepared to deal with th Iran problem on January 20, 2009.