The quick and the diplomatic

The choice of running mate is the first decision a candidate makes that provides insight into the type of judgment he will exercise as president. Sen, John McCain announced Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential pick after a rapid, rash and visceral vetting process. The New York Times reported that the campaign only seriously considered Palin four days before she was announced, and McCain interviewed her for the job only once before he declared her on the ticket. Palin exemplifies McCain's shoot-from-the-hip pattern of judgment. Although Palin has energized the Christian right of the Republican Party and narrowed the gap in public opinion polls, she remains a political risk for the McCain campaign. This example raises the question about McCain's decision-making process: What happens when the stakes are higher?

Given the current tensions in the Middle East, this question warrants a look at the candidates' policies for Iran. Both candidates support the Bush administration's goals for Iran to re-submit to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and stop enriching uranium. They both support an increase in bilateral and multilateral economic sanctions, with the meat of the sanctions coming from Europe, which produces 40 percent of Iranian imports and consumes 88 percent of Iranian oil exports. Both support low-level diplomatic engagement and will keep the use of force on the table. The main policy difference is that Sen. Barack Obama supports higher-level talks without preconditions, possibly between the heads of state, if they will further American interests.

Granted, the policies of the potential McCain and Obama administrations are widely similar. Yet the point of divergence on high-level talks is critical, because it changes the way people perceive those policies. How our diplomatic approach to Iran is viewed by the world, especially the Iranians, will help determine its response. A willingness to engage in high-level talks with Iran shows a desire to collaborate toward positive outcomes. That impression, a reversal from the last eight years, is unlikely to be lost on the Iranian people.

Yes, if the Iranian government talks with the United States, it will probably grandstand at length. However, talks undercut the prime propaganda of the Iranian leadership: That the United States is an intransigent enemy that doesn't respect Iran's government or people. The fact the Americans have finally engaged at high levels will create pressure from below for Iran to attempt a peaceful, reasonable settlement. More importantly, it will strengthen the hand of moderates in the Iranian government, from the Guardian Council on down, who might tip the government toward non-proliferation.

This change in attitude will also put pressure on the Europeans. The sight of the internationally popular Obama actively participating in solving the Iranian enrichment crisis will create an incentive for European heads of state to follow America's lead by rallying European popular opinion. Through this active diplomacy, Obama can at least increase the likelihood of heightened European Union pressure in a way that the Bush (or McCain) strategy hasn't achieved through years of effort. The Europeans might shift some of the burden of pressure onto the United States, but that's precisely what is needed, because the United States is more committed to bringing the Iranians to heel.

So what does all of this mean? Is it a guarantee that Obama's plan towards Iran is a surefire path to ending uranium enrichment? Of course not. But we have seen from the last six years that the current strategy has not yielded results. After all, Iran is still enriching uranium. It is clear that continuing these policies for another four years under a new administration probably won't achieve our goal either: As Einstein said, insanity is repeating the same action expecting different results. Obama's plan is a fresh style of attacking the same problem. Though it may not guarantee success, it makes a breakthrough more likely.

A good leader utilizes a careful decision-making process. This characteristic is reflected in Obama's carefully vetted selection of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden as his running mate. Obama gave Biden the vetting necessary to lead the country. The way in which each candidate decided on their running mate is reflective of their judgment. McCain has a pattern of brash, reactionary decision making that is incompatible with success in Iran. On issues like these, we need a leader with steady judgment and foresight. Based on his decisions, that leader is not John McCain.

Kristian Hinson, Trinity '09, and Christen Tingley, Trinity '09, are students in Prof. Peter Feaver's Foreign Policy and Campaigns class.