So what’s going on? I used to consider myself lucky that I had a way to stay connected to the multitude of people I’ve met over my lifetime. I can search Facebook by “Current City” to find friends in a new place, or check up on what a friend did last weekend through events and photos. The amount of personal information we have access to is literally overwhelming; there’s no way to absorb every story that comes across our Facebook news feed or Twitter. Photos, tweets, check-ins, pins and likes are now standard pieces of information about a person you may have only met once or twice.

Generation “F” stands for Generation “Friend,” which reflects the changing definition of the word in the context of how our social networks define it. In some ways it is a deceptive trick that facilitates more use of social websites. For us, the individual user, their loose interpretation of the word is changing how we interact with the people around us. You may be friends with someone on Facebook, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you say hi to them in Whispers. Brashears’ study doesn’t conclusively explain why our number of close friends is decreasing, but I’d like to propose one possible explanation.

The amount of access to personal information we have on acquaintances has raised the bar on who can now be considered a “close friend.” Personal information that had been previously shared face-to-face, such as photographs (on paper), details about a relationship, travel plans and even mutual interests, are now completely accessible to the online community. Life events that our parents only share with their close friends are now on a public Timeline, resulting in less ways for our generation to connect deeply with each other. We simply have fewer things to discuss.

I respect people who decide to deactivate their Facebook profiles, but I could never be one of them. I don’t necessarily believe that the answer to establishing true close friendships in the traditional sense is to swear off social media altogether. Rather, our generation must come to appreciate the value in meaningful face-to-face interactions; a facial expression or gesture that needs no explanation or the ability for someone to instantly tell when you’re not feeling 100 percent is more valuable than ever before. Social media should complement our interactions, rather than supplement them, and while I don’t see this happening as often for those of us who remember using pay phones, I worry about the babies playing with iPads. It’s only a matter of time before they learn how to download the Facebook application.

Involved in the eviction of the Sumarin family is a well-known organization called the Jewish National Fund (JNF). Known for planting millions of trees throughout Israel, the JNF is also the primary land trust for the country. Like us, you may have grown up giving weekly “Tzedekah” (charity) to the Jewish National Fund by putting coins in those iconic blue boxes. For generations, the JNF has been an important organization through which Jews around the world have supported the growth of Israel as a Jewish homeland, and this is a legacy that we celebrate. We know that without the JNF, Israel would not be what it is today.

The JNF has a policy of not operating over the Green Line—and East Jerusalem is over the Green Line. Technically, the Sumarin home is being handed over to an organization called Himnuta (which will then turn it over to the ELAD Foundation, which operates the City of David tourist site). The Jewish National Fund owns 100 percent of Himnuta’s shares, and the JNF’s CFO is also Himnuta’s executive. In short, JNF appears to have created Himnuta to do business across the Green Line, while the JNF retains its good standing in our hearts and minds.

Just a few days ago, the JNF/Himnuta announced that they would postpone the eviction (originally planned for Monday, November 28) to a later date. The announcement came after the organization Rabbis for Human Rights launched a campaign to keep the Sumarins in their home. Due to widespread international support, political pressure prompted the JNF to announce a postponement—a move that acknowledged the fact that they were in fact responsible for the controversy surrounding the Sumarin home. We want to encourage the JNF to revert back to its original policy of not operating over the Green Line by turning the lease over to the Sumarin family.

J Street U Wash U, along with J Street U chapters across the country, hopes that this eviction will not just be delayed, but canceled all together. As a pro-Israel, pro-peace organization, we want to ensure that we engage with our history and our connection to Israel in ways that are consistent with our values. More importantly, these policies undermine the possibility of a two-state solution, in which a Palestinian state would exist alongside Israel. We believe that it is important that the JNF builds upon its legacy by supporting Israel’s future rather than jeopardizing it by supporting settlement beyond the Green Line. The JNF can and should stand for values that the Jewish people strive to exemplify and live up to its long legacy of encouraging Israel’s security and survival.

We ask for your support in advocating for a total cancellation of the Sumarins’ eviction. We hope to increase international pressure in order to make the eviction a politically unfeasible move. To show your support of the Sumarin family, please visit the Rabbis for Human Rights website at http://bit.ly/SaveSumarin to find instructions on how to contact JNF representatives. With your support, we can protect human rights and support a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you would like to find out how to be involved with these issues on campus, please email jstreetu@su.wustl.edu.

I have crystallized the moment that I was sitting on the couch taking in the NBC Nightly News story on the implications of AIDS on children in sub-Saharan Africa. I asked myself that apathetic question, “Why should I care?” However, I was fortunate enough to find the information that provided me with the means to combat this query. It is clear that we are now witnessing one of the most exciting periods in the campaign against HIV.

While HIV does not discriminate, it has a history of impacting marginalized populations. AIDS was first officially recognized in 1981 in the U.S., and in the context of fear and homophobia, the illness soon became known as G.R.I.D., Gay-Related Immune Deficiency, and often described as gay cancer. Since then, the epidemic in this country has shifted. It now disproportionately affects poorer and marginalized communities and people of color, particularly African Americans. This disease has come to affect individuals of all colors, sexual identities and walks of life.

HIV is an epidemic of global proportions and has direct relevance to our generation. Globally, young people ages 15-24 represent 45 percent of all new HIV infections. In the United States alone, the number of our peers, individuals under age 24, living with HIV amounts to 46,000. Taking all of these individuals and transporting them to St. Louis, you would have enough people to fill the Cardinals’ Busch Stadium to capacity.

However, the direct impact of AIDS on our generation is not solely due to the malevolent effects of the virus. This World AIDS Day signals the beginning of one of the most exciting time periods in HIV and AIDS awareness.

Last month, President Barack Obama lifted a 22-year-old ban on people living with HIV entering our country. This ban had prevented any major AIDS conference from taking place within our borders, due to the restrictions imposed against people living with HIV serving as delegates. However, the AIDS 2012 conference is taking place in Washington, D.C. this next summer and is expected to convene more than 20,000 delegates from nearly 200 countries.

Directly applicable to the excitement surrounding HIV awareness is the outcome of a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study that was published this last summer. This international research effort found that providing antiretroviral therapy, the medical treatment for HIV, reduced risk of transmitting HIV to another person by 96 percent. This effort, in conjunction with other policies recently outlined by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, provides us with the most realistic opportunity yet to end the global HIV epidemic.

I’m not asking you to drop your commitments. I don’t want you forget about medical/law/graduate school to become an AIDS activist. However, I do want you to realize that HIV is a real, pressing issue. This is one of the most important health issues of our generation and we have the opportunity to live through an exciting time that will hopefully change the course of this epidemic forever. I challenge you to be a part of history by taking action.

Taking action really isn’t that hard or time consuming. It takes different forms for different people. The first step for me was to educate myself on the issue. Education is a painless investment that would exponentially increase our generation’s ability to affect change. The biggest enemy of social action is apathy. The beauty of apathy is that it can be readily addressed, easily dismissed and expeditiously remedied. The end of the HIV epidemic is in sight for the first time since the epidemic’s onset. I ask you all to take the time to learn more about the epidemic so that you have a succinct answer when you’re confronted with the question, “Why should I care?”

Tej Azad is a junior in Arts & Sciences.

Up until that moment, I hadn’t truly believed that Occupy Wall Street was anything other than a movement created by “radical leftists,” for “radical leftists.” But hearing Marva self-identify with the 99 percent changed my mind.

Since first hearing about it this past summer, I had been skeptical of Occupy Wall Street. But despite my skepticism, I continued reading about the happenings in Zucotti Park. Although I was wary of the “movement,” Occupy Wall Street did resonate with me, simply because it was willing to say, “We have a problem.”

In fact, it was willing to say, “We have a lot of problems. And we haven’t figured them all out yet. The problems are big banks, capitalism, income inequality, unfair foreclosures, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, environmental degradation, unemployment, corporate greed, globalization, racism, a Congress controlled by corporate interests and a lot of other very complicated things.” It was willing to say, “We’re angry, so let’s be angry together and figure out what we can do about it.”

Still, I was skeptical. There weren’t any clear-cut demands! Too many people were wearing Guy Fawkes masks! The high number of young, white people participating did not accurately reflect the composition of the 99 percent!

But after speaking with Marva my skepticism began to fade. I realized that, as someone who claims to be committed to “social justice,” it would be irresponsible and impossible for me not to participate in the Occupy movement to the best of my ability. For me, “participating to the best of my ability” means engaging in civil disobedience at a rally at the MLK Bridge today.

When I asked myself, “why should I participate in civil disobedience?” part of my answer was: because I can. For most people, such as Marva, voluntary arrest is not possible because of financial, health and other concerns. But as a white, upper-middle class college student, with the social and financial resources to be arrested with almost no subsequent consequences, I can strategically use my privilege to call attention to the injustice that pervades our country.

In his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. writes, “We who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with.” This is what the Occupy movement is about. This is what today’s march is about. This is why I am participating in civil disobedience: to force us all to see that something (even if we don’t know exactly what it is) is wrong, and then to come together to figure out how we can begin to fix it.

I hope that the actions across the country today make it clear that the Occupy movement is not ending anytime soon, and inspire more people to participate. Then, Occupy can start having serious and difficult conversations about how to transition from symbolic victories to real victories, from social change to political change, and from a problematic present to a more just future.

The rally in St. Louis today is part of Occupy Wall Street’s National Day of Action, marking the two-month anniversary of the occupation in Zucotti Park. This day of action is pivotal, particularly in light of the eviction of the protesters from Zucotti Park on Tuesday morning. More than 500 people here in St. Louis will join thousands of people across the country marching, singing, shouting, rallying and risking arrest in solidarity with one another. And we’d love for you to join us.

If you want to join us, we will meet in front of Brookings at 2:15 pm Thursday, Nov. 17 to go to the march together. Only a select number of pre-arranged volunteers will be risking arrest, so any students who decide they want to participate in the march do NOT have to worry about being arrested.

Molly Gott is a senior in Arts & Sciences.

This is a tough time for a lot of Americans—especially young people. You’ve come of age at a time of profound change. The world has gotten more connected, but it’s also gotten more competitive. And for decades, too many of our institutions—from Washington to Wall Street—failed to adapt, culminating in the worst financial crisis and recession since the Great Depression.

For the last three years, we’ve worked to stabilize the economy, and we’ve made some progress. But we still have a long way to go. And now, as you’re getting ready to head out into the world, many of you are watching your friends and classmates struggle to find work. You’re wondering what’s in store for your future, and I know that can be scary.

The truth is, the economic problems we face today didn’t happen overnight, and they won’t be solved overnight. But the fact that you’re investing in your education right now tells me that you believe in the future of America. You want to be a part of it. And you know that there are steps we can take right now to put Americans back to work and give our economy a boost.

The problem is, there are some in Washington who just don’t share that sense of urgency. That’s why it’s been so disappointing to see Republicans in Congress block jobs bills from going forward—bills that independent economists say could create millions of jobs through the kinds of proposals supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past.

Now, the best way to attack our economic challenges and put hundreds of thousands of people back to work is through bold action in Congress. That’s why I’m going to keep demanding that members of Congress vote on common-sense, paid-for jobs proposals. And I hope you’ll send them a message to do the right thing for your future, and the future of our country.

But we can’t wait for Congress to do its job. So where they won’t act, I will. That’s why I’ve announced a new policy that will help families whose home values have fallen refinance their mortgages and save thousands of dollars. We made it easier for veterans to get jobs putting their skills to work in hospitals and community health centers.

And at the University of Colorado at Denver, I announced steps we’re taking to make college more affordable and to make it even easier for students like you to get out of debt faster.

Michelle and I know what it feels like to leave school with a mountain of debt. We didn’t come from wealthy families. By the time we both graduated from law school, we had about $120,000 worth of debt between us. And even though we were lucky enough to land good jobs with steady incomes, it still took us almost 10 years to finally pay it all off. It wasn’t easy.

Living with that much debt forces you to make some tough choices. And when a big chunk of every paycheck goes toward student loans, it isn’t just painful for you—it’s painful to our economy and harmful to our recovery.

That’s why we’re making changes that will give about 1.6 million students the ability to cap their loan payments at 10 percent of their income starting next year. We’re also going to take steps to help you consolidate your loans so that instead of making multiple payments to multiple lenders every month, you only have to make one payment a month at a better interest rate. And we want to start giving students a simple fact sheet called “Know Before You Owe” so you can have all the information you need to make your own decision about paying for college. That’s something Michelle and I wish we had.

These changes will make a real difference for millions of Americans. We’ll help more young people figure out how to afford college. We’ll put more money in your pocket after you graduate. We’ll make it easier to buy a house or save for retirement. And we’ll give our economy a boost at a time when it desperately needs it.

That’s not just important for our country right now—it’s important for our future. Michelle and I are where we are today because our college education gave us a chance. Our parents and their generation worked and sacrificed to hand down the dream of opportunity to us.

Now it’s our turn. That dream of opportunity is what I want for my daughters, and for all of you. And even in these tough times, we are going to make that dream real once again.

In the weeks ahead, I’m going to keep doing everything in my power to make a difference for the American people—including young people like you. Because here in America, when we find a problem, we fix it. When we face a challenge, we meet it. We don’t wait. And I hope you’ll join me.

The easiest and most logical way to fix uncompetitive elections is to reduce the number of seats. There’s a good reason why this simple solution has been offered by every vice president of administration since anyone on campus can remember: It’s the natural solution. Mind you, this would not entail rounding up the body and booting individual senators off the island. While that approach would make for considerable (free) entertainment, the actual implementation would be far less dramatic. The number of seats up for reelection would just gradually dwindle.

And there’s an easy way to determine the extent to which Senate should slim down. Why not equalize the body with Treasury? The latter has one representative for every 325 students—bringing Senate to the same standard would result in six fewer seats. The College of Arts & Sciences gives up four, and the engineering and business schools lose one each.

Now, say you’re a BSBA and, out of concern for your school, your gut reaction is to reject this proposal. I ask you to articulate your qualms. Are you afraid that issues pertinent to your school are less likely to be brought up? What if I told you that one of your school’s seats is perennially empty anyway? Besides, Senate rarely arbitrates on school-specific issues. As tempting as it is to categorize students by the school that’s giving them their diplomas, the reality is far more complicated. An economics & strategy and political science double major is very similar to a political science and economics double major. Moreover, participation in extracurricular activities tells you far more about a particular student than does membership in a particular school. Two members of an a cappella group or sports team are far more likely to share something in common than two BSBAs. Ultimately, any possible ills that result from removing one business seat are severely outweighed by the fact that the people who remain are far more likely to be elected in a competitive election and thereby represent the true wishes of the student body.

But perhaps you’re one of the few who question the very premise of Senate. In the past, I have been angrily rebuked just for stating my affiliation with the body—trust me, I’ve heard it all, and usually from people within SU. Yet, any reasonable person will agree that the organization serves a necessary purpose. The richness of campus life that we so enjoy would not be possible were student advocacy and programming the purview of the administration. Students will always be the best advocates for students: the key is merely to determine which students, and moreover to incentivize their doing as well as possible. Reducing the number of Senate seats will bring us closer to accomplishing both of these goals, because on top of the obvious improvements in the representativeness of the body, a senator who is at least somewhat concerned about reelection is far more likely to make sure he has something to show for himself.

I am not alone in pushing for this change. After two weeks of one-on-one meetings with individual senators conducted by myself and Senator Davis, two-thirds of Senate finally passed a constitutional amendment reducing the number of seats. The following week, I presented the amendment to Treasury with Speaker Robinson, and it unanimously passed the amendment. All that’s left is for you, the student body, to affirm this amendment on Nov. 1 and 2. Don’t think of it as a referendum on the current Senate or even as a solution to all of our problems. Think of it as a simple solution to a serious problem—one that will forever hamper Senate’s efficacy unless resolved.

I went to the article link and started reading. I had to see what was up. I waited… I waited… so…what’s wrong? After reading this all I could do is laugh. This article turned out to be a very well-written op-ed piece, by an astute freshman simply explaining some keen observations she’s made in her two months or so at Washington University.

Whether we agree with Claire’s observations or not, she brought to light something that is quite obvious at Wash. U. People group themselves by comfort and affiliation. If you’re of a certain race, you likely hang around with a lot of people of that race. If you’re from a certain geographic area, you may choose to affiliate with people from that location. If you’re part of a certain club, Greek organization or team, chances are you like to be with those people. Nothing is wrong with this; it’s natural. People like being comfortable, and being around those similar to you is comfortable. How I interpreted this op-ed is that here at Wash. U. we may be taking this to an extreme, and when someone chooses to expand past this comfort zone they don’t feel like they can. Not enough people share this desire to expand past their comfort zone. Hence, we limit ourselves and divide ourselves.

I understand some people or groups are all up in arms about this column because nobody likes being called out. But the point is: it was an op-ed, which means it was an opinion. In America, you are allowed to have those; get over it. And the article was very thought-provoking. In America, you are allowed to do that; get over it. And lastly, Claire is right. As a black male on this campus, I have constantly felt like people segregate themselves. Would you feel comfortable going to a Korean Students Association meeting? I sure wouldn’t. And I know plenty of people who wouldn’t feel comfortable going to an Association of Black Students meeting. But understand that this isn’t simply a race thing. It’s a comfort zone. I am not defined by my race; I have several different affiliations. I also segregate myself by plenty of them. The op-ed was challenging me to not do so.

In response to those who threw an elementary school fit about this piece, shame on you. Read it for what it is, not what you want to accuse it of being. For those who went further and sent Claire Ferguson accusatory and aggressive emails, trying to curb her boldness of thought, shame on you even more. Grow up and realize that in life you won’t always agree with people’s opinions, but you should respect them. I applaud Claire for her column, and hope more people on our campus will challenge the social boundaries we create.

Jonathan Howard is a senior in the Olin School of Business.

As students, what can we do? How can we help grow the #occupy movement and empower the 99%? We can do more than hold signs, hand out flyers, and post on Facebook. We can change the way our universities bank. Often, universities portray themselves as sacred temples of learning—places where apolitical knowledge is generated and shared. And while there is some truth to that, it must also be acknowledged that universities are powerful and wealthy institutions often controlled by powerful and wealthy individuals. These individuals have vested interests in seeing particular corporations prosper, as well as our current financial and political systems perpetuated.

Those interests are reflected in universities’ institutional relationships with big, corporate banks. Many universities use Bank of America and Chase for banking services. They have participated in interest rate swaps with Lehman Brothers. They have welcomed corporate banks onto campuses to sell credit cards to students. These relationships strengthen the big banks that charge excessively high interest rates, engage in risky financial bets and perpetuate predatory lending practices, particularly in low-income communities and communities of color.

Universities control an almost mind-boggling amount of money, including about $350 billion in endowments and almost $100 billion in annual spending. Of course, that money does not just sit in a vault in the admissions’ office. It is kept in a bank— usually a big corporate bank such as Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase or Citibank.

The #occupy movement has raised awareness that where we deposit our money matters. Banks depend on deposits from their clients—especially institutional clients like universities. When enough clients move their money because they do not agree with a bank’s practices (such as engaging in payday lending, funding mountaintop removal coal mining or perpetrating robo-signed foreclosures), the bank may be forced to change its practices in order to regain deposits and survive.

On Nov. 5, “Bank Transfer Day,” thousands of individuals will close their corporate bank accounts and move their money to community banks and credit unions—financial institutions that are more socially, environmentally and economically just and sustainable. College students: let’s join this action. But let’s also go a step further and demand that our universities close their corporate bank accounts and move their money as well.

This is not a ridiculous demand. In fact, divesting from corporate banks is in line with most universities’ rhetoric about already existing commitments to social, environmental and community responsibility.

We must ask ourselves: How can a school flaunt its LEED-certified buildings, sophisticated recycling program and commitment to buying local food, but keep its money in a bank that finances mountaintop coal removal? How can a school tout its community development initiatives and programs that provide tutors for children in underserved communities, but keep its money in a bank that unjustly forecloses on homes in those same children’s neighborhoods? It is the time for college students across the country to call attention to this hypocrisy and demand that institutions change it.

It is our moment. Now is the time to leverage our unique power as students to expand the #occupy movement to affect University finances. Every dollar that we move gets us one step closer to a financial system that values our planet and all of its people.

On Nov. 5, join me and other students across the country as we move our money. Then let’s call upon our universities to do the same.

Join the Facebook event “College Bank Transfer Day” to make a statement and learn more. And join the Facebook group “Occupy Wash U” to get updates on events that will help you navigate the process of moving your money.

Molly Gott is a senior in Arts & Sciences.

Before detailing a few reasons why affirmative action is important, we would like to address some claims made in the column. First, the author misrepresents the argument for affirmative action: “Either whites have oppressed minorities to the point that they are noticeably lower on the economic totem pole…or minorities are noticeably lower on the economic totem pole than are their white counterparts.” While the first half of this claim has truth to it, the latter half insinuates that the current economic condition of minorities is a product of mere happenstance—a claim out of historical context at best, a sign of racial bigotry at worst. Accuracy aside, the author appears to miss the point that affirmative action is about race, not economics. Affirmative action was created to correct for racial, not economic, inequality.

Second, the author overlooks other instances of preference within the college admissions process. He makes the claim that “the fact that—all things being equal—a black college applicant will be accepted over a white one is racist by definition.” Not only does this treat college admissions, a holistic process, as something very rigid, but also it fails to acknowledge factors such as legacy. The fact that, all things being equal—and even when they are not—an applicant whose parents went to the school in question will be accepted over one whose parents did not is unequal by definition. This line of reasoning could be applied to several factors—musical talent, athletic ability or geographical location. The fact that, all things being equal, an applicant who grew up in a remote village in the Arctic will be accepted over someone from Westchester County, N.Y., is unequal by definition. The University has a vested interest in creating a diverse atmosphere that fosters the humanistic traditions of intellectualism through the representation of different people from a wide variety of backgrounds. Some may question the fairness of this process. However, the lines that define “equal” and “fair” become blurred when the experiences of and opportunities available to minority students are considered.

Given that the author supports preferential treatment of low-income students during the application process, we might conclude that he would broadly support policies that correct social inequalities that affect access to higher education. He claims: “[a]ffirmative action makes the assumption that minorities are disadvantaged—itself having dubious moral implications.” What really has dubious moral implications is the insinuation that systemic racial inequalities—divorced from socioeconomic factors—do not exist, and that they are of no detriment to minorities. A discussion of how they permeate nearly all facets of society would be too lengthy for this editorial, but, rest assured, plenty exist within the educational system. In just one example of this, an Indiana Education Policy Center Report compared seven different studies ranging from the late 1970s to 2000 and found consistent racial disproportionality in the discipline of students, independent of socioeconomic status. Specifically, black males were suspended at three times the rate of their white counterparts, and black females were suspended at four times the rate. As Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez noted, “students of color are disproportionally affected by zero-tolerance policies—a fact that only serves to exacerbate deeply entrenched disparities.”

Perhaps the greatest obstacle minorities face is having to overcome the low expectations their teachers and administrators can have of them. I, Ola, felt this personally upon arriving to a new middle school. I remember my mother made a specific point of sending in records of my and my brother’s grades and enrollment in a gifted program. In a meeting with our new guidance counselor, however, my mother was pointedly asked: “Do they speak English? Do they need to be placed in a special education class?” Never mind the fact that this guidance counselor did not see it worth his time to read the files that my mother sent him. For my brother and me to be so readily dismissed, and have our individual potentials underestimated based of preconceived notions because of our skin color, could have easily served as a psychological impediment to our success.

The opening of a discussion about affirmative action and systemic inequalities is most welcome. We must be careful to ground such a discussion in a historical context, however, in order not to distort the issue and engage in diatribe. One must remember, for example, that women have in fact been the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action. Or that numerous Supreme Court precedents exist that limit the extent of affirmative action’s influence. Or that, most importantly, post-racial rhetoric in a still racially charged society can prove to be dangerous. As former Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote, “I suspect that it would be impossible to arrange an affirmative action program in a racially neutral way and have it be successful. To ask that this be so is to demand the impossible. In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”

Iran vehemently denies any involvement in the attempt, but American intelligence agencies are convinced of high level participation—if not by Ahmadinejad, then perhaps through supreme religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini. Despite its serious gaffes in the past, I’m inclined to trust American intelligence. Iran is simply too volatile an antagonist to be tiptoed around.

The assassination of another nation’s ambassador on U.S. soil should constitute an act of war. Attempted assassination should be no different. Iran has provided world leaders a tailor-made opportunity to impose the strict sanctions against its dictatorship they should have enacted a long time ago. If Iran were to brazenly plan an attack in the United States, there’s no telling what it would do with a nuclear weapon. It is of the utmost importance that Iran never get that chance. Here’s why:

1. Ahmadinejad is known for spouting anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-Western-World rhetoric. Until now, the free world could disregard his threats as a psychopath’s ramblings. The failed assassination plot, which involved planting a bomb at a Washington, D.C., restaurant frequented by foreign diplomats and American politicians, would have killed more than just the Saudi ambassador, and it establishes Iran as a serious threat. With a nuclear weapon and new-found legitimacy, Iranian leaders could have enormous leverage over almost any country. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has proven himself radical enough to say, “End any and all sanctions against me or I’ll shoot my nuclear warheads at Jerusalem.”

2. A menacing dictator posing ultimatums is one thing—but going to war with that same dictator is something else. There very well may come a time when waging war against Iran will be critical to our security and political/economic interests. The United States has never fought a war against a nation armed with nuclear weapons—an implicit advantage that is often ignored. If placed in such a context, the U.S. would remain militarily superior but would be far more concerned about domestic security and safety within militarized lines in Afghanistan, Iraq and potentially Iran.

3. Iran’s host of proxies is arguably the most important reason to impose strong sanctions and prevent the country’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon. Iran has strong associations with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip (both recognized as terrorist organizations by the Department of State). The government is also indirectly linked to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Some might point out that Iran would never actually use a weapon of mass destruction. After all, the United States and a number of other countries would immediately invade and Ahmadinejad and Khomeini would lose their power quickly. Any of the aforementioned proxies, however, would be glad to make use of a nuclear weapon. A frightening number of Hezbollah or Hamas leaders wouldn’t hesitate to use Iran’s bomb against Israel or any other nation, regardless of the consequences. These proxies pose a relevant danger because they have less to lose, have focused and radical goals, and are difficult to hold accountable.

The Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011 (ITRA), which is currently circulating around Congress, would make the prevention of a nuclear Iran official U.S. policy. The bill specifically targets the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the group responsible for controlling most of the country’s economy and the nuclear program.

President Obama should make ITRA his paramount foreign policy initiative. The United States is heavily invested in the Middle East. Additionally, the state of the two wars in which we are engaged, our access to affordable oil and our longstanding relationship with Israel are all heavily contingent on keeping Iran from becoming a nuclear power.