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.

Sophomore Parsa Bastani, president of Wash. U.’s Global Zero chapter and regional team leader of the Midwest, just returned from an international conference in Paris, France, dealing with the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons.

“[Nuclear weapons] are a huge issue that we have to start confronting now before an accident [or] before something tragic happens,” Bastani said.

The conference started off with a summit for 30 students from 12 different countries, where the participants learned about campus activism and organizing the grassroots movement for Global Zero.

“[The conference is] basically to get people to rally behind Global Zero,” Bastani said. “The whole point of the activism and organizing is so we can learn how to better pressure our politicians and get people to start caring about the issue so that, in general, everyone is pressuring our politicians to denuclearize.”

The second part of the conference included a world summit for Global Zero, with more than 200 diplomats, military officials and government officials present. They presented, debated and worked on Global Zero policy and activism, and the students were given the opportunity to participate as well.

“A lot of us were learning so much about the issue; being in [their] presence and listening to their debates was enlightening to us,” Bastani said.

Bastani learned a great deal at the conference, which he can now apply to Wash. U.’s Global Zero chapter. He stressed the chapter’s commitment to playing its part in ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

“The Cold War is over and nuclear weapons have outgrown any usefulness they might have had as deterrents,” Global Zero Media Director Gabe Magraner said. “It’s necessary that the world’s nine nuclear weapon states disarm to dissuade the potential nuclear states from developing nuclear arms.”

Bastani said there are many reasons why nuclear weapons should cease to be present in the world.

“Right now their use has faded so much that, one, they’re just a huge drain of world resources and money that could be put into other causes, and two, they’re just hugely dangerous,” Bastani said.

The Wash. U. chapter is currently attempting bring speakers to campus. Furthermore, they are trying to get more signatures on a petition to end nuclear proliferation. According to Bastani, there is a competition between many college campus chapters, and whichever group gets the most signatures wins the chance to present a petition to President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during an April summit on the issue.

“As students, we can sign the Declaration for Global Zero and demand that President Obama, President Medvedev and other world leaders work toward a legally binding, verifiable agreement,” Magraner said.

Sophomore Matt Wilmus agrees that nuclear weapons are an issue, but disagrees with Wash. U. students working against the weapons.

“I think they pose a large threat to the world and there is no reason for any countries that don’t have them now to acquire them,” Wilmus said. “[But] generally, I don’t think we are well informed enough to have much of an opinion on the subject. It’s okay to be vocal about not supporting nuclear weapons­—it’s another issue entirely to actively try to change policy regarding them.”

Overall, Bastani urges more students to join the cause. “We’re also trying to get more students and to recruit more people to come onboard who care about this issue to be a part of this organization, because the more students we have, the more we can reach out to the Wash. U. community and educate [its members] and inform them and connect them to these key officials,” Bastani said.

With 414 votes in favor, on Oct. 14, the United States House of Representatives passed the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009: H.R. 1327, authorizing state and local governments to enforce divestiture from, and bar investment in, companies with investments of $20 million or more in Iran’s energy sector. This measure, introduced by Representatives Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., is part of a series of bi-partisan legislations intended for strengthening America’s efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. H.R. 1327 was passed to the Senate where it was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs before being voted on. In the Pittsburg G-20 summit on Friday, Sept. 25, President Obama criticized Iran for carrying out “covert” operations and “breaking rules that all nations must follow.” Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said this Iran sanction will direct Obama’s actions against the looming nuclear threat of Iran.

The sanctions could affect Iran because, while the country is the world’s second largest natural gas reserve and a major crude oil exporter, Iran does not possess the capabilities to meet its domestic gasoline needs. Despite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s claims that sanctions against Iran are “impossible,” his administration has developed a plan to counter these potential provisions. Iran has attempted to decrease domestic consumption of gasoline by raising gasoline prices, enforcing rationing quotas, developing alternative energy fuels, improving public transportation and increasing domestic refinery production. Iran hopes to establish an autonomous energy structure that does not rely on the U.S. and other international fuel contributors. The effect of these efforts has yet to be proven successful in mitigating the goals of U.S. sanctions.

The sanctions could also generate significant short-term political instability in Iran. Limiting Iran’s fuel intake could entice public outrage that may exacerbate a current tense political environment in Iran. Only shortly after the controversial presidential elections, the proposed sanctions have the potential to empower regime oppositionists. September protests at the al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day rally in Tehran, supported by more than 100,000 people, reveal that a sector of the population remains unsettled over the post-election events and against the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Despite the protests’ outcries, in his al-Quds Day address, Ahmadinejad proclaimed  the “Western powers launched the might of the Holocaust” and that Israel was “doomed to be wiped off the map.” This noted statement only escalated Iran’s reputation as an existential threat to Israel and as a nuclear, peace-obstructing menace to the rest of the world.

It appears yet again that Israel and the United States share a common interest to inhibit the nuclear capabilities of Iran and the notorious behavior of Ahmadinejad’s regime. Israel backs the United States’ goal to harness international support to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg has stated that the United States has a greater chance of winning global confidence in its efforts for even tougher sanctions against Iran because its administration has encouraged Iran’s willingness to engage in serious negotiations first. He advises the international community that by the end of the month, the world should have a clear indication of Iran’s intentions about its nuclear program. The United States’ sanctions face Iran with the choice to continue its unlawful nuclear program and risk economic and social ruin or terminate the program for a peaceful relation with the rest of the world. The International Atomic Energy Association estimates that by 2010, Iran will have enough enriched uranium to produce nuclear bombs. The United States is taking steps to stop this activity from progressing. What is the rest of the world doing to protect you?

In light of the violence and unexpected displays of rebellion, many Western news sources turned to experts with an understanding of both Iran and the United States. Washington University scholar Fatemeh Keshavarz was one of those experts.

Keshavarz, a professor of Persian and comparative literature who chairs the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages and Literature, granted interviews and commentaries to news sources, including CNN, NPR, Fox News, Democracy Now and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

But Keshavarz has been speaking publicly about Iranian culture for years—as an author, blogger and commentator who focuses on combating misperceptions about Iran and highlighting its diverse voices.

Keshavarz said her roots in Iranian and American culture make her an effective cross-cultural communicator.

“Being a student of Persian and American poetry gives me deep love, and roots, in both cultures,” Keshavarz wrote in an e-mail to Student Life. “As a poet and literature specialist, I do have a vital role in the cross-cultural communication between Iranians and Americans. I show each culture the multiplicity of the voices of the other, the depth that must not be overlooked.”

Keshavarz said she sees her work as a public figure as a natural extension of her work as an educator.

“I don’t do [media appearances] as an activity on the side,” she wrote. “I deeply believe it to be an extension of my role as an academic/educator. It is in the nature of the global culture, unfolding before us, to remove borders and to put us on each other’s doorsteps.”

“On one level this is tremendously exciting because it gives us unimaginable opportunities for exploration and for getting to know one another,” she added.

Keshavarz has written articles for publications like the Post-Dispatch and Counterpunch since long before the election, and has for years maintained a blog, Windows on Iran, that provides a multitude of voices, news and perspectives—“windows”—from Iranian sources.

“I decided instead of being frustrated with misrepresentations and the unfounded news about Iran, I should do something to counter them,” Keshavarz wrote. “I received massive thank-you messages every week, and the list grew so large that I soon realized it should be converted into a blog.”

Keshavarz believes her work is a necessary corrective to what she sees as the U.S. media’s one-sided representation of the Iranian people.

“For a long time, the average American has had little access to news, and analysis, reflecting the complexity of the Iranian society. Until the recent post-election events in Iran, most of what we saw on TV and read in the papers portrayed Iran as a one-dimensional rather lifeless country that was interested only in religion.”

Keshavarz thinks that the election coverage, which portrayed the generally young Iranian protestors as sympathetic, is helping to change that view.

“When an image gels in the popular imagination, it is really hard to undo it except by a major shake-up. The good news is that this shake-up has now happened. Suddenly, the multitude of young, old, rich and poor Iranians did not seem like strangers any more. After all, they were asking for the same things we value here: freedom, democracy and change. Reading dozens of books could not have been as educational.”

Keshavarz is not the only voice on campus interested in broadening the discussion about Iran. Mitra Haeri, president of the student Iranian Culture Society, is one of many students who has been involved in opening the communication.

“In such a complicated area [the Middle East] with such a rich culture, the history of the region is absolutely critical to understanding the issues and possibly working towards a solution,” Haeri said. “The undergraduate population of Iranians and Iranian-Americans is very small in this community, but I feel like in the past few years we have made relatively large strides. Our events and film screenings are attended by non-Iranians for the most part, and I can’t help but feel like this does nothing but strengthen our presence on campus.”

Oren’s lecture will address many of the problems facing Israel today, including terrorism, threats from Iran, the nation’s military arsenal and changing demographics, among others.

The speech, titled “Israel in the Face of Existential Threats,” will largely focus on the future of Israel and how it can survive.

“I think it’s a different opinion they don’t perhaps get otherwise, to talk to someone who not only studies this in the classroom but also [offers] a good perspective for them,” Oren said in an interview with Student Life and the Jewish Light.

The event was organized to help educate students and develop a dialogue on campus about current Israeli issues.

“[We want to] reignite the dialogue regarding the Middle East on campus because we feel it’s not an issue discussed on campus, and it’s a shame, because we feel like we can make a really big difference,” said senior Ari Sasson, one of the event coordinators.

“Wash. U. has such a big Jewish community and we feel like it has the potential to do a lot of good, but it’s not really discussed. Bringing Michael Oren is just one part in this wider initiative,” Sasson added.

The event is cosponsored by  numerous student groups on campus, including the Jewish Student Union, the College Democrats, the College Republicans and the Political Science Student Association (PSSA). Many other community groups are also sponsoring the event.

According to senior Danielle Heiman, another coordinator of the event, so many groups are involved because Oren’s career touches on both the academic sphere and political sphere.

“The importance [of the event] is that it’s showing what we’re talking about doesn’t just necessarily have to do with Israel, but it has to do with general academic areas of interest that most Wash. U. students should be interested in on some level,” Heiman said.

The bipartisan nature of this event is something not often seen on the University’s campus.

The PSSA is serving mostly as a nonpartisan group to facilitate and coordinate the efforts of other groups involved.

According to junior Mark Dudley, president of the PSSA, this is a great way for different campus organizations to collaborate and appeal to a wider range of students.

“[The sponsors of the event] will send a message: This event is open and public discussion. It’s not going to be biased or slanted in anyway,” Dudley said.

Dudley said he hopes the groups can continue to work together after Oren’s visit.

“I hope it’ll be a chance for our four groups to get together not just once but in the future to bring events and speakers to campus. It’s kind of a coming-out for the four of us if you will, together, working on this event,” Dudley said. “I think if you really want to move forward and plan really strong events, the four groups working together with other groups is a great way to get things accomplished that are open to the student body.”

Oren has been a visiting professor at both Harvard and Yale universities and is currently a visiting professor at Georgetown University. He has published works in several national newspapers, including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

Oren is the author of two New York Times bestsellers and a fellow at the Shalom Center in Jerusalem. He has also testified before Congress.

No one really knew what to expect, and that made this vice presidential debate the most exciting in recent memory. Does anyone remember Cheney’s debate with Edwards? Does anyone even remember that Lieberman, now an Independent sprinting to the right, was nearly a Democratic veep?

I have to admit that my heart leapt into my throat when I saw Biden grip Palin’s arm during their handshake in a decidedly un-fraternal way. Was the man who called Obama the first mainstream, clean and articulate African-American presidential candidate going to slip up and fulfill the prediction that he’ll look like a sexist or a bully? Thankfully, Biden handled himself like a gentleman, albeit one who really enjoys grinning. A lot.

Palin brushed aside the negative expectations just as deftly. Was this really the same woman who shocked the nation with her incoherence and ignorance only a few days prior? I guess I’ll just have to believe my lying eyes, because Sarah Palin was on her game tonight. She effectively avoided any “deer-in-headlights” moments, and she even managed a throwback allusion to one of the most famous of Reagan’s beatdowns of Carter in the 1980 debates (“There you go again”). Whenever she became comfortable with the topic at hand, her natural charisma immediately shone through with a twinkle in her eye.

Still, I don’t think she showed a whole lot of improvement on substance. Her plan for Iraq: We’ll win! Withdrawing our forces would be “waving the white flag of surrender!” Nevermind that Maliki has endorsed Obama’s plan for withdrawal. Nevermind that General Petraeus himself recently told the BBC that he would never call the outcome of Iraq a “victory,” and that “it’s not war with a simple slogan.” I suppose that since we’ll never win, and Palin won’t surrender, we really will have to stay in Iraq for 100 years. I can’t imagine why Biden didn’t point this out.

Biden also lost out big on a chance to draw contrasts between the two candidates on women’s rights. Biden, the man single-handedly responsible for the Violence Against Women Act, would have been wise to draw this contrast with Palin, who presided over Wasilla at a time when it forced rape victims to pay for their own “rape kits” to investigate the crimes against them. An ideal time would have been during Palin’s unironic denunciation of Iran for suppressing women’s rights.

Biden also deserves credit for dispelling some of the more foolish myths widely propagated by the McCain campaign and rarely scrutinized by the press. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be every bit the nutcase he appears to be, but he does not have any power over Iranian foreign policy! That power belongs to Supreme Leader Mohammad Khatami, the same man who controlled it during the moderate and conciliatory tenure of the previous president, Mohammad Khatami.

The overlap of the candidates could be as interesting as their differences, however. There was exactly zero difference in the candidates’ answers on Israel and Palestine. Biden praised himself for his unwavering support of Israel in the third person (I’m not kidding).

Overall though, both candidates brought their A-game and scored points at one time or another during the debate. Though I think Biden was the winner at the end of the day, Palin’s performance was more than adequate. McCain’s campaign: It’s (still) alive!.

Correction: The author mistakenly identified former president Mohammed Khatami as the Supreme Leader of Iran. In fact, the Supreme Leader is Ali Khamenei.