sambino510
Senior Member
- Jul 2, 2013
- 324
- 27
- 51
As someone deeply interested in international relations, the U.N. General Assembly is one of the highlights of the year for me. Particularly interesting are the speeches by the leaders of Iran, Israel, and the United States, since the issues surrounding this three nations is one of the most important obstacles the world faces today. Thus, I'd like to talk a bit about which leader, Iran or Israel, made a better, more diplomatic speech, and what it means for future diplomatic efforts.
Note: These are simply my opinions, though I try to base them on fact, or at the very least logic.
First, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech. I didn't think he could get much more bombastic than last year, when he held up a literal picture of a bomb in reference to Iran's nuclear program. However, his speech seemed to me to be completely focused on his permanent distrust of the Iranian government, and his complete lack of confidence in the diplomatic system. In other words, given the go-ahead, Netanyahu seemed completely ready to bomb the Iranian nuclear sites off the map. This seemed to me to be completely counter-productive, as the General Assembly is not meant to be a platform to bash other countries. Rather, it's an area where we can all say, "Well, the world is pretty messed up right now, but I have confidence with the right amount of cooperation that we can fix it." Netanyahu displayed no such optimism.
Then, there is newly-elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Though many would classify him as a wolf in sheep's clothing, due to his close ties to Ayatollah Khamenei and the clergy in general, he came across as the most level-headed of the speakers. He simply asked for Iran to be respected by the international community as a sovereign nation, particularly in regards to their nuclear program. He also stated that he believes a diplomatic solution can be reached that will alleviate the unprecedented sanctions his nation faces. He also hinted at his disapproval of the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, though said nothing more controversial than anything Secretary of State Kerry or President Obama have said about the issue. Overall, though Rouhani might not meet all his words with actions, he at least came across as a friendly, acceptable world leader, unlike some of his predecessors. Though I seldom disagreed with much of former President Ahmadinejad's speeches, he certainly has made many bombastic remarks that often portrayed him as a leader bent on world destruction.
Finally, there's President Barack Obama's speech. From the outset, he made it very clear that he was going to focus the rest of his presidency, foreign policy-wise, on the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Iranian nuclear program. He assured that he too felt a diplomatic solution was possible to settle the dispute with Iran, and that he was feeling optimistic about relations in the future. However, he continuously stated that the Iranian leader's promises must be met with action, and proof that the Iran nuclear program is peaceful in nature.
In the end, Benjamin Netanyahu certainly came across as the greatest "war-monger" out of three. He seemed to devote pretty much his entire speech to bashing Rouhani, and belittling the Iranian's speech as meaningless deception. Not only that, but PM Netanyahu stated plainly that his new mantra for dealing with Iran was "distrust, dismantle, and verify"; a mantra which I feel greatly harms the trust-building process that is necessary for diplomacy to succeed.
I personally feel Iran has done little wrong regarding its nuclear program. There can perhaps be improvements in the IAEA inspections they are forced to undergo, but other than that no supplementary safeguards should be added. Why should one country be forced into an unprecedented amount of inspections of their nuclear program simply because a few other countries don't like them? Iran, as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has a right to peaceful nuclear energy to aid to their largely oil-based economy, a right that Netanyahu wants to take away. Is it not logical that they would want nuclear power plants to improve their infrastructure?
It's difficult to address the whole issue in just a few paragraphs, so I'll leave any further discussion to the replies, if I get any.
Note: These are simply my opinions, though I try to base them on fact, or at the very least logic.
First, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech. I didn't think he could get much more bombastic than last year, when he held up a literal picture of a bomb in reference to Iran's nuclear program. However, his speech seemed to me to be completely focused on his permanent distrust of the Iranian government, and his complete lack of confidence in the diplomatic system. In other words, given the go-ahead, Netanyahu seemed completely ready to bomb the Iranian nuclear sites off the map. This seemed to me to be completely counter-productive, as the General Assembly is not meant to be a platform to bash other countries. Rather, it's an area where we can all say, "Well, the world is pretty messed up right now, but I have confidence with the right amount of cooperation that we can fix it." Netanyahu displayed no such optimism.
Then, there is newly-elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Though many would classify him as a wolf in sheep's clothing, due to his close ties to Ayatollah Khamenei and the clergy in general, he came across as the most level-headed of the speakers. He simply asked for Iran to be respected by the international community as a sovereign nation, particularly in regards to their nuclear program. He also stated that he believes a diplomatic solution can be reached that will alleviate the unprecedented sanctions his nation faces. He also hinted at his disapproval of the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, though said nothing more controversial than anything Secretary of State Kerry or President Obama have said about the issue. Overall, though Rouhani might not meet all his words with actions, he at least came across as a friendly, acceptable world leader, unlike some of his predecessors. Though I seldom disagreed with much of former President Ahmadinejad's speeches, he certainly has made many bombastic remarks that often portrayed him as a leader bent on world destruction.
Finally, there's President Barack Obama's speech. From the outset, he made it very clear that he was going to focus the rest of his presidency, foreign policy-wise, on the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Iranian nuclear program. He assured that he too felt a diplomatic solution was possible to settle the dispute with Iran, and that he was feeling optimistic about relations in the future. However, he continuously stated that the Iranian leader's promises must be met with action, and proof that the Iran nuclear program is peaceful in nature.
In the end, Benjamin Netanyahu certainly came across as the greatest "war-monger" out of three. He seemed to devote pretty much his entire speech to bashing Rouhani, and belittling the Iranian's speech as meaningless deception. Not only that, but PM Netanyahu stated plainly that his new mantra for dealing with Iran was "distrust, dismantle, and verify"; a mantra which I feel greatly harms the trust-building process that is necessary for diplomacy to succeed.
I personally feel Iran has done little wrong regarding its nuclear program. There can perhaps be improvements in the IAEA inspections they are forced to undergo, but other than that no supplementary safeguards should be added. Why should one country be forced into an unprecedented amount of inspections of their nuclear program simply because a few other countries don't like them? Iran, as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has a right to peaceful nuclear energy to aid to their largely oil-based economy, a right that Netanyahu wants to take away. Is it not logical that they would want nuclear power plants to improve their infrastructure?
It's difficult to address the whole issue in just a few paragraphs, so I'll leave any further discussion to the replies, if I get any.