There are two issues above all others that show why John McCain should be our next president: Iranian aggressions and the War in Iraq.

Since last spring, it seemed to me that the successes of the Iraqi army made the debate over American withdrawal trivial. However, upon reading the new afterward to Norman Podhoretz’s World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism, something dawned on me.

If the Iranian threat is as dangerous as Podhoretz says it is, then it becomes a new threat to Iraqi stability – a threat that would be difficult to counter when engaged in a rapid pullout, as opposed to a longer and more measured one.

In the afterward (which, regardless of one’s opinion on the rest of the book, is a worthwhile read), Podhoretz claims that Iranian possession of nuclear weapons is a serious threat to Israel and Middle Eastern stability. For starters, he notes that Iran does not wish to play a game of deterrence and mutually assured destruction with Israel, our close ally. Rather, Podhoretz noted what the “moderate” former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani once said:

“If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in its possession . application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.”

Obviously, if Iran were to strike Israel with nuclear weapons, Israel would be in horrendous shape. Well-renowned political scientist Anthony Cordesman makes the further point that Israel would have to keep weapons in reserve in order to deter subsequent attacks from opportunistic terrorist groups and Arab states.

That’s the reason why Israel can’t spend its entire nuclear arsenal in one go like Iran can. And that’s why Rafsanjani compared Israel against the whole Muslim world, not just Iran.

Here’s a quote from the late Grand Ayatollah Khomeini, who Podhoretz mentioned earlier in his book:

“We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”

And given the statements from the current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about wiping Israel “off the face of the earth,” we have just reason to fear that nuke-possessing Iranians may not be satisfied by nuclear parity with Israel – they care little for country, they believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife for their villainous deeds, and Iranian leaders say that it is strategically viable to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Why should we not believe their threats?

Obviously, as the world’s superpower, we have a degree of responsibility to stop a nuclear exchange, if we can, for humanitarian reasons. Given that a pre-emptive airstrike by Israel against Iranian nuclear facilities would have a lower success rate than an airstrike by America would (and would prompt an equally vicious reaction against us), it is appropriate that we do the dirty work to stop the crisis.

So it falls to the next president to launch airstrikes against Iran if and when all other options fail. But obviously, there will be retaliation, and what better place is there for the Iranians to attack than Iraq?

Given the cost to human lives worldwide that could present itself due to a mishandling of these issues, policies toward Iran and Iraq are more important than the economy. Obama has a stake in pulling out of Iraq rapidly (and with little concern for events on the ground, like Iranian aggression) that John McCain does not due to their differing campaign promises – and Obama also has the softer line against Iran.

If we take Obama at his word, then he’s not the man for the job. But if we can’t take him at his word, then does his lack of trustworthiness somehow make him better suited for the presidency than McCain?

I don’t think so. And that’s why I officially endorse John McCain for president of the United States.

Dan is a junior in political science who enjoyed the Navigators’ Fall Conference last weekend.