Today’s Staff Editorial

President Obama called for military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in an address to the nation just two weeks ago. In that same speech, however, the president acknowledged that he has “a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions” and would first seek out a diplomatic opportunity with Russia to end the conflict without dropping a bomb.

Since that speech, which paired the threat of military action with an openness to diplomatic solutions, much has changed. On Sept. 14, Secretary of State John Kerry and Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov announced a deal calling for Syria to destroy its chemical weapons by 2014. On Friday, Syria met the first deadline provided by the resolution: submitting a declaration of its chemical weapons arsenal. This marks an unprecedented step — the first time that the Syrian government has acknowledged it possesses chemical weapons.

Sadly, these measures will not end the violence and chaos in Syria. But they mark an important achievement for the Obama administration. In his speeches, the president consistently reiterated that his primary goal was to stop Assad from using chemical weapons on his own people and to reinforce the national ban on chemical warfare. As a result of the American military threat and the opportunism of Russia, there is a chance that Assad will stop using these awful, illegal weapons on innocents and children.

With a deal carved out and Syria off the front pages, Iran has taken its place in the American consciousness. For years, Iran has posed a constant threat to America under the rule of former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a deranged leader who denies the Holocaust, claims 9/11 was a conspiracy and once said America and the European Union had “entrusted themselves to the devil.” Ahmadinejad proudly announced Iran as a nuclear power and frequently threatened U.S. ally Israel.

In August, Iran elected a new president, Hassan Rouhani. Rouhani does not speak with the radical, frenzied tone of Ahmadinejad, and he has expressed a desire to reach a diplomatic solution with the United States, a move that should be lauded.

Yesterday at the United Nations, Obama spoke of a similar desire, saying he had instructed Kerry to try negotiating with Iran about its nuclear program. “The roadblocks may prove to be too great,” Obama said, “but I firmly believe the diplomatic path must be tested.”

In a speech at the United Nations yesterday, which took place more than six hours after Obama’s, Rouhani offered hope that the two nations “can arrive at a framework to manage our differences.”

Both leaders, however, offered cautious words, referencing the years of troubled history between the nations and the underlying tensions that could surface. Obama said that Iran’s “conciliatory words will have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable.” Rouhani said that the “short-sighted interests of warmongering pressure groups” in America have sent mixed messages to Iran.

But where we’ve seen cautious words, sparse actions usually follow. Almost every college student’s entire life has taken place in a world in which American presidents do not meet with Iranian leaders. Consistent economic sanctions have kept Iran at arm’s length for years. There were excited rumors that President Obama would shake hands with Rouhani after the United Nations General Assembly session yesterday, but that didn’t happen because Iranian advisers were concerned about the political implications.

It’s a sad fact that Obama cannot even arrange a handshake with the leader of a critically important Middle Eastern country. Iran holds sway over the Strait of Hormuz, through which 35 percent of oil exports pass. And the country’s on-again, off-again nuclear ambitions are nearly universally regarded as cause for international concern.

“We believe there are no violent solutions to world crises,” Rouhani said yesterday. Those words are a salve after years of aggression, and the United States should appreciate Rouhani’s apparent pragmatism. Such levelheaded discussion could lead to a thaw in the icy relationship between our countries.

Still, Obama’s assertion Tuesday that words “will have to be matched by actions” from Iran rings eerily similar to his comments on Syria. This editorial board supported diplomacy in Syria and recognized the urgency of addressing chemical weapons use there. Our question now is: What will Obama do to make sure his own words on Iran are matched by actions?