Combating terrorism and restoring international faith in American leadership headline the foreign policy objectives that will await the winner of November’s presidential election, according to a panel of speakers Tuesday afternoon at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum.

The discussion, moderated by Kennedy School of Government professor David Gergen, underscored the likelihood of another large-scale attack on the United States and the Bush administration’s failure to adequately redirect government resources to counter that threat.

Dillon Professor of Government Graham T. Allison Jr. predicted a nuclear strike against America or its allies “within the next decade.”

“I can’t even work my way through that scenario without saying I don’t want to go there,” Allison said.

According to Sultan of Oman Professor of International Relations Joseph S. Nye, Jr., technological innovation at the end of the 20th century, coinciding with the emergence of determined non-state actors, created a global landscape in which traditional deterrents and the “hard power” of military force are rendered ineffective.

“A Stalin or Hitler could kill millions of people,” Nye said. “But a pathological individual previously required a totalitarian framework.”

But with failed states providing a haven for terrorists and nuclear technology more readily available from rogue nations like North Korea, which “will sell to anybody” according to Allison, single individuals are capable of visiting on their target levels of damage hundreds of times greater than in the past.

According to Allison, the first step in confronting nuclear terrorism’s “finite challenge” is securing existent nuclear stockpiles in the former Soviet Union, which pose an imminent threat insufficiently addressed by the Bush administration.

“In the two years after 9/11, fewer potential nuclear weapons in Russia were secured than in the two years before,” Allison said.

In addition to the threat of nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union falling into the wrong hands, the United States must also contend with the distinct possibility of nuclear neophyte Pakistan falling to Islamic fundamentalists. In Pakistan, according to Allison, four in five prefer the foreign policy strategy employed by Osama bin Laden to that of President Bush.

“If you look at Pakistan, this is really a ticking time bomb,” Allison said. “It’s hanging by the thread of Gen. Pervez Musharraf. And he’s twice been within a second and a half of assassination the last six months.”

Moreover, Allison argued, the decision to commit troops to Iraq has provided the other two members of the “Axis of Evil” with more time to further their own nuclear ambitions, while curtailing potential U.S. responses. Though North Korea had consented to freeze its nuclear program, Pyongyang long circumvented treaty obligations by drawing necessary materials from an uninspected source prior to booting United Nations weapons inspectors.

“There’s two imminent threats and the third is a bad guy,” Allison said. “North Korea was in fact selling a bomb’s worth of uranium hexafluoride and Iran was sneaking [past inspectors],” Allison said. “If Bush had shot North Korea or Iran, I might have supported him.”

But despite threats elsewhere and the shift in popular support against the war in Iraq and its handling, withdrawal constitutes the worst alternative, according to Nye.

“If we pull out of Iraq quickly and leave behind a failed state like Lebanon in the ’80s and Afghanistan in the ’90s, it will become a new haven for transnational terrorists,” Nye said. “And they won’t wait for us to come get them. They’ll come get us over here.”