As diplomacy with Iran has so far failed to yield a breakthrough, the heat is rising in the debate over Iran in both American politics and the Jewish community.
Politically conservative operatives looking to paint Barack Obama as weak on foreign policy insist "we've had enough talk" with Iran and that "the time for action" has come. Leading the charge, Bill Kristol's Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI) is now running ads contending essentially that nothing short of war constitutes action.
In a sign the political heat may be having an impact, 44 Senators recently signed a letter to the president echoing the notion that "the window for diplomacy is closing" and asking him to make clear that he really means that there is a "credible military option."
The heat is on as well in the Jewish communal debate. Some, like Alan Dershowitz, are asking those who believe diplomacy and sanctions should be given more time to pledge that they see military force as an option and would support its eventual use. Dershowitz explicitly, and others implicitly, even make support for military action a condition for being considered pro-Israel.
Lost in the frenzy are the voices of the many security experts -- American and Israeli -- who argue that a military attack would be unlikely to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and could lead to a far larger regional war.
At best, experts say, military action may set back Iran's ambitions by one to three years while solidifying political support for a weak regime at home and providing justification for the claim that their country is under attack and needs the most advanced weapons possible.
Also lost it seems is any acknowledgement that sanctions are actually working. Iran's currency has lost half its value in ten months. Oil exports are down by 40 percent over the past year -- and that's before the European oil embargo goes into effect on July 1. Consumer prices are up 40 percent at precisely the moment the currency is losing its purchasing power.
Iran is feeling the heat, and time will only make Iran's situation more dire.
Why, then, the insistence -- just as sanctions begin to bite -- that the president and his supporters pledge a willingness to use military force?
The answer unfortunately seems to rest less in the national interest than in communal and electoral politics.
It is not unreasonable to consider that for Mr. Kristol and ECI, the primary interest is in damaging the president in an election year. And some in the Jewish community seem more interested in discrediting skeptics of the use of force than in discussing seriously what will best prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.
As Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military on the planet, President Obama always has the option to request Congressional authority to use force. There's no reason to ask him to pre-emptively rule out that option.
That doesn't change the argument that the use of force may be ill-advised. Haven't we learned painfully over the past generation or two that just because we have the military power to take action doesn't make it the wisest course?
And don't we understand that repeated threats to use force actually strengthen the Iranian regime and undermine President Obama's diplomatic efforts? Constant threats to attack actually unite the Iranian people behind their otherwise-unpopular leaders against "western aggression" thereby relieving much of the pressure on the government generated by international sanctions and domestic opposition.
And what about the option of negotiating a deal that allows Iran the ability to enrich uranium for civilian purposes while under a regime of intrusive and effective inspections? No less a forceful voice on the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran than Dennis Ross argued last week in The New Republic that the time has come to put forward a comprehensive deal along those lines.
Shouldn't this too be an option that is "on the table"? Maybe we need to clearly ask the hawks whether "all" options on the table include a negotiated resolution that allows Iran to maintain a civilian nuclear program.
They'll undoubtedly say why, in their opinion, that's ill-advised. Negotiations won't work, they'll say, and no inspection regime would be thorough enough to ensure compliance.
Those looking to advance political or communal agendas through pressing militarism and portraying diplomacy as weak are playing with fire. They run the risk of greasing the path to ill-advised military action that could set back rather than advance the interests of the United States and Israel.
The right question to ask isn't whether all options are on the table -- because clearly they are -- but which is the most likely to achieve the right outcome with the least danger of making the region and the world even more dangerous.
Jeremy Ben-Ami is the President of J Street, the political home of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement.
Follow Jeremy Ben-Ami on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jstreetdotorg
Iran sanctions are about to get tougher
Iran's top Asian oil buyers cut imports 18 percent
Iran: Tehran and London agree to representation
Iran warn powers not to take "unconstructive measures"
EXCLUSIVE-Iran grain barter deals crash; considers big buys
Syria Talks Won't Include the Saudis or Iranians
Exclusive: Saudi readies oil line to counter Iran Hormuz threat
Their policies would bring death and distruction to the Middle East, would lead to the closure of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and the doubling or tripling of the price of Brent crude to $300 barrel. One has to wonder at the motives of this minority group. If its motives are to try to abort Obama's second term in office by talking-up an attack on Iran who has no nuclear weapons by a nuclear Israel that has secretly built up to 400 nuclear weapons beyond the inspection by the IAEA, then it is acting in a way that is detrimental to world peace, to democracy and to human rights. Such actions as that which are being lobbied for can bring the world into a nuclear war.
This posting in not anti-American, nor anti- Semitic, nor anti-Black, nor anti-White. We are pro-Democracy, pro-America, pro-human rights and pro- full employment.
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm
""If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.
Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.
"Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world", Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani warned, blaming on the United States and Britain the "creation of the fabricated entity" in the heart of Arab and Muslim world.
Sanctions backed by military option is is always more powerful than sanctions without military option. Let the mullahs and their military support structures worry and may be destroy their already weak economy with buying a few trillion worth of Russian outdated military hardware.
To be honest, Israel needs to be balanced by a fellow regional nuclear power to deter it form its sometimes erratic and irrational behaviour. Having the US shield it from international pressure has gradually turned Israel into an obnoxious State that feels it can do whatever it wants.
That is as ignorant as stating that the Crips and the Bloods should be armed with Machine guns and armored vehicles because there are some crooked cops in L.A.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iran-should-get-the-bomb
I personally think that Iran is (more) building the knowledge. For all that pro-regime supporters INSIST that there has been proof that Iran isn't... that is not actually true. However, I don't think Iran would even be capable of obtaining nuclear weaponry for many years. A WHOLE lot can happen in a few years. I'd much rather reformists WITHIN Iran take back their freedom.
Kinda the same thing with Israel. I don't think BN is the best leader for Israel. I am 100% opposed to any American aggression against Iran FOR Israel and I pray they don't do something stupid which would force us into war.
I'll say this though. I support Israel having nukes before I do Iran. There is no question but that nukes have served as a deterrent for even worse attacks against Israel.
Stop this crazy nonsense with always demanding that Israel make moves.
Tell HAMAS to declare peace with Israel.
Tell Hezbollah to declare peace with Israel.
Tell the PALESTINIANS to want peace NEXT TO Israel, not on top of it.
Until then, none of this nonsense matters.
And need i remind you that the Palestinians have often been the first to extend the hand on the condition Israel stop building more settlements.
Israel's reaction has been to again approve 400 families moving to the West Bank just a few weeks ago.
Hahahahahahahahahahha. FINALLY A WILLING DUPE TELLS THE TRUTH/ LET'S THE CAT OUT THE BAG
they don't want two states in peace THEY WANT ONE STATE NO PALESTINE
Guys. Over to you. Enjoy
And Iran is welcome to open it's doors and unveil it's secrecy any time it likes. The ball is and has always been in their court.
Iranian leaders have done more than call names, they have issued a long series of threats. It's not just Ahmadinijad or even Khameini. Former President Rafsanjani, regarded as a comparative moderate, speculated some years ago that a nuclear exchange with Israrel might be beneficial to Iran because, in the worst case, 10 or 15 million Iranians might be killed, but Iran would survive. Israel, he said, would not. I don't even get into the Iranian arming and training of Hizbollah. Don't think South African leaders are saying and doing these things.
Thanks.
1. Hostility to reason.
2. The nostalgia for world dominance .
3. Invocation of irrational mythology in pursuit and maintenance of power .
4. Secret police apparatus.
5. Leader worship (Supreme Leader)
6. Judeophobic paranoia.
7. Indoctrination of the population with revanchist fantasies based on imagined "humiliations" .
8. Strong commitment to sexual repression
9. Commitment to purity ( in euro-fascism racial purity; in islamo-fascim, religious purity).
10. Religious morality police ( see #9)
11. Subordination of the state to doctrine.
12. Militant forms of politicized Islamic fundamentalism.
Iranian clerical militant regime is hopelessly regressive. it will fail. We need to nudge the process along with a ever tightening regime of sanctions, denial of tech, embargoes and ideological opposition.
Nope. Not biased are u Ricky
2. What world dominance?
3. "In God we trust" is still on our money i believe.
4. *cough* CIA, FBI, DHS
5. What do you call the President?
6. See how we would react if Mexico had nukes and we didn't and Mexico would demand we stop researching
7. What did we ever do to them right? Except overthrow a democratic government and put the Shah in power
8. Over 800 bills have been presented the last few years which deal with women's reproductive rights. (in America)
9. Because Americans are so friendly to Muslims right? Not to mention Mexicans...
10. See 8.
11. See 8.
12. See our support of terrorists in efforts to overthrow the Iranian govt.
You must be talking about the US supporting and training the terrorist group MEK Majideen, even though the MEK supported ousting the Shah and supported Ayatollah Khomeini. BUT now their our frienemy. What hypocrisy!