Israel Matzav

Pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-Iranian nuclear weapons

Of course. J Street has come out against taking military action against Iran. With the military option off the table (which is what you effectively do by announcing that you won't use it), there would be no way to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Perhaps that's what J Street wants?

However, a robust, new diplomatic initiative along the lines laid out by Ambassadors Thomas Pickering and William Luers should be part of the American and international strategy as well. Effective diplomacy doesn’t start with “give up your nuclear program or else.” As these veteran diplomats remind us, “Deployment of military force can bring the immediate illusion of ‘success’ but always results in unforeseen consequences and collateral damage that complicate further the achievement of America’s main objectives.”

An Iran that willingly agrees to halt its possible weapons development will have to be given a face-saving path away from confrontation and be allowed to develop civilian nuclear energy. At the same time, of course, it must be clear to Iran that failure to take this path means utter and complete international isolation.

However, as the political debate on Iran focuses ever more narrowly on whether or when to attack Iran militarily, there’s too little meaningful discussion of the alternatives to, or consequences of, military action.

There's no time left for a nuanced approach. The sanctions - thanks to the opposition of the Obama administration and J Street - came way too late in the game. And this isn't Iraq and Saddam Hussein in 2003. This time, the quest for nuclear weapons has been verified b the IAEA and others.

What could go wrong?

Labels: Iranian nuclear threat, J Street

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:16 PM