J Street Undercuts Obama Policy on Iran
by Alan M.
Dershowitz
June 14, 2012 at 2:00 pm
June 14, 2012 at 2:00 pm
|
Share:
 |
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
President Obama
recently invited me to the Oval Office for a discussion about Iran. The
President reiterated to me in private what he had previously said in public:
namely, that he would not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons; that
containment of a nuclear Iran was not an option; that sanctions and diplomatic
pressures would be applied and increased first; but that, as a last recourse,
the military option would not be taken off the table.
What the President said is now the official
American policy with regard to the threat of a nuclear Iran. It is clear that
sanctions and diplomacy alone will not convince the Iranian mullahs to halt
their progress toward their goal of an Iran with nuclear weapons. The only
realistic possibility of persuading the Iranians to give up their nuclear
ambitions is for them to believe that there is a credible threat of an American
military attack on their nuclear facilities. Unless this threat is credible,
the Iranians will persist. And if the Iranians persist, and the Israelis do not
believe that the American threat is credible, the Israelis will undertake a
military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. It is crucial, therefore,
for America's military threat to be credible and to be perceived as credible by
both the Israelis and the Iranians.
Enter J Street. J Street is a lobby in
Washington that advertises itself as "pro-Israel and pro-peace." But
its policy with regard to Iran is neither pro-Israel nor pro-peace. It is
categorically opposed to any "military strike against Iran." It is
also opposed to maintaining any credible military threat against Iran, through
"legislation, authorizing, encouraging or in other ways laying the ground
work for the use of military force against Iran." This is according to
their official policy statement that can be read at http://jstreet.org/policy/policy-positions/iran.
They favor sanctions and they recognize that "Iran obtaining nuclear
weapons would pose a very serious threat to America and Israeli
interests." But they believe that diplomacy and sanctions alone can deter
Iran from developing nuclear weapons. By advocating this path, they are totally
undercutting the policy of the Obama Administration. They are sending a message
both to Iran and to Israel that there is no credible military threat, and that
if Iran is prepared to withstand sanctions and diplomacy, they will have
nothing further to worry about if they move forward with their nuclear weapons
program.
The Obama Administration has tried very hard to
persuade Israel that there is no space between the American position and the
Israeli position on Iran. Whether or not this is true, there is a hole the size
of a nuclear crater between Israel's position, reflecting a widespread
consensus within that country, and J Street's position. Virtually every Israeli
wants the United States to keep the military option on the table. This includes
"doves" such as Israeli President Shimon Peres. Former United States
President Bill Clinton also believes that the military option must be
maintained. Virtually everyone, Israelis and Americans alike, hope that the
military option will never have to be exercised. But the best way to make sure
that it will not have to be exercised is to keep it credible. As George
Washington put in his second inaugural speech: "To be prepared for war is
one of the most effective means of preserving peace."
J Street, in addition to undercutting both
mainstream Israeli and American policy toward Iran, has also mischaracterized
the views of those it cites in support of its benighted position. It cites
Former Mossad Chiefs, Meir Dagan and Efraim Halevy as opposing any
"military strike against Iran." It cites these two security Israeli
security experts in the context of opposing an American strike and an American
threat to strike. Yet Dagan has explicitly stated that he would favor keeping
the American military option on the table. This is what he has said: "The
military option must always be on the table, with regards to Iran, but it must
always be a last option." This is quite different from the misleading
manner in which J Street has characterized his views. The same is true of
Efraim Halevy. When I read the J Street reference to Halevy, I immediately
called him and told him how J Street had characterized his views and asked him
if that was a correct characterization. His response: "That's absolutely
false." He told me that he had repeatedly stated that the United States
must keep the military option on the table as a last resort, though he hoped
that it would never have to be used.
J Street can no longer pretend to be
pro-Israel, since it is actively seeking to undercut a joint Israeli and
American policy designed to protect Israel and the world from a nuclear armed
Iran. Nor can J Street claim to be pro-peace, since its policy will likely
encourage Iran to take actions that will inevitably result in an attack either
by Israel, the United States or both. Finally, it cannot be trusted to tell the
truth, as evidenced by its deliberate misattribution of its views to security
experts that don't share them.
Some people have accused J Street of carrying
President Obama's water with regard to Israel and of having been
"invented" to give the Obama Administration cover for taking tough
policies with regard to Israeli settlement activity. But in this instance, J
Street is completely undercutting the Obama policy. That would not be so bad
except for the fact that the Obama White House sometimes seems to be embracing
J Street and its followers. This public embrace sends a message to Iran that
the Obama Administration may not mean it when it says that it will use military
force if necessary to prevent a nuclear armed Iran. This may be a false
message, but it is a dangerous one nevertheless. Absolutely no good has come
from J Street's soft policy on Iran. Either J Street must change its policy, or
truth in advertising requires that it no longer proclaim itself a friend of
Israel, a friend of peace, a friend of truth, or a friend of the Obama
Administration.
Related Topics: Iran
| Alan M.
Dershowitz
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment