Iran Is No Existential Threat

After months of halfhearted, fruitless attempts at engagement, the United States and its European partners are effectively re-enacting George W. Bush's Iran policy. In 2006, after Iran had ended a nearly two-year voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment, then-U.S. president pushed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to send Iran's nuclear file to the U.N. Security Council, which duly imposed sanctions on the Islamic Republic. But the sanctions did not prove "crippling," as Bush had hoped: Iran continued to expand its nuclear infrastructure, and the risks of a military confrontation between the United States and Iran climbed.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama's administration has decided to repeat this sorry history. Last Friday, the IAEA passed a resolution urging Iran to send most of its current stockpile of low-enriched uranium abroad. It also reported Iran once again to the Security Council. Iran has wasted no time in upping the ante rather than backing down, saying it would restrict cooperation with the IAEA only to those measures "statutorily" required. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also announced that the Islamic Republic would build 10 new enrichment facilities in coming years. He later added, "Iran will produce fuel enriched to a level of 20 percent," the level required for Iran's research reactor in Tehran. This would be well above the 3 to 4 percent level that Iran has already achieved in producing low-enriched uranium and would take Iran closer to the 90 percent-plus level required for weapons-grade fissile material.

These developments again demonstrate the counterproductive futility of enshrining uranium enrichment and sanctions as the keys to resolving the nuclear issue. By prompting Tehran to reduce cooperation with the IAEA, the United States and its European partners have done real damage to the international community's ability to monitor the state of Iran's nuclear program. More broadly, U.S., British, and French insistence on "zero enrichment" in Iran makes successful nuclear diplomacy with Tehran impossible. At this point, there is no chance that Tehran will accept "zero enrichment" as a negotiated outcome, for at least two reasons: It is a country-specific formulation applied to Iran but not to anybody else, and it requires Iran to forswear its sovereign right to the full range of civil nuclear technology.

If the United States and its partners continue on their present course, the Islamic Republic will continue to expand its nuclear infrastructure, and the risks of an eventual military confrontation between the United States (or Israel, with U.S. support) and Iran will, once again, rise inexorably. There is no set of sanctions the Security Council might plausibly authorize that would change this reality, and various unilateral and secondary sanctions initiatives moving through the U.S. Congress will not work either.

A more constructive approach would seek to maximize international monitoring of Iran's nuclear activities by emphasizing country-neutral formulations for curbing nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. This would require international acceptance of enrichment on Iranian soil. Getting Iran to ratify and implement the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty would be an important step in this direction, but the most effective country-neutral initiative would be the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone (NWFZ) in the region.

12NEXT

Save big when you subscribe to FP.

SIR_MIXXALOT

10:00 PM ET

December 4, 2009

Thank you. amen

10:07 PM ET

zero enrichement

Enforcing zero enrichment in Iran is also in direct contravention of the letter and spirit of the NPT.

It is the accusers, not the accused, who have breached the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. The long-established nuclear powers have manifestly failed to meet their treaty obligation to pursue negotiations toward nuclear disarmament, while Iran is entitled under the treaty to enrich uranium for nonmilitary purposes.

The UN Security Council, in demanding that Iran permanently cease uranium enrichment, assumes that it has the right to abrogate international treaties. It should, instead, declare that Israeli and American threats (“all options are on the table…”) to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities are a threat to international peace.

Better still, tell Iran that if it forgoes its rights as a signatory of the existing international nonproliferation treaty in a fully verifiable form, the Security Council will ensure that Israel becomes a signatory and surrenders its nuclear weapons. The collective national interests of the West demand no less.

The problem is that even in nominally impartial WONKY blogs like armscontrolwonk.com there are pro-zionist apologists that censor any open debate -- any comments that are mildly critical of Israel are censored.

If you'd like to really know the REAL origin of this problem: it has nothing really to do with nukes. The problem is explained in detail on the FP website here:

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/04/haaretz_says_us_officials_face_pro_israel_background_check

10:46 PM ET

Can FP do a story on Israeli NUKES please?

A story on Israeli nukes would be of huge interest.

OAKHILL1863

10:48 AM ET

December 5, 2009

iran is most certainly an existential threat

not only is iran an existential threat to israel, but if barack obama followed the policy advocated by the leveretts, the united states would facilitate that threat and the threat would very possibly turn into the reality of the end of israel.

in order to understand this, we must understand the true purpose of the article, which is hidden beneath the veneer of a plausible criticism of u.s. policy towards iran ( whether or not one agrees with the criticism) but whose real purpose is to push the twin policies of de-nuclearizing and demonizing israel. the article's entire discussion of iran is in fact almost entirely a feint, because neither the united states nor iran matters to the discussion except as the means to push those twin policies.

let us envision the situation with this goal of the authors having been attained, and the balance of power in the mideast no longer tilted in israel's favor. the authors posit that this will enhance peace, because arab STATES are no longer interested in war and arab IRREGULAR forces such as hamas and hezbollah (names the authors dare not speak, instead calling them "palestinian and lebanese militants" to hide their true identities and imbuing them with the legitimacy of one state--lebanon--and one state-in-the-making--palestine) cannot possibly gain enough arms to achieve a victory.

the authors are either unable or unwilling to think like an existential enemy of israel, or at least not willing to share the obvious results of such an analysis. it is not hard to understand the long-term political strategy for ending the state of israel:

1. un-tilt the balance of power. de-nuclearize israel as part of the propaganda campaign that israel is at the heart of all mideast problems. but, even if israel is not de-nuclearized, the issue of doing so is item number one at the u.n. week after week, month after month, and if necessary year after year, to discredit the zionist entity as the root of all evil.

2. establish a palestinian state that will propagandize the arabs who do live in israel with many times the civil rights of the ordinary citizens of almost all arab countries (iraq possibly progressing towards democracy thanks to our deposing saddam) into a 5th column, under the guise of a martin luther king who will appear out of nowhere (but will be an agent for one or more governments) to create civil unrest in israel.

3. keep the rockets flowing into gaza and lebanon for later use. as the civil unrest grows, so does the rate of rocket fire. the goldstone report will have "instant appendices" to keep beating on the horrible state of israel. unleash full arab diplomacy on the e.u. to turn its back on israel completely and keep up economic pressure on the west through the oil weapon to keep the blame on israel.

4. amidst the turmoil, conventional arab states either refuse to negotiate peace or the couple that have relations withdraw their ambassadors and if the unrest and the rockets create sufficient turmoil, "un-recognize" the state of israel. israeli governments rise and fall in quick succession because a normal life is impossible and finally the people lose confidence in the ability of their nation to survive.

5. at the "correct" instance of israeli "provocation"--the martin luther king of the israeli arab population says non-violence no longer works and that population must now rise in self-defense, which the do, the full fusillade of all rockets from gaza and lebanon--by then a couple or three hundred thousand--is unleashed. the ground work is then prepared for the invasion of the conventional arab armies, whose governments will have whipped up their own populations in the hopes of the long awaited victory. even the king of jordan copies his father and cannot resist the pressure to tear up his own peace treaty and hope to get a piece of the spoils. the israelis surrender.

the fact is, this article is based upon the lie that israel is a powerful, imperialist nation, that has nothing to fear but its own wicked ways. in fact, while israel is relatively a powerful nation as far as self-defense, it is a weak, smallish, nation as a matter of absolute power, albeit its nuclear weapons are a force magnifier. israel came within being just a handful of tanks short and a bad tactical decision by a syrian officer in 1973 from being destroyed, and it is always in danger of conventional military defeat.

allowing the iranians to gain nuclear weapons, from which would flow great propaganda and bullying power, which can lead to all of the above stated events, is an existential threat to israel, even if the iranian weapons are never used.

i am not nostradamus. i am not saying that the destruction of israel will ever necessarily succeed, or that if it does, it will happen exactly as outlined above. what i am saying is that the authors' position that israel is safe and powerful so that it has no existential enemy in the iranian regime is foolhardy, and that following the authors' suggestions would lead to disaster for israel.

it is true that the interests of the united states and israel, two independent nations, are not always the same. yet, in all the macro values of the two countries, their interests are the same. if israel ceased to exist tomorrow, the exact same arguments to "liberate" iberia will begin as those currently in vogue to "liberate" palestine from the zionist entity.

the authors need to develop ways for israel and its neighbors to engender the trust among themselves to re-establish the ties that bound them together when they did create a great civilization together in iberia. but that trust can only be built on the two societies having the common goal of being the world's leader in human progress, both politically and scientifically. unfortunately, too much of the thinking of israel's neighbors is currently caught up dangerous backwards-looking fanaticism, whose flames are entirely too easy to inflame.

but we need not give up hope for better days. not too long ago, europe also had its own fanatics who had to be dealt with, and were. speaking of those european fanatics of not too long ago, the authors would also do well to remember that had they been taken at their word, the world could have avoided a lot of trouble--and that similar words continue to spill out of iran today.

keevan d. morgan, esq., chicago

4:32 PM ET

ah,

ah, no.

see:

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/mcnair/mcnair69/mcnairpdf.pdf

it sez:
Iran probably wants nuclear arms (not a certainty) to deter attacks from US and Israel.

And, anyway, lets assume you are right. As an American I don't care if Iran is a threat to Israel.

Israel has played rough (see Goldstone report), and is due in for a big bloody nose.

I rather look forward to it.

You still don't get it: Americans are not born caring about Israel.

What has Israel done for the US, lately? (I mean, besides making us a collateral target of terrorism....)

I want my $14million that Israelis steal from US taxpayers every day back!!!!!

Give it back thieves!

5:54 PM ET

No more support for The racist APARTHEID state

No more support for the racist state of Israel. Here is what its former education minister says:

http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni01082007.html

Shulamit Aloni is the former Education Minister of Israel. She has been awarded both the Israel Prize and the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.

January 8, 2007
This Road is for Jews Only
Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel

By SHULAMIT ALONI

Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what's right in front of our eyes. It's simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds.

Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.

The US Jewish Establishment's onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population's movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians' land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.

If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: they are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing "Jewish only" roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night--all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.

On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. "Why?" I asked the soldier. "It's an order--this is a Jews-only road", he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. "It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?"

Indeed Apartheid does exist here. And our army is not "the most moral army in the world" as we are told by its commanders. Sufficient to mention that every town and every village has turned into a detention centre and that every entry and every exit has been closed, cutting it off from arterial traffic. If it were not enough that Palestinians are not allowed to travel on the roads paved 'for Jews only', on their land, the current GOC found it necessary to land an additional blow on the natives in their own land with an "ingenious proposal".

Humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either.

Major-General Naveh, renowned for his superior patriotism, has issued a new order. Coming into affect on 19 January, it prohibits the conveyance of Palestinians without a permit. The order determines that Israelis are not allowed to transport Palestinians in an Israeli vehicle (one registered in Israel regardless of what kind of numberplate it carries) unless they have received explicit permission to do so. The permit relates to both the driver and the Palestinian passenger. Of course none of this applies to those whose labour serves the settlers. They and their employers will naturally receive the required permits so they can continue to serve the lords of the land, the settlers.

Did man of peace President Carter truly err in concluding that Israel is creating Apartheid? Did he exaggerate? Don't the US Jewish community leaders recognise the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination of 7 March 1966, to which Israel is a signatory? Are the US Jews who launched the loud and abusive campaign against Carter for supposedly maligning Israel's character and its democratic and humanist nature unfamiliar with the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 30 November 1973? Apartheid is defined therein as an international crime that among other things includes using different legal instruments to rule over different racial groups, thus depriving people of their human rights. Isn't freedom of travel one of these rights?

In the past, the US Jewish community leaders were quite familiar with the meaning of those conventions. For some reason, however, they are convinced that Israel is allowed to contravene them. It's OK to kill civilians, women and children, old people and parents with their children, deliberately or otherwise without accepting any responsibility. It's permissible to rob people of their lands, destroy their crops, and cage them up like animals in the zoo. From now on, Israelis and International humanitarian organisations' volunteers are prohibited from assisting a woman in labour by taking her to the hospital. [Israeli human rights group] Yesh Din volunteers cannot take a robbed and beaten-up Palestinian to the police station to lodge a complaint. (Police stations are located at the heart of the settlements.) Is there anyone who believes that this is not Apartheid?

Jimmy Carter does not need me to defend his reputation that has been sullied by Israelophile community officials. The trouble is that their love of Israel distorts their judgment and blinds them from seeing what's in front of them. Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us. We should remember that we too used very violent terror against foreign rule because we wanted our own state. And the list of victims of terror is quite long and extensive.

We do limit ourselves to denying the [Palestinian] people human rights. We not only rob of them of their freedom, land and water. We apply collective punishment to millions of people and even, in revenge-driven frenzy, destroy the electricity supply for one and half million civilians. Let them "sit in the darkness" and "starve".

Employees cannot be paid their wages because Israel is holding 500 million shekels that belong to the Palestinians. And after all that we remain "pure as the driven snow". There are no moral blemishes on our actions. There is no racial separation. There is no Apartheid. It's an invention of the enemies of Israel. Hooray for our brothers and sisters in the US! Your devotion is very much appreciated. You have truly removed a nasty stain from us. Now there can be an extra spring in our step as we confidently abuse the Palestinian population, using the "most moral army in the world".

[Translated by Sol Salbe]
Shulamit Aloni is the former Education Minister of Israel. She has been awarded both the Israel Prize and the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.

KHARALDSSON

11:58 AM ET

December 6, 2009

Really?

Iran is no more of an existential threat to Israel than Venezuela is to the United States. Israel is, as the article points out, the most powerful state in the entire middle east. It makes perfect sense for Israel to have Nuclear Weapons so as to deter the states in the region. On the flip side, Iran would be stupid not to want Nuclear Weapons. Now, let me preface the rest of this post by saying that I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons because I think it would completely destabilize the balance of power in the region. However, Iranian acquisition of a nuclear capability would be for deterrence purposes, and nuclear weapons are useless as a compellent. That is, Iran could not possibly use Nuclear Weapons to blackmail the United States or Israel. Put it this way: If the Soviet Union, which had thousands of warheads in its nuclear arsenal, couldn't bully the United States around, how in the world is Iran, which would have a minuscule number of warheads, ever do so to states with substantial second-strike capability.

It is also worth noting that there is no way in hell that Iran would actually use nuclear weapons against Israel. Credibility is NOT an issue Type I Nuclear Deterrence (one-on-one between two countries). Iran knows that a nuclear first-strike on Israel would be met with a significant second-strike. Israel would turn Iran into a smoking, radiating ruin.

YEHONATAN

8:36 AM ET

December 7, 2009

what a silly reply from KHALID MUFTI

not much different than a child. How can you logically accuse peole of being 'racist' or 'violent' or whatever while wishing for their death.

Have a happy Id El Adha

BURNINGCHROME

1:16 AM ET

Incredibly simplistic and dishonest presentation

1) Completely ignores the fact that it is not just an Israeli concern but the concern of many Arab governments who are if not equally concerned are in fact far more concerned than Israel. Completely ignores that these countries are exerting every bit as much pressure on the US if not more than Israel.

2) Even if one accepts that Israel has tremendous influence over the US it certainly can't be said of Europe which shares the US objectives equally. Again

Europe is far more sensitive to Arab concerns, particularly France and Britain and their policies are in no small way a reflection of Arab concerns and of course European commercial interests in the region not concerns about Israel.

If the Leveretts could be bothered to review Arab media it is in fact far more hysterical and paranoid?/realistic? about Iranian ambitions than Israel. Many of the Arab states in the gulf see themselves far more vulnerable than Israel.

2) It isn't about Iran building a bomb and then detonating it on Israel as much as it is about Iran operating under a nuclear umbrella and ratcheting up already very aggressive policies in the region. Of Immediate concern is Hizbollah in Lebanon, the Shia problems in Yemen, Bahrain and of course Saudi Arabia. There is the problem of Iranian aspirations in Azerbaijan.

If Iran has nuclear weapons all confrontations are exponentially more costly and Iran is counting on that to deter primarily the US from challenging them in the region. They are counting on the fact that the US won't risk a nuclear war over many of the places Iran seeks hegemony.

3) Completely fails to ignore the fact that now many countries in the region, already unstable and prone to war have stepped up their Nuclear programs.

Of particular concern should be Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt all accelerating nuclear development and with varying degrees of radical 'Islamist' opposition, primarily the Islamic Brotherhood, who are to allied to the west by leaders with no real popular support and who could easily fall over the next decade or two.

4)There is no small amount of dishonesty in this op-ed piece since the Leveretts know very well all of the above. One has to wonder why it is presented in the manner it is suggesting some sort of sinister Jewish plot and only the Jews are trying to keep Iran down?

KRATOVIL IV

9:05 AM ET

Because only Israel is

Because only Israel is publicly threatening to strike Iran's reactors, and they have the crediblity, history, and will to do it.

6:13 PM ET

not jews...ISRAELIS. do you

not jews...ISRAELIS.

do you know the difference?

you are right that there's a lot of anti-Semitism in the world. But you fail to note one of the main causes: Zionism. Since the early 20th century, Zionists have waged a relentless campaign to equate their political movement with the Jewish religion. They have largely succeeded; in the eyes of many, Zionism and Judaism are one and the same, and opposition to Zionism becomes opposition to Judaism. But that doesn't change the fact that the two are antithetical.

I am a Jew, and I know from my religious education that if the Jewish people are to attain the Holy Land, it will be through the Messiah, and not with guns. Jews are taught to heal the world ("tikkun olam"), not to displace families, create refugee camps, and practice collective punishment such as that used against Jews in the past.

So long as this confounding of Zionism with Judaism continues, it will sow anti-Semitism. But, in the end, anti-Semitism serves the Zionist ideology.

And, btw. Israel started the nuclear arms race in the middle east ALREADY.

BRAD BRZEZINSKI

12:08 PM ET

December 8, 2009

Zionsim causes anti-Semtisim - Mixxalot

An interesting theory but then what caused the thousands of years of widespread Jew-hatred prior to Zionism?

I can also not help noticing that however bad its actions may be, Zionism is restricted to a very tiny piece of the world and the entire Israeli / Arab conflict is very low (about 50th in the world) in severity. Contrast this with the extremist elements of Islam who bomb, burn and butcher on average 4 to 5 times a day affecting dozens of countries. No-one ever cites this as a cause of Muslim hatred and in fact hate crimes against Muslims (other than those perpetrated by said extremist Muslims) trail hate crimes against Jews in most places on earth. If your proposition is true there should be a reaction against Muslims in general as the problems caused by the “rogue” Muslims are far worse than those caused by the (rogue Jew) Zionists.

Forgive me for pressing on with questions but while it is apparently true that Israel was the first nation in the M.E. to acquire nuclear arms, it took over three decades for Iran to supposedly decide that this was a threat. Interestingly some Arab states only began to talk of going nuclear after Iran went down this road but for the first four decades when Israel had them, they did not react. It does not seem right to blame Israel for any arms race.

Perhaps you can show me the error in my thinking or if not, adjust yours.

6:19 PM ET

Your errors, let me count the ways

1. Listen to this pro-Zionist Jewish member of parliament (who has been knighted):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGuYjt6CP8

2. Iran had a well developed nuclear program under the Shah.

10:58 AM ET

December 9, 2009

Mixxalot

1) Not interested in credentials, only truth. People's beliefs about Gaza are framed by enormously disproportionate reporting, much of it biased, especially in Britain. There's nothing special about a Jew going against Israel; it helps him fit in. More interesting is the Arab or Muslim who dares at great risk, to be pro-Israel.

2) Yes Iran started a nuke program in the 50s. So why are you blaming Israel for starting the arms race.

You confuse me, Mixxy.

2:32 PM ET

you are easily confused.

3:23 PM ET

Confused not

What I am not confused about is that you have not answered one question, your arguments rely entirely on quotes from other people whom I have no reason to trust and you feel that insulting someone means you've made a case.

This is distressingly common among people of your beliefs. It's a great shame because it prevents any resolution of the problem.

5:26 PM ET

resolution: get rid of

resolution: get rid of Israeli nukes.

Israel is a war criminal rogue nation (Goldstone report), that is not a NPT member, and has nukes.

Israel steals $14m from US taxpayers EACH DAY.

It is the biggest source of anti-semitism in the world.

All Jews suffer as collateral damage of the anti_zionist feelings.

ALL non-Spehardic Jews should leave ISrael, as they are converts to Judaism and not real Jews who have roots in the region.

8:01 AM ET

December 10, 2009

My point is clearly illustrated by this response. It's just repetitive, Goebbelsian propaganda.

4:51 PM ET

I ll take Golleebbllosiasn

I ll take Golleebbllosiasn propaganda over the Likud takeover of DC any day.

Tell Israel to give our dollars back...

Easy for you to say, since you are sitting in Canada.

GOEDEL

10:54 PM ET

Obama's problem is pervasive

If Obama had had the back-bone, intelligence and experience to deal effectively with the financial crisis, instead of simply having turned everything over to the moral criminals (Summers, Geithner, Bernanke) who helped cause it, he would also have the spine and wisdom to deal with AIPAC and the M.E. problem.

KMC2K9

4:28 PM ET

i Agree an article on isreali

i Agree an article on isreali nukes would be of high interest
Vintage Motorcycle Helmet

6:23 PM ET

Sir Gerald Kaufmann

Kindly listen to this pro-Zionist Jewish member of parliament (who has been knighted) when you have a moment

TRUTH OF ZION

9:24 PM ET

Existential threat is self declared

The anti-Semitic blame Israel firsters and their numerous sympathizers on this blog declare Iran as no existential threat to Israel notwithstanding Iran's numerous statements (proudly declared) that it IS an existential threat to Israel and its numerous acts of war by proxy against Israel not because basic logic eludes them and you guys but because they (and you know who you are) viscerally hate Israel and agree with Iran's current leadership that it would be far better were it to disappear, magically or violently. Those of who you hate Zionism do not know the history of Jewish nationalism or the historical development of patriarchal Judaism or anything--you are merely the latest reincarnation of the petite-bourgeoise audience of Der Sturmer and so you rant on about AIPAC or Zionism and the Jewish lobby.

So keep one thing in mind. Israel does have hundreds of nuclear weapons.

It really does.

Anti-Semites conventionally hold two opposing pictures in their mind--that Jews are a preternatural threat and that they are cowardly weaklings who are really easy to punish--anti-Semitism is a compensatory wish-fulfillment fantasy, not a political philosophy.

But Israel does not call America's shots, really, and correspondingly, after a certain point, it will give up all foreign money rather than commit suicide--the cost benefit analysis precludes passing on existential threats that are perceived as such. The Israeli establishment is not 100 percent where it stands on this.

But should this be judged an existential threat, then wish-fulfillment anti-Semitic denunciations of the Jewish/Zionist/Israeli/AIPAC treasonous lobby (Irish lobbies or Saudi-endowed lobbies or Iranian lobbies or Hamas-funded front groups are under the enemy-of-my-enemy dispensation Aryan) won't be of any use if Iran misreads the tea-leaves and egged on by it's "friends" threatens mutual suicide one too many times.

5:27 PM ET

Kindly listen to this

Foreign Policy Magazine

Inside National Security

Iran Is No Existential Threat

The best way to rescue Obama's failing diplomacy with the Islamic Republic is to stop letting Israel call the shots.

BY HILLARY MANN LEVERETT, FLYNT LEVERETT | DECEMBER 4, 2009

(24)