Follow Up On Iran

In last week’s column I shared some thoughts with you about different policies about Iran. As mentioned then, both Americans and Israelis are strongly divided concerning how to answer the threat of Iran’s quest for nuclear power and weapons. One of the strongest barbs in the policy dispute has come from Alan Dershowitz who warned that J Street would “have blood on its hands” because of their attempts to lobby the Obama administration. Dershowitz claim is that J Street has lobbied for the removal of any mention of military action as a part of American policy. This week I follow up with an interview with Dylan Williams, Director of Government Affairs for J Street. Williams has been with J Street for three years. Trained in International law, Williams has also served as a Foreign Policy advisor to Olympia Snowe. I hope that all of my readers will appreciate the importance of understanding all the arguments concerning Iran.

YT: Could you please comment of Dershowitz’s comment on J Street. Will J Street “have blood on its hands?”

DW: J Street has never advocated for or advised the administration to take the military option off the table. To say that is false and a misrepresentation of J Street’s position. J Street believes that Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would pose a very serious threat to American and Israeli interests and to peace and stability in the Middle East and around the world. We therefore lobby for a combination of tough, targeted sanctions and diplomacy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. We have also set forth the case that it is those like Dershowitz encouraging the U.S. government to rattle sabers and beat the war drums who are undermining President Obama's diplomacy. There is a big difference between leaving all options on the table while pursuing a permanent diplomatic resolution, and actively threatening military action. And while it is prudent for the United States military to prepare under existing authority for a contingency with Iran, as it already has, it is reckless to mistake that contingency for sound strategy.

YT: What is J Street doing that sets it apart from that “old style” of Jewish American advocacy for Israel?

DW: J Street believes that only a two-state solution will preserve the Jewish and the democratic nature of Israel. In the past, other American pro-Israel organizations have advocated for whatever the Israeli government set as policy. J Street reserves the right to differ with the Israeli government on issues of policy that do long-term harm to Israel as a Jewish democracy.

YT: What, then, is the main goal of J Street?

DW: To advocate for the two-state solution. That is the only policy that will insure that Israel remains Jewish and democratic.

YT: Could you explain what you mean?

DW: Without two states, one Jewish and one Palestinian, demographics tell us that the Arabs will soon be the majority population between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. That means that Israel will face a choice: either it will have to give all people living under its rule the same political rights, in which case, Jews will be a voting minority and Israel will cease to Jewish, or Israel will deny full political rights to the non-citizen majority, in which case it will cease to be a democracy. J Street argues that a state that is both Jewish and democratic represent the Zionist dream. Without both of these, the dream fails.

YT: What is the “ideal” outcome to resolve the Iranian situation then?

DW: The ideal outcome would be a negotiated outcome that would allow Iran to retain a civilian nuclear program but with the strongest monitoring possible. This is because permanent Iranian compliance with its nuclear obligations is only likely to come about if it is allowed to exercise its right under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, and because unprecedented monitoring of that program would give us the best assurance that Iran will not be able to develop nuclear weapons.

YT: What, then, is your opinion about the threat of military action against Iran?

DW: J Street contends that war talk is counter-productive in several ways. First, the talk of impending war only tells Iran that they must decide quickly to develop nuclear weapons. Both Israeli and American intelligence agrees that Iran not yet decided whether build a nuclear weapon. Secondly, as I have argued in an article in Foreign Policy, loose talk of war only causes the Iranian people to rally around the government to fight an enemy, strengthening the hand of the mullahs. This undermines the sanctions, which are working by causing terrible inflation in Iran- this causes the people to blame the government. It goes without saying that the threat of war also raises the price of oil. Although Iran is selling less oil than ever the jump in prices will produce a near-record income for Iranian oil this year, which they can apply to their nuclear program.

YT: How, in your view, will these issues with Iran be resolved?

DW: J Street has supported President Obama’s policy—from its outset-- of using a combination of sanctions and diplomacy as the best approach for preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Heeding the President’s warning about loose talk of war, we have joined American and Israeli security experts in combating efforts to ratchet up war talk and tie the President’s hands in dealing with this grave threat to Israeli, U.S. and global security. If cooler heads in Washington and Jerusalem prevail, the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran can be halted once and for all, most likely through a staged drawdown of Iran’s illicit nuclear activities in coordination with international partners led by the United States.