Dear Mr. Goldberg,

On your blog today you once again raise serious questions about Israel, Iran, the potential for a military strike, and my views on these issues. It is my pleasure to respond to them directly.

First, I have read the Oren piece and found it very interesting. It is one more piece of insight and analysis that all Iran watchers and analysts will want to add to their ever-growing Israel/Iran file -- a file that should already include, among other things, reporting related to various National Intelligence estimates regarding Iran (eg: DNI Clapper's 2/16/11 testimony in the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, starting on page 4; and media reports like this, this, and this), articles like the David Sanger piece you cite, your August 2010 piece and the fascinating debate it spawned, and of course the recent WikiLeaks revelations. Altogether it makes fascinating and sometimes contradictory reading. That is the nature of the beast when dealing with so complex an issue.

Second, I am baffled why you insist that I believe Israel long-ago ruled out an attack on Iran. In response to the question you posed in your original post, I quite categorically stated, "I have no idea what Benjamin Netanyahu has or has not ruled out with respect to Iran or anything else." I don't know how much clearer I can be. Is it possible you are conflating my own views/analysis with the headline of the Haaretz article that discussed the Wikileaks revelations, and about which I tweeted? That headline indeed stated: "Haaretz WikiLeaks exclusive / Israel ruled out military option on Iran years ago" -- but please understand: I didn't write it, Haaretz did, and nowhere did I say I agreed with it (tweeting an article does not connote agreement with the headline/content of said article -- for example, I don't think anyone would suggest from this tweet that I am in favor of revoking the rights of Arab citizens of Israel).

Anyway, please let me clear up any lingering confusion: neither I as an individual, nor Americans for Peace Now as an organization, has ever suggested that Israel at any time -- long ago or otherwise -- ruled out a military strike on Iran. We have not done so because we have no idea what has or has not been ruled out, and by whom, in Israel. What is clear from my own experience is that opinions within Israeli decision-making echelons consistently vary on this issue (a reality highlighted in the Oren article you wrote about today). It is in no small part this variance in opinion that made the sweeping conclusions of your August 2010 piece so hard to swallow.

Third, Israel is indeed ruled by a different government today than in 2005.  And as I noted in my response to your original post, this is beside the point. Your August 2010 piece did not say that it was based solely on interviews with officials associated with the Netanyahu government. Rather, you stated that it was based on interviews with "roughly 40 current and past Israeli decision makers." To repeat myself: your clear implication was that your findings reflected a broad consensus in Israel decision-making circles that had nothing to do with the nature of the current government, but was rather based on deeply-held and widely-shared strategic analysis. You framed your analysis as reflecting not the views of the Netanyahu government, but rather the views of the entire Israel security, military, and intelligence communities, past and present. In this context, views expressed by Israeli officials in 2005 are clearly relevant to the debate.

Finally, I would encourage you to poke around our website a little more and learn more about what APN has to say on the issue of Iran (an issue that we have been very active on for a number of years), rather than just excerpting one paragraph from a policy summary and declaring our position "naïve." Our most recent statement, which I believe is serious, cogent, and above all pragmatic, can be found in our Briefing Book for the 112th Congress. It states:

The U.S. must deal soberly with the serious challenges posed by Iran. This requires a policy driven by clear goals that reflect vital U.S. national security imperatives, including getting the Iranian regime to: accept stringent oversight of its nuclear program; end support for terrorist groups; cease activities that undermine U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan; stop belligerent anti-Israel rhetoric; and respect human rights inside Iran. Achieving these goals will require a wise combination of engagement and multilateral pressure. Such a policy must be nimble and must recognize that there is no "quick fix." A long-term solution will require resolute efforts and patience.

Sanctions targeting the Iranian regime, its security organs and its nuclear program can be a powerful tool for putting pressure on Iran. At the same time, sanctions are not a policy in themselves. They are valuable only as part of a broader strategy that uses both engagement and pressure to convince Iran to alter its behavior -- meaning smart pressure coupled with determined engagement. Sanctions that deliberately inflict suffering on the Iranian people, however, are morally perilous and their efficacy is dubious.

As demonstrated by past experience, engaging Iran will not be easy; indeed it will almost certainly be an arduous process. Nor is its success a foregone conclusion. But such an effort is indispensable if the U.S. is serious about dealing with the challenges Iran poses to U.S. foreign policy and to U.S. national security.

Finally, while the military option should not be taken off the table, it must be recognized as the least desirable and by no means inevitable option of last resort. Military action is far less likely than resolute, determined U.S. and international engagement and pressure to achieve U.S. goals, and would likely have serious consequences for regional stability, the security of U.S. personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the security of Israel.

Sincerely,

Lara Friedman
Director of Policy & Government Relations
Americans for Peace Now

PS - I still hope that you will write a follow-up to your August 2010 article seriously addressing, as a professional analyst and journalist, the questions raised about your article by the WikiLeaks revelations.

[UPDATE: Matt Duss over at the Wonk Room blogged about this same Goldberg article here.]