We are all concerned about the threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. An Iran armed with nuclear weapons represents an alarming scenario that neither the U.S. nor Israel, nor for that matter, the world, can afford to dismiss, and one that the U.S. and the international community must exert all efforts to avoid.
Most of us are also concerned - and increasingly so - over the growing frenzy of talk about military action against Iran. Military action is unlikely to do more than delay Iran's nuclear program and is almost certain to have far-reaching unintended consequences for the U.S., Israel, and the region.
A war with Iran is neither desirable nor inevitable. The best chance for avoiding it is engaging in tough, sustained, robust U.S. diplomacy, in tandem with the extraordinarily far-reaching sanctions that have already been imposed against the Iranian regime. And it's not just Americans for Peace Now saying this - this view has been articulated by numerous U.S. and Israeli military and intelligence officials and foreign policy experts, most recently longtime presidential advisor Dennis Ross in the New York Times.
Unfortunately, a major part of the pro-war campaign is the dismissal of even the idea that diplomacy is an option.
Two members of Congress, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Walter Jones (R-NC), recognize the danger and have authored a wise, courageous letter to President Obama. The letter's main message: utilize all available tools of diplomacy to resolve the crisis over Iran's nuclear program and prevent another costly war in the Middle East.
Ask your Member of Congress to sign the bipartisan Ellison-Jones letter in support of diplomacy to prevent nuclear proliferation and war with Iran.
Too much is at stake - for the U.S., for Israel, and for the region - to let the discourse on Iran be hijacked by the same sort of ideologues who took the U.S. down the path of war with Iraq.
Tweet
Email a friend
feed
twitter
facebook
Can I ask one simple question, I'm opposed to ALL nuclear weapons but can you tell me why Isreal can have nuclear bombs but Iran can't ? Isn't this dispute all about Isreal maintaining military dominance in the Middle-East.
The best way to insure Israel's survival is to create a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East that includes both Israel and Iran and insist on rigorous inspection of both by international monitors.
Israel has never signed the non-proliferation treaty even though Iran has.
It's well past time to do so!
One Middle East scholar recently commented that the real driver of Iran's nuclear ambition is not hate of Israel but fear of Pakistan. If extremists in Pakistan are successful at overpowering the current unstable regime -- and gain control of its nukes -- Iran will be next in their sights. Can't Iran use the 'nuclear deterrent' argument, too? What's being done to address Iran's legitimate security concerns?
The nonsense rhetoric of Iran being a nuclear threat has to stop.
Iran like the other nuclear countries would never use it's weapons offensively as the consequences would be horrific for Iran. Far far worse than the damage it would cause Israel. Only one country has every used it's weapons and most likely regret it.
The most probable explanation for America wishing to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is it gives them agency over their own actions with less international interference.