U.S. Jews should push for Iran sanctions but reduce anti-Obama rhetoric

Countless articles have been written on the Iran sanctions issue. Angry charges have been exchanged. American and Israeli officials have dramatically different readings of what will happen if a deal is struck with Iran in Geneva and sanctions are eased in return for a nuclear standstill from the Iranian side.

American Jews are never happy to find their government in a heated dispute with the government of Israel, and they are not happy now. The dispute is serious and consequential, and no amount of pretending will make it otherwise.

I won’t review the evidence in detail; the claims of both parties are readily available. But I would like to offer my thoughts on what the American Jewish community should be doing right now on Iran.

First: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is right on the substance, and American Jews should call for retaining all current sanctions and, if possible, stiffening them.

There are risks to stiffening the sanctions, as the administration has pointed out. But the risks of easing them are greater, without far more significant concessions than our government currently hopes to secure. Everyone talks of military options, but it is virtually impossible for any reasonable person to believe that such options still exist. American military action is highly unlikely; Israeli military action is more unlikely still.

Given these realities, a tough approach to sanctions is the only way to prevent the wily and radical Iranian regime from achieving a victory, both psychological and practical, in its march toward nuclear weapons. If the sanctions are prematurely weakened and then crumble, all is lost.

Second: American Jews need to tone down the inflammatory, near-hysterical rhetoric that is being used against the administration.

American Jewish leaders seem to be following the lead of those Israeli politicians who have preferred an angry, belligerent tone to a reasoned argument. Alan Dershowitz, writing in Haaretz, comes to conclusions that I agree with, but along the way accuses the Obama administration of contemplating a “Chamberlain moment.” The argument is that Chamberlain engaged in bad diplomacy and poor negotiations, and in the process, demonstrated weakness and, by implication, cowardice — and that Barack Obama is doing the same.

I think that this approach is neither correct nor helpful. The fact is that the administration is making a fairly compelling case, but one that is fatally flawed. American Jews need to make the opposite case, and that is best done by coolly marshaling evidence and demonstrating the extent to which American and Israeli interests overlap on Iran.

In addition, it is politically disastrous to use this tone. There is much sympathy for Israel in Congress, and much suspicion of Iranian intentions; it will be difficult to win support for a tough line on sanctions, but not impossible. Still, success will require support on both sides of the aisle. Backing for Israel in this case, as in all others, must be bipartisan, and Democrats will be far less likely to buck their president if they are hearing from Jewish leaders the same harsh attacks on Obama that they are hearing from their Republican counterparts.

Third: American Jews must tell Netanyahu that the actions of his government are undermining the case that he is trying to make on Iran in America.

Last Tuesday, the prime minister issued a statement halting a plan by his housing minister to explore settlement building in the West Bank because it was “an action that creates an unnecessary confrontation with the international community at a time when we are making an effort to persuade elements in the international community to reach a better deal with Iran.”

Exactly so. But then, the very next day, Netanyahu said in the Knesset that thousands more homes would be built in Judea and Samaria, despite international pressure. And, of course, several major settlement building plans have been announced in recent months, in each case generating unfavorable headlines and drawing harsh criticism from the American government and the European Union.

To say the least, there is no logic whatever to what the prime minister is doing, other than the logic of narrow political advantage. If, as Netanyahu said, last week’s settlement initiative hurts Israel’s efforts on Iran, why isn’t this equally true for other settlement initiatives? If Iran is really Israel’s top priority, as it should be and as he says it is, why cannot settlement plans be set aside until the Iranian question is resolved? It does not help to insist that the two issues should not be related; in the real world, they are very much connected.

Netanyahu, who has done so much to win support in the world for his position on Iran, is allowing coalition-related considerations to undercut that support. As the battle over sanctions continues, this must stop.

Nonetheless, it is my first point that is most important. The danger is immediate. A nuclear Iran will destabilize the Mideast, alienate American allies in the region and decrease any chance of Israeli-Palestinian peace. To avoid this possibility, the sanctions must be maintained and toughened. And American Jews – left, right and center – should do all that they can to make that happen.