Iran and the “Red Line”

Obama’s line is realistic and his reluctance to go to war is justified.

President Barack Obama has reaffirmed his oath committing the United States to Israel’s security before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He also reaffirmed his oath in a conversation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. For that matter, he must not allow himself to be pressured in any way by his critics who claim that the strategic and ideological alliance with Israel belongs to the U.S. and in American political thought like the Statue of Liberty belongs in the New York harbor.

That doesn’t mean that Obama has completely embraced Israel’s policy with Iran. The closer to reality debating a possible war becomes, the more the “red line” that Iran must not cross should be precisely defined. On this issue, more comes between Obama and Netanyahu than the proverbial piece of paper.

The Iran-Hawks in Israel insist on the right to act, if diplomacy and Iran’s sanctions don’t pressure Tehran to slow or essentially stop its nuclear program and if Iran attains the status of “nuclear capabilities.” Obama, on the other hand, wants to “prevent[ing] Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” according to the wording of his AIPAC speech. That is a fundamental difference. Obama’s line is realistic and his reluctance to go to war is justified. It’s just unfortunate that this falls within the time of an election campaign.