By Michael Harris
Last Friday’s Op-Ed by Richard Ridenour (“Time to rethink AIPAC influence on U.S. policy”) grossly misrepresents the positions of AIPAC and Israel in determining American policy towards Iran. The question is how to best stop the Ayatollah’s drive towards nuclear weapons without having to resort to war. Sanctions are what brought Iran to the negotiating table, but the premature easing of sanctions has led to announcements from Iran that various components of their nuclear weapons program – the underground centrifuges at Fordo, the heavy water reactor at Arak, and their ICBM program – are now “red lines” and non-negotiable. Americans might want to ask themselves how any of these are part of a peaceful nuclear energy program.
Americans also might question whether they can trust a regime that has bankrolled and directed the Assad regime’s mass slaughter in Syria, and is the prime sponsor of international terrorism.
The proposed increased sanctions against Iran would only be put in place if the current diplomatic efforts fail.
It’s odd that Ridenour believes that increased sanctions against Iran would lead to war with “the whole Arab world.” Shi’ite Iran is not Arab; and the Gulf Arab Sunni states are also far more concerned about Iran than we are.