J Street - Helplessly naive on Iran

In August, I posted a cartoon by Dana Summers of the Orlando Sentinel, depicting Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and North Korea's Kim Jong Ill hammering away on a nuclear bomb, as they say to Barack Obama, "You don't mind if we work while we talk, do you?" That cartoon really summed it up for me. President Obama, and his fellow leftists/liberals, subscribe to the belief that no matter how evil a person may be, there is always some carrot one can offer him to change his ways. They say, "You can't only talk to your friends! You must also talk to your enemies!" It sounds great, in theory, but so did Communism.

Enter J Street, the leftist/liberal answer to AIPAC. They have released a position statement on how best to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions. Here are some selections, with my comments:

• "...we are outraged at the Iranian regime’s apparent vote fraud..." - Apparent? Apparent? To say that the Iranian vote was apparently fraudulent is like saying that pro wrestling in America is apparently rigged. Everyone knows the vote was rigged. Everyone, that is, except for, apparently, J Street. MSNBC knew it. CNN knew it. Even the New York Times knew it, quoting an Interior Ministry worker who said the fraud had been planned "for weeks." But J Street describes the fraud perpetrated as "apparent."
• "The international community must, in the words of the President, “bear witness” to the disturbing events taking place right now in Iran." - "Bear witness," eh? "Bearing witness" does not usually help those in need. Usually, those in need require others to stand up on their behalf and deliver them from oppressors. The international community "bore witness" to the genocide in Rwanda, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the mass starvation of Ukranians, and continues to "bear witness" to the slaughter in Darfur. An international, or unilateral, military force might work better than merely "bearing witness."
• [Should President Obama involve himself further in the Iranian election issue, it will be] "perceived [as the] US meddling in internal Iranian affairs." - Here is what President Obama had to say about the Iranian election results: "The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching." Yes, Mr. President, as you suggested, the world is "bearing witness." "...free speech must be respected..." Excellent suggestion to a tyrannical regime. Excellent. "...the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights." Yes, by "bearing witness." Not exactly let's-make-Ahmadinejad-quake-in-his-boots-statements, right? But here was Ahmadinejad's reaction, as reported by CNN: "Do you think that this kind of behavior is going to solve any of your problems? It will only make people think you are someone like Bush." Priceless. Barack Obama is compared to George W. Bush by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And J Street insists that President Obama might be accused of "meddling" should he "involve himself more directly." He didn't, yet was still accused.
• "As the leadership struggle in Iran continues, we suggest that a tactical pause be considered in the United States’ diplomatic outreach efforts and a hold be placed on any new sanctions against the Iranian government." - Is J Street seriously in the dark as to whom will emerge victorious in the "leadership struggle"? Ahmadinejad's side has guns. Moussavi's doesn't. Guns win.
  
• "...we take note of the recent US national intelligence assessment, placing a possible Iranian nuclear weapons capacity in 2013..." (Actually, the NIE suggests it could be as early as 2010. Read the report. Folks, that's next year. But what's three years between friends?) And if they're wrong, and Iran gets the bomb earlier? What will J Street say? "Oops! Our bad!" When one is dealing with a government like Iran's, which has expressed its desire to wipe out another nation, and which is building a nuclear bomb, it is advised to deal with such a threat seriously, and not hope that said threatening nation is really a few years off from having nuclear weapons capabilities. Then, it will be too late. But J Street will still be able to say, "At least we tried, right?" A nation can not threaten another with extinction, proceed to build a nuclear bomb, and expect no reaction from the threatened nation.
• "Under the current circumstances, it is our view that ever harsher sanctions at this time are unlikely to cause the Iranian regime to cease weapons development. In fact, tougher sanctions, let alone military action, are only likely to strengthen the resolve of Iranian hardliners to pursue weapons development and confrontation with the United States." - So Iran keeps breaking the rules, the United States will do nothing except negotiate, and this will stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear bomb? Only liberals could come up with such logic. In truth, what will cause Iranian hardliners to pursue weapons development is not "tougher sanctions" or "military action," but rather the perception that America (not Europe) is weak, and that the Obama Administration will endlessly negotiate, no matter what Iran does. When the sharks smell blood, as they do now, they will close in for the kill.

When one reads pieces like this from groups like J Street, one has to wonder how much longer western civilization can last with such thinking. The naivete is breathtaking. History be damned. Just because endless negotiations with dictators never stopped them in the past, is no reason to believe it won't stop them in the future, right?