Fareed Zakaria offers sensible words of discouragement with regard to Israel possibly striking Iran (link below). And Zakaria urging caution should not be taken lightly; he effectively represents the intellectual establishment and how it thinks on matters of US foreign policy. His work appears on CNN, in Time magazine, and the Washington Post. He is also on the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations. Zakaria belongs to the intellectual elite who have access to power and can (and do) influence it. He is not a cartoonish, right-wing crusader of the Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh stripe. Zakaria is polished, rational, and businesslike, and provides a glimpse into the echelons that do policy assessment.
His historical analysis in the video is predictably imprecise. Zakaria could be considered dovish, which means despite leaning toward a more thoughtful, moderate approach, he ultimately supports the global projection of American state power. Therefore he adheres to the orthodoxies that justify such projection, hence his discussion of the Cold War. The United States was not "seized by a panic" over an alleged Russian threat, as much as it was driven to a panic by deliberate measures of disinformation. Comparing US postwar concerns over Soviet aggression to Israel's stated fears of Iran's perceived nuclear threat is in a sense appropriate: both mindsets were concocted by policy planners, despite the facts. Yet, Zakaria presents the parallel with sincerity, inappropriately.
Nevertheless, his overall conclusion is sound. Attacking its nuclear sites is not the right course of action. In asserting that "the efforts to delay and disrupt Iran's nuclear program are working," it is not clear which ones Zakaria is endorsing; along with threats and sanctions - both of which are objectionable - other "efforts" include computer viruses and assassinations, regardless of who is responsible. Nowhere in the piece is honest and direct diplomacy mentioned or suggested. But be that as it may, what we can conclude from Zakaria's ultimate position is that the notion of Israel, or anyone, launching an assault on Iran is just that horrendous. Even someone of Zakaria's stature is basically in agreement with those at the critical "left" end of the spectrum, and the rest of American opinion, namely: this is a bad idea.
As is common, the public's view on the matter is rational, with around 80 percent of Americans either being in favor of a diplomatic solution or presently taking no action.
Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, expressed his country's "readiness for dialogue on a spectrum of various issues" in a Feb. 14 letter to European Union foreign-policy head Catherine Ashton (see second link below). What becomes of the offer time will tell. As always, the US population can have a say and introduce itself into the conversation.
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/19/zakaria-israel-dont-strike-iran
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-17/iran-seeks-atomic-talks-at-earliest-possibility-in-letter.html
