Seattle’s Richard Silverstein held a conference on Iran sanctions. It produced an unusually reasoned editorial, this from the Seattle Times, in which Prof. Ian Lustick, who is Jewish and has been writing about Middle East issues for many years was quoted as saying the sanctions are in defense of Israel and former AIPAC Iran desk staffer Keith Weissman, suggesting that they hurt US businesses more than Iran:
The sanctions on Iran are mainly in defense of Israel. Lustick argued, “There is no strategic military threat to Israel” in Iran getting the bomb. If Iran is really trying to build a nuclear bomb—and Lustick said, “I assume they are”—it is not to drop on Israel, which has its own bombs and would drop them on Iran. Iran wants the bomb as a deterrent, which is the same reason Israel has…..
Weissman argued that sanctions “hurt American business more than they hurt Iran. And they don’t stop what you intend to stop. They might make you feel good if you’re in Congress.”
Lustick said he didn’t think Israel would attack Iran. If they did, he said, “it’s going to put the final nail in the coffin of the idea that Israel will ever be accepted in the region. And that means Zionism will fail.”
“They’re trying to get the United States to do it,” he said.
