Is a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis ideal? I'm not at all certain, but it is also doubtful that another solution exists. As things stand, any military solution will ignite the region. The world is changing before our eyes. The US is no longer willing to be the world's policeman.
Following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama, who still has more than three years in office, does not want to intervene, even though he can.
Obama believes in dialogue, international agreements and economic sanctions. From his standpoint and that of the international community, the agreements and sanctions have proved effective. One such agreement is expected to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons. A list of these WMDs has already been submitted to the UN.
The economic sanctions imposed on Iran have also been effective: The Islamic Republic's economy is collapsing, as are its banks, and its newly-installed president, Hassan Rohani, is conducting dialogue with the president of the hated empire, the US, the "Great Satan."
True, Iran is not hiding its desire to annihilate Israel, one way or another. The Islamic Regime is also the biggest supporter of Hezbollah, which may receive some of Syria's WMDs. And Iran may also continue developing nuclear weapons.
The regime in Tehran, like the Assad regime in Damascus, recognizes the force and effectiveness of the powerful countries. Seeing that Israel is a military power that possesses unique means and can defend itself, I believe a diplomatic solution can be trusted.
Moreover, during the Shah era, the ties between Iran and Israel were close and the countries cooperated on many levels. The rise of the ayatollahs' regime obviously dealt a severe blow to these relations. But when relations were good, both countries benefited.
Under the protection of our spears, the international sanctions and the understandings with the international community, we can take a calculated risk and achieve a cold peace with our most bitter enemy.