A red line would help justify attacking Iran

I disagree with Fareed Zakaria’s applauding the Obama administration for “refusing to draw a ‘red line’ on Iran’s nuclear program that, if crossed, would commit Washington to military strikes” [“The folly of a ‘red line,’ ” op-ed, Sept. 13].

Mr. Zakaria’s principal argument is that to “define a red line in advance would commit the United States to waging a war.” This misses the point. President Obama could set milestones that, in his view, make a military strike justified, or more likely, but that would not force the hand of the U.S. military.  If not a “red line,” the president can at least define the “red zone.”

Mr. Zakaria’s noting that Israel has not articulated its own “red line” is beside the point. Iran will reach the point of immunity from an Israeli strike long before it is immune from America’s more fearsome weapons capabilities. Without knowing whether America is in the fight, Israel cannot know when the window for effective military action will be closed. It cannot know where the red line actually lies.

Unfortunately, Mr. Obama’s silence increasingly leaves Israel with only one option: to act on its own because an assurance from America is lacking. 

Gabriel Posner, Tel Aviv