Weinthal, who also writes for the Weekly Standard blog and the Jerusalem Post, wrote today on National Review’s The Corner blog:

It is now up to the U.S. and its Western allies to aggressively enforce sanctions, and rope in the Chinese and Russians. Economic penalties might turn out not to be a panacea for the nuclear and human-rights crises in Iran, but there should be a genuine attempt to strangle Iran’s energy sector.

But Weinthal finished his post with what could only be interpreted as a call to military action against Iran:

Soggy Western appeasement toward Iran’s regime is a natural precondition for Israeli military action, a country whose existence is immediately threatened by Iranian acquisition of atomic weaponry. The West has a chance to avoid a repeat performance of its wretched appeasement politics of the 1930s. If robust economic sanctions do not force Iran to walk away from its nuclear-weapons program, the West has to lay the foundation for military strikes. Time is the West’s enemy.

Weinthal’s endorsement of a military strike—notably not because it is necessary but because Israel will attack if the U.S. doesn’t—is significant since he is a member of FDD’s Iran Energy Project, which just last week put out a report (PDF) describing how, through sanctioning Chinese companies which do business with Iran, the U.S. could pressure Iran to give up its nuclear program.

It’s curious that some of the proponents of stricter sanctions are simultaneously ready to declare the sanctions regime a failure.

• Reuters: Ramin Mostafavi reports that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a Japanese newspaper on Friday that Iran might be willing to stop higher-grade Uranium enrichment. “We promise to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent purity if we are ensured fuel supply,” he was quoted as saying.
• Los Angeles Times: Borzou Daragahi reports that fuel rods were loaded into the Bushehr nuclear reactor on Saturday.  The move puts the plant within “a few weeks” of being operational. U.S. and Israeli officials have expressed concern that Iran could theoretically make a weapon by extracting plutonium from the spent fuel rods, but Russia has committed to keeping a close watch on the activities at the Bushehr reactor.
• The Atlantic: Senior Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Reuel Marc Gerecht, argues in favor of an Israeli preventive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Gerecht advocates not just bombing facilities but targeting Iranian personnel involved in Tehran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. “If Tehran were to lose several of its key nuclear scientists and technicians in such a blow, the Iranian program might sustain a crippling hit from which it would be extremely difficult to recover,” writes Gerecht. He concludes, “Although President Obama may become (privately) furious with the Israelis, any Israeli strike will make the United States, and probably even the reluctant Europeans, more determined to shut down Iran’s program.” Gerecht advocated for an Israeli preventive strike in a July 26^th cover story in the The Weekly Standard.
• The Weekly Standard Blog: Lee Smith repeats Anne Bayefsky’s warnings (Eli discussed Bayefsky on Friday) that the Park 51 Islamic community center has dangerous ties to Iran.  Smith suggests that Imam Feisal Rauf’s unwillingness to denounce Hamas, and his ties to Iran are a threat to national security. He concludes, “… [I]t would be a bad idea to allow an asset controlled by American adversaries to be built anywhere in the United States, including lower Manhattan.”

• The Financial Times: Daniel Dombey reports that the White House has warned Turkey that it could lose access to U.S. weapons, including drone aircraft that Ankara wants to acquire for use in their fight with the Kurdish separatist PKK party after the United States pulls out of Iraq next year. Dombey quotes a senior administration official as saying, “The president has said to [Prime Minister] Erdogan that some of the actions that Turkey has taken have caused questions to be raised on the Hill [Congress]…about whether we can have confidence in Turkey as an ally. That means that some of the requests Turkey has made of us, for example in providing some of the weaponry that it would like to fight the PKK, will be harder for us to move through Congress.”  The White House was, reportedly, disappointed with Turkey’s opposition to UN sanctions against Iran.

• The Weekly Standard Blog: Michael Anton suggests that the “endgame” for Iran’s alleged nuclear program might be coming as soon as next week if, as planned, Russia will fuel and start Iran’s nuclear reactor at Bushehr by August 21^st. Anton concludes that, “[a]ny nation prepared to incur all that risk from striking Iran’s HEU sites may as well take out Bushehr as well.” Once the Bushehr facility is fully operational an attack might result in a release of poisonous radioactive materials, “Which means that if the story is true, and if the Israelis judge Bushehr to be a dangerous installation, they will have to move quickly — as in, within the next week.” Anton suggests that the Russians might be fueling Bushehr in order to bring about an Israeli or U.S. attack on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons facilities. “Certainly Moscow has reasons not to welcome a nuclear armed Iran.  Goading someone else into doing the dirty work has significant advantages.”

• The Cable: Josh Rogin writes that the Obama administration may become more vocal in its criticisms of Iranian human rights violations. Rogin suggests that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement criticizing the sentencing of seven Baha’i leaders was the start of a new trend of speaking more openly about Iranian human rights abuses.

• The Christian Science Monitor: Dan Murphy offers three reasons that Israel will bomb Iran. First, Israelis fear that a nuclear Iran may tip the balance of power in the region and spark an arms race among countries which deny Israel’s right to exist. Second, Israeli leaders may think that Iranian leaders are fundamentally irrational and will use a nuclear weapon even if such a decision will result in the destruction of Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs.”  Third, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust-denying rhetoric makes Israeli leadership concerned that he might act irrationally, creating an existential threat for Israel. (Murphy also offers his three reasons that Israel won’t bomb Iran in a separate article.)

• The Washington Post: George F. Will argues that criticism of Israel’s Gaza War has left Israeli leadership and Benjamin Netanyahu believing that an international consensus is emerging that, “Israel is not allowed to exercise self-defense.”  Will writes, “Any Israeli self-defense anywhere is automatically judged “disproportionate.” Israel knows this as it watches Iran.”  U.S. willingness to pursue engagement with Iran and, according to Will, exhibiting “fatalism” towards Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, will ultimately push Netanyahu to unilaterally attack Iran.

• The New York Daily News: AEI’s Michael Rubin echoes George F. Will’s concerns that the Obama administration is exhibiting signs that it might tolerate a nuclear weapons possessing Iran. Rubin argues that the acquisition of nuclear weapons will position Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as kingmakers and, in a worst case scenario, “…with regime survival a moot point, true believers might use their last moments to launch the bomb to fulfill objectives of destroying Israel or wounding America.” Rubin concludes, “Denying Iran nuclear capability requires tough choices. The Obama administration appears willing to embrace containment and deterrence in order to avoid them. Avoiding decisions is not leadership, however, and may prove deadly.”