J Street is a liberal, self-described “pro-Israel, pro-peace” advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., but it has consistently advocated for increased American pressure on Israeli governments—especially right-leaning ones—on issues like settlement construction, security policy, and negotiations with the “Palestinians,” to the point of undermining Israel’s democratic sovereignty and security needs.
This week, J Street aligned itself with New Jewish Narrative (NJN), a relatively recent organization that often questions the notion of Israel as a Jewish state, undermining the foundational principle of Zionism—the right of the Jewish people to national self-determination—and promotes narratives used by anti-Zionist movements.
Following the American military attack on Iranian nuclear facilities Saturday, J Street and New Jewish Narrative issued the following statement:
J Street and NJN fear that the Trump Administration’s unauthorized attack on Iran on Saturday risks a dangerous escalation into a new, broader Middle East war of choice. We hope that this war can be swiftly brought to an end.
We have long recognized the danger posed by the Iranian regime – to its own people, to its neighbors, to Israel, and to the world – as well as by the regime’s nuclear program.
We have always asserted that the Iranian regime cannot be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. And we have maintained that the best way to achieve that goal was through diplomacy, not military action.
BILL AND THE KOREANS
Let’s pause here for a word about the first American president who trusted murderous regimes to curb their nuclear enthusiasm and rely on diplomacy:
On October 18, 1994, President Bill Clinton announced a groundbreaking nuclear agreement between the United States and North Korea. “This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world,” he declared. Known as the Agreed Framework, the deal aimed to halt North Korea’s nuclear program and defuse years of escalating tension that had brought the two countries to the brink of war.
“This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula,” Clinton said, emphasizing that the deal “does not rely on trust.” Under the terms of the agreement, North Korea would dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for improved diplomatic relations with the United States. Both nations also pledged to pursue “formal assurances” not to use nuclear weapons against each other.
The Agreed Framework was maintained through the late 1990s; the key reactors were shut down, sealed, and monitored by international inspectors. It began to unravel in 2002 when the U.S. accused North Korea of clandestinely pursuing uranium enrichment. Subsequently, North Korea expelled the inspectors and restarted its plutonium operations, later conducting its first nuclear test in 2006
Not given to learning from past failures, in 2015, former President Bill Clinton said, “I strongly support the nuclear agreement with Iran. It is a good deal—far better than any realistic alternative.”
BILL AND ROUHANI
In a 2004 speech to clerics in Iran, Hassan Rouhani—then the chief nuclear negotiator under President Mohammad Khatami—publicly described how Iran had used negotiations with Europe to buy time for its nuclear program:
“While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the [nuclear] facility in Isfahan… In fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work in Isfahan.”
This statement is often cited as proof of Iran’s deliberate deception, using diplomatic talks not to halt enrichment, but to continue it covertly under the cover of negotiations.
After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 in search of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Iran feared it might be next, and so, Rouhani entered talks with the EU-3 (France, Germany, and the UK), agreeing to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment.
During this time, Iran concealed aspects of its program, cleaned up suspected nuclear sites (like Lavizan-Shian), and made technical advances.
IAEA inspections were constrained, and Iran ultimately resumed enrichment in 2005, after Ahmadinejad’s election.
This period is often seen as a calculated stalling tactic that allowed Iran to avoid international pressure while continuing nuclear development behind closed doors.
When Rouhani returned to power as president in 2013, he rebranded himself as a moderate and pragmatist. He re-entered negotiations with the P5+1 (U.S., UK, France, China, Russia, and Germany) and eventually signed the JCPOA in 2015.
Under Rouhani, Iran received an estimated $150 billion in sanctions relief. The deal allowed Iran to retain core nuclear infrastructure (centrifuges, heavy water reactor development). Sunset clauses meant restrictions would expire within 10–15 years.
And ballistic missile development continued unfettered.
Iran’s regional aggression—via Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and militias in Iraq and Syria—intensified with the new funding.
Meanwhile, Iran used the JCPOA as a tactical pause, while preserving the option to dash toward a weapon later.
From Israel’s perspective, Rouhani was not a genuine reformer or moderate, but a strategic deceiver who used soft language to mask hard power objectives. As far as Israel was concerned, Rouhani didn’t moderate Iran’s goals—he just changed the tone while continuing the project.
AND NOW BACK TO OUR JEWISH USEFUL IDIOTS
J Street and NJN’s anti-Trump, anti-Netanyahu manifesto continues:
We worry deeply now that Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump have – in resorting to the use of force before diplomacy had been fully exhausted – raised the risk of escalation and of harm to Israelis, Iranians, and Americans.
We’re also extremely concerned that the President has circumvented Congress’s constitutionally mandated role in authorizing an operation of this kind. We call on Congress to vote this week on War Powers Resolutions introduced in both the Senate & House regarding this conflict and to require answers from the President regarding the strategy and endgame for the attack before giving its approval. We agree that without Congressional approval, the attack and the fighting that follows is being conducted without constitutional authority.
While we recognize that Israel, and now the US, have had tactical success in attacking elements of the Iranian nuclear program, we fear the potential for escalation and the lack of a clear endgame or strategy underlying the attack that has been launched.
Long-term success in limiting Iran’s nuclear program is what we secured while the Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA) was in effect from 2015 to 2018.
I for one would be so happy if both J Street and NJN took the “Jewish” out of their titles and just attacked Israel and pro-Zionist Americans, without pretending that they care. As in the end-paragraph so drenched with crocodile tears, it might be toxic:
Our thoughts are with family and friends in Israel, Americans serving in the Middle East, and all civilians across the region who are in harm’s way.
Having spent two sessions in my building’s bomb shelter in the past 10 hours, may I say in the name of all civilians across the region: shut up, just shut up.
