Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was right a couple weeks ago when he warned Israeli officials to "Stop blabbing, already" about the possibility of a military attack on Iran.

Reuters quoted a Feb. 6 report by the Israeli newspaper Maariv, where Netanyahu said: "This chit-chat causes huge damage, puts Israel on the front line, and damages sanctions" imposed by the United States and Europe.

Unfortunately, such inflammatory rhetoric has continued – not only in Israel but in some circles in the United States. For example, Republican presidential candidates, other than deeply isolationist Ron Paul, continue to back themselves into an increasingly militant stance that exaggerates the Iranian threat and would limit U.S. options.

It should be obvious to all involved that a precipitous military strike would further entrench the increasingly isolated, weak and unpopular clerical regime in Iraq, because Iranians would rally against foreign attack – which would be a setback for secular democratic opposition forces in Iran.

Have we so quickly forgotten the lessons of Iraq? Political scientist Marc Lynch of George Washington University reminds us what we should have learned from that experience: "Launching preventive wars against hypothetical weapons of mass destruction should no longer be part of America's or the world's repertoire. Nor should rosy assumptions about easy wars, or artificially limited options which supposedly leave us no choice."

The consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies, as expressed by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in an update to Congress, is that Iran has the "scientific, technical and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons." As Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has reiterated, the Iranian regime has not made a decision to initiate a nuclear weapons program.

Economic sanctions are having an effect. The value of the Iranian currency has plummeted, as has the economy. That puts pressure on the regime.

Local businessman Ross Amin, who owns Capitol Bowl in West Sacramento and is active in Iranian American affairs, came to the United States from Iran when he finished high school. He is against the theocratic regime and wants a democratic secular republic. Amin doesn't want U.S. military intervention, but wants the United States to "help the people of Iran change the government." That, however, is very touchy, given the U.S. history of interference in Iranian affairs in the 1950s. Open association with the United States remains anathema in Iranian politics.

The lesson of the Arab Spring is that the people of these countries can take matters into their own hands – without waiting for outside intervention.

The United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia should be focused on aggressive diplomacy to get Iran to suspend uranium enrichment while long-term negotiations proceed.

The United States should be tapping China, especially, for an important role in this. It is the largest importer of Iranian oil. It has a giant stake in a peaceful, stable Middle East – and against a nuclear arms race in that volatile region.

The war talk about Iran needs to end and the hard work of robust diplomacy should take its place.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.