( CNN ) As expected , Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a rousing speech to Congress , rich in historic imagery and replete with literary references . Yet a speech filled with powerful words is no substitute for a strategy for actually preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon . As national security adviser Susan Rice told the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC on Monday , `` Precisely because this is such a serious issue , we must weigh the different options before us and choose the best one . Sound bites wo n't stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon . '' The Obama administration , on the other hand , is making a strong and credible case that the deal it is pursuing would block Iran 's pathways to developing the fissile material necessary for a bomb and extend the time for Iran to produce enough weapons-grade uranium to build a bomb from today 's estimated three months to at least a year . Without a deal , Iran would revert to building up its stockpile of nuclear uranium , while the international community would lose the ability to monitor and track Iran 's activities . At the top of the list of questions the Prime Minister failed to address is how such a scenario in the wake of `` no deal '' would actually make Israel safer ? As Rice said : `` Here 's what 's likely to happen without a deal . Iran will install and operate advanced centrifuges . Iran will seek to fuel its ( plutonium ) reactor in Arak . Iran will rebuild its uranium stockpile . And , we 'll lose the unprecedented inspections and transparency we have today . '' If no deal that the United States and five other powers actually might strike with the Iranians would be acceptable to Netanyahu , how does he propose to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat ? He spoke about ratcheting up international sanctions against Iran and keeping them in place until Iran ceased regional aggression , sponsorship of terrorism and threatens to annihilate Israel . But years of extraordinarily tough sanctions did not persuade the Iranians to abandon their nuclear program or prevent them moving it forward . Neither did cyberwarfare or a series of assassinations of Iranian scientists . And if the United States was seen as walking away from a possible agreement , the international sanctions regime would likely crumble , not strengthen . Iranian hard-liners who oppose an agreement would be back in the driver 's seat in Tehran , while those would want to see Iran rejoin the international community would be discredited and sidelined . It is doubtful that Netanyahu really believes sanctions would end the Iranian nuclear program . That leaves one other option -- military force . Of course , Israel could order a military strike on Iran any time it chooses , but Israel 's ability to inflict significant damage on Iran 's widely dispersed and heavily defended nuclear facilities is limited . When the discussion turns to military action , what is really meant is U.S. military action . It is understandable that a foreign leader speaking in the U.S. Congress would shy away from openly asking Washington to attack another country , especially after the experience of the 2003 invasion of Iraq , which Netanyahu also lobbied for . We should recall Netanyahu 's September 2002 testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee , six months before the U.S. assault on Baghdad began , when he said : `` It 's not a question of whether Iraq 's regime should be taken out but when should it be taken out ; it 's not a question of whether you 'd like to see a regime change in Iran but how to achieve it . '' Netanyahu may have learned from that experience . He knows that the U.S. public is weary of war and has no appetite for another military adventure in the Middle East . That 's why he advocates policies that would put the United States on a path to military action without mentioning the words `` military action . '' This Israeli leader , who faces a tough election back home in two weeks , has mastered the art of policy vagueness . He applied the same strategy to the failed negotiations with the Palestinians last year , declaring he was in favor of a two-state solution but never putting forward a detailed proposal for where the border should be drawn -- or on any other substantive issue for that matter . His biggest demand once again was rhetorical -- that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state . This is an Israeli leader who believes in the power of words -- especially his words . But words are no substitute for a strategy -- and that 's where Netanyahu once again failed himself , his country and his audience .
Jeremy Ben-Ami : Netanyahu 's powerfully worded speech is no substitute for a strategy to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons . He says without a plan , the only option is to put U.S. on path to military action . Netanyahu also lobbied for Iraq invasion in 2002 , Ben-Ami says .