The Logic of a NYTimes Editorial

A New York Times editorial this morning contained this:

Stopping Iran’s nuclear program is crucial. Mr. Obama’s approach — a serious diplomatic overture followed by tougher sanctions if talks fail — is risky but worth it. Yes, the clock is ticking as Tehran’s capability improves. But Mr. Netanyahu should not artificially constrain Mr. Obama’s initiative. And Mr. Obama must discourage any move by Mr. Netanyahu to lead Israel, or push the United States, into unnecessary military action.

Now, the word "risky" is in there.

Risky for whom?

If its risky for the US, then maybe Obama needs a more aggressive policy.

If its risky for Israel, who is the US to put 7,000,000 persons, most Jews, at risk due to a misguided policy?

If its risky, why would military action be unnecessary?

Maybe reading NYTimes editorials is risky?