There will never be a velvet revolution in Iran. The Clergy, the real rulers, not the dancing Monkey Ahmedinajad, in Iran will not do as the last Shah and decide that it is better to step down than spill blood. Unlike the Shah, the Clergy has no concerns about Western opinion of brutal repression.

The structures of Iranian government are built on the clergies paranoia. The Clergy basically ruled Iran for 500 years since the inception of the Safavid era declaring Iran a Shia state. The first Shah Pahlavi was a severe shock for the clergy as he separated the state from religion and started to secularise the country as Attaturk was doing in Turkey. The new Iranian state gave Jews, as well as other minorities equal civil rights. It should not be forgotten that Iran historically abused the Jewish community on a par with the worst excesses of Europe. Harsh anti-Jewish laws, massacres and forced conversion of Jews was the norm.

The clergy never got over what happened during the Pahlavi's short dynasty so when they returned to power with Ayatollah Khomeini they immediately formed the Iranian Revolutionary Guard whose primary purpose is to protect the Clergy, their political status and insure both the Islamic and the Shia nature of the state. The IRG are the largest military force in Iran and also one of, if not the largest business entities to ensure funding for the regime and their 'activities'. It is the IRG who is responsible for the nuclear program in Iran. There is no parallel in the west for the IRG. Consequently the notion that regime will soon fall to civil opposition is nothing short of pure fantasy.

I agree sanctions will not deter the regime, only slow it down, and like Sadam Hussein Iranian leaders will continue on with no regard for the suffering of the public. Sanctions ultimately are a feel good measure for those who have no appetite for military adventure but wish to say they tried and are doing something.

I am sure Alireza Nader knows all of this, so not challenging his good intentions, if Mr. Nader is going to argue against stricter sanctions he needs to offer up some realistic alternatives.

Yes, Iran is not a beacon of perfection. And yes, Iran has a long way to go before it can assume the mantle of a religiously tolerant and liberal state. However, it is moving forward, undettered by much of what the "West" has to say. Which is, essentially, "That we, the "West", do not like a Middle-Eastern/Asian state like Iran assuming a strong geopolitical posture against our hegemonic powers essential to controlling and obtaining those resources necessary to our nations' needs.

The Shah, a Western creation, of course was the opposite. He was the monkey who played to the "Western" tune. Therefore, after some time, he was kicked out of power. I feel the moral of this sad story is simple: If history tells us anything, it's that when governments (maybe like the USA, China or Russia) meddle in the development of other nations (like Iran and Iraq) then the chance of hard-line leaders coming into play increases and international isolation becomes a reality.

I'm surprised people still keep writing this kind of article.

In effect, there is only one paragraph devoted to punishing "Iran's ruler's" rather than its "people" in the entire article. It involves discussion of restricting access to financial markets for the Revolutionary Guards. And even then the author states that the impact of this measure is limited. So what does he propose? He writes: "America's best ally in this fight will be the Iranian people, many of whom are now risking their lives for change and a better future." That's undoubtedly true as a standalone observation. But how is that supposed to be translated into concerete measures? How can this not be perceived as foreign meddling in an otherwise domestic (internal) challenge to the Iranian regime, asuming the USA does more than just sit by and watch what happens? During the unrest after the Summer elections, all opposition groups were urging the West to provide passive, moral support without getting involved any further. I am not disputing the significance of the author's observation - my family in Iran constitute ordinary Iranians who would be hit by further sanctions - but how is the policy of "Punish Iran's Rulers, Not Its People" supposed to be implemented with tangible, workable measures? This fundamental question has hardly been addressed in this article.

Also, given the economic stranglehold that the Revolutionary Guard has on Iran's economy, making life difficult for them ultimately will make life more difficult for ordinary Iranians. So the entire concept of "Punish Iran's Rulers, Not Its People" is somewhat self-contradictory.

How about engaging in REAL dialogue with Iran rather than superficial ones as a way out of the impasse? For example, a phased exchange of low-enriched uranium (LEU) for HEU (for use in the medical reactor), seems perfectly sensible and fair given Iran's and the West's track record in terms of deception and lying. It would help build confidence, which is in dire need right now. Let us not forget, in the past the West had made a number of contractual obligations in the nuclear field with Iran which it subsequently unilaterally reneged. The West has also fabricated evidence to allege that Iran's nuclear program has a military dimension. Surely by reducing Iran's stockpile of LEU by some fraction is better than not at all. Instead, Obama & Co. are trying to portray Iran's recent response as a rejection of negotiations earnestly sought by the West. It is becoming quite clear that the USA was seeking consensus before pushing ahead with further sanctions.

Obama's so-called reaching out to and engagement with Iran is proving to be a smokescreen.