Keep up the internal pressure through these riots. After all, these are the same (student) groups who back in 1979 were responsible for the overthrow of the Shah. They are "combat hardened and ready".

All throughout its 30 year in power, neither IRG, nor the Basij, or even the Mullah themselves have been challenged in any real and serious manner as it is seen today throughout Iran.

Like the saying goes, "a barking dog, never bits". This regime have been doing just that. It is just a matter of time, before this regime will collapse under its own weight and fall. After which, a new secular and democratically elected government will assume power in Iran.

Once elected, the new PM will declare halt on all Iran's military nuclear program. With only the civilian one will continue. Leaders of Hizbollah will be told, "Take a hike" .

Iran will then re-join the international community in constructive manner. including full peace with Israel.

"Preventing nuclear war between Iran and Israel would be more difficult than it ever was to avoid a nuclear confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union."

Great.

OK, then GET RID of the ISRAELI nuclear weapons in the region!!!!

FP editor: What is the point of getting someone from Israel and another pro-Zionist, to comment on the Iranian nuclear program? It is not credible -- just like the recent article by the spy Steven Rosen who sold out the US.

The source matters to your readers.

The ONLY weapons that currently exist in the middle east are the ISRAELI ones.

Get a clue.

Israel is not an NOT member, has nukes, and as the Goldstone report points out the IDF harbors war criminals.

Read the National Defense University report on how deterrence WILL work for Iran: (written by real experts not talkng head fools)

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/mcnair/mcnair69/mcnairpdf.pdf

And the letter last year in the Washington Post, cited on the FAS website that references the NDU report:

[http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/12/figuring-out-fordow.php ]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102702552_pf.html

Iran’s Nuclear Aspirations

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Daniel R. Coats and Charles S. Robb are correct that a nuclear-armed Iran would be intolerable and would cause a domino effect of further nuclear weaponization in the region ["Stopping a Nuclear Tehran," op-ed, Oct. 23].

However, to deal properly with Iran, one must not overhype the threat but rather attempt to understand Iran’s motivations, something that the National Defense University at Fort McNair has done.

A 2005 NDU study concluded that Iran desires nuclear weapons mainly because it feels strategically isolated and that “possession of such weapons would give the regime legitimacy, respectability, and protection.”

In other words, Iran desires nuclear weapons for the purpose of deterrence, just like every other nuclear-armed nation.

The NDU study continued, “[W]e judge, and nearly all experts consulted agree, that Iran would not, as a matter of state policy, give up its control of such weapons to terrorist organizations and risk direct U.S. or Israeli retribution.”

And it said the “United States has options short of war that it could employ to deter a nuclear-armed Iran and dissuade further proliferation.”

The most sensible way to approach the Iranian nuclear issue would be to work seriously toward confidence building and eliminating nuclear weapons from the entire Middle East, including those in Israel.

==========

The NDU report cited is avialable here:

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/mcnair/mcnair69/mcnairpdf.pdf

====================================================

What the US does NOT need is these types of pro-Zionist authors who have subverted our FP, and rob US taxpayers of $14m each DAY.

Israel is not our 51st state. Cut it loose.

Here is what a pro-Israel, Jewish knighted UK member of parliament has to say about Israel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGuYjt6CP8

Why do I want only these Zionist loonies to have nukes in the middle east? Get rid of ALL nukes in the middle east.

Iran is probably seeking nukes ___**because**__ of the Israeli nukes.

Clueless professors.

the important bit from above:

A 2005 National Defense University study concluded that Iran desires nuclear weapons mainly because it feels strategically isolated and that “possession of such weapons would give the regime legitimacy, respectability, and protection.”

In other words, Iran desires nuclear weapons for the purpose of deterrence, just like every other nuclear-armed nation.

The NDU study continued, “[W]e judge, and nearly all experts consulted agree, that Iran would not, as a matter of state policy, give up its control of such weapons to terrorist organizations and risk direct U.S. or Israeli retribution.”

And it said the “United States has options short of war that it could employ to deter a nuclear-armed Iran and dissuade further proliferation.”

The most sensible way to approach the Iranian nuclear issue would be to work seriously toward confidence building and eliminating nuclear weapons from the entire Middle East, including those in Israel.

==========

The NDU report cited is avialable here:

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/mcnair/mcnair69/mcnairpdf.pdf

While the authors make one or two excellent points, there are so many things wrong here that its makes its very hard to take them seriously.

Firstly, the discussion about the lack of communication and channels of discussion between the two parties is absolutely spot on. This is the most vital part of any sort of "balance of terror" between two powers, and represents probably the greatest reason to be afraid of a nuclear Iran - the possibility of nuclear exchange not out of malice or strategy but out of miscommunication and miscalculation. Immediate steps to rectify this would be in the interests of all parties (though, as the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks showed, the communication channels between nuclear powers can represent a tempting target for extremists and trouble makers).

Regarding the "existential" threat from Iran, both the writers should know better than to trot out the same old nonsense. The "wipe off the map" comment is particularly stupid, as no such phrase exists in Persian. The butchering of cold war history is also ridiculous ("We will bury you", anyone?), as is bringing in Nasserite era politics. By mentioning Egypt, of course, the authors completely undermine their own point in light of Egypt's subsequent changes of direction on the Israel issue. Referring to Nasser's tank divisions as Panzers is ridiculous and childish name calling and so far beneath the dignity of a professional publication that I am amazed it was allowed to pass. Also, in their continuing assault on history, the authors fail to mention that Israel was the aggressor in 1967.

Regarding the second strike potential, simply throwing around comparative land areas is another lazy trick, when you fail to mention Israel's submarine based, and thus largely untouchable, nuclear capability. They also fail to recognise that within the area Iran would be destroying with any potential nuclear strike there exists not only a number of religiously important sites for the Islamic faith but also a large civilian population of Palestinians - whose support and supposed "struggle for liberation" provide the Iranian regime with an enormous amount of legitimacy both domestically and in the region.

Finally, the authors fail to mention that Iran has not one, but several nuclear near neighbours, the most threatening of whom after Israel is Pakistan. This is not simply an extension of the Middle East politics of the 1960s and 1970s - instead, this is a much wider issue. Any argument about the feasibility or desirability of an Iranian nuclear capability much be grounded on an appreciation of this wider context. Israeli - it ain't all about you.

In Swahili they say "why buy the cow, if you can get the milk for free".
Why go through costly, dangerous, and arduous effort of destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. - when a much easier method will be by far more effective to remove the regime.

If we remember Reagans "star War" program of the 1980's. Its objective was insidious and as turned out a very effective. Forced USSR to spend all their rubles on far fetch (and very expensive) military, until their economy collapsed, and rest is history.

The same tactic can be employed on the Mullahs.
A. since US forces already surrounding Iran, a very effective campaign to force IRG ro disperse its forces over Iran's vast territory, thus reduce its effectiveness as military force.

B. Force the regime to spend all its budget (80% comes from oil) on military la la land. Such that, no money left for their generous welfare program, or other essential services.

C. The sheikhs in Saudi Arabia will flip the switch to increase oil supply to the market, until price pbb goes down to $25.

Brave Iranians take to the street - this time with far more reasons to riot. Accusing the regime of putting the interest of the Palestinian & Hizbollah ahead of the Iranians themselves.

isn't enough that one of the "scholar" is already defending your country?

I cant get how these so-called two "scholars" teaching international relations at world-renowned schools can publish such a primitive and one-sided article which lacks any vivid analytical reasoning but repeating what Israeli politicians say in public. FP should not allow such unscholarly publication really.

Why FP does not assing a similiar task on the topic such as 'ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND STABILITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST' to provide for a marketplace of ideas in such important discussion?

I find it interesting that the other major player in this war game is not even mentioned. It is not The United States, it is not really Israel either. It is Saudi Arabia. Who controls the world oil market? Who controls the great banking assets? Who attacked the United States and got away with it? Who controls the Muslim Brotherhood? Who did the United States defend with it's own children when Iraq exerted it's power? Who has remained in Saudi Arabia as it's personal military forces? Who is behind the Yemeni Tribal attacks against Saudi Arabia?

Why does Iran feel like it needs Nuclear weapons? To defend themselves from a country that has never attacked them in a physical or substantial way? Iran feels it needs to prevent an attack from a country that could of done so for over 50 years if it chose?

How do the Wahhabi stay out of the news when they are the aggressors?

But this is an argument and all I have is questions, such as:

Why is the Balfour declaration never discussed?
Why does the Islamic world, with all of Palestine except for a little sliver given to the Zionist bring attack after attack? Is not Jordan a Palestinian country? Why didn't the people of the coast take the land offered in the Balfour Decision as another Palestinian state?

Why did Muhammed Amin al-Husseini (The British appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) order all Arabs from the lands awarded to Israel before the 1948 war?
Was this done to give the five armies a clear killing field when the Islamic armies attacked and then the people could return and take any land they wanted?

Why isn't Muhammed Amin al-Husseini's relationship with Adolph Hitler discussed more openly? Why isn't the Muslim S.S. Division of Hitler's southern army discussed? Why are the 682,000 Jews, Gypsies, Christians and others (apprx) taken to a death camp by this division as noted in history books but not discussed?

I am an anthropologist who works in South America with indigenous populations and when I hear their histories from them I learn the truths.

Answer questions like these and strip them of their agendas and spin and we will see a different case put before us. I don't believe any of them.

Anyone thinks that Iran will actually use their nuclear weapons against Israel has no business commenting on this issue. Two points eviscerate this argument:

(1) In the International System, Iran is no different than any other state wishing to acquire nuclear weapons. Regardless of its desire to drive Israel into the sea, it knows that it is incapable of doing so, even if it has nuclear weapons. In the international system, all states are rational actors, including Iran.

(2) The strength of Nuclear Deterrence cannot be disputed. The there are no credibility issues in when MAD is present in a Type I Deterrence situation. The fact is, Iran will cease to exist if it uses nuclear weapons! I am sorry, regardless of any nonsense put forward by these neocon idiots, Iran will not commit suicide. There is NO WAY that Iran will EVER nuke Israel.

Despite what this article says, actually, Krushchev went to the UN and said that Russia would bury America. Was that an "existential"
threat too? Whatever. Rhetoric is as rhetoric does.
BTW, how can there be a "nuclear war" between Israel and Iran if only
Israel currently has nukes?
Oh, so this is supposed to convince us all that Israel might just as well nuke Iran now, preemptive like? Well, whatever, but I am beginning to smell fear amongst the AIPAC and neo-con crowd. Is Israel actually AFRAID of Iran? Or is it just their beltway supporters?

The National Defense University report on deterrence and Iran is available here:

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/mcnair/mcnair69/mcnairpdf.pdf

A Middle East where more and more states have nuclear arms, known to experts as a saturated multiplayer environment, will present an almost insurmountable challenge for deterrence calculations by regional or external powers, and a still greater risk of serious instability. As in the previous comments was told, are there written true facts about Middle East?
Ylod