You say:

"... they will be once again facing off against the Revolutionary Guards. In the end, "smart" sanctions are those that can cripple the Iranian energy sector -- the lifeblood of the men who rule Iran."

crippling Iranian energy sector also threatens the average Iranian. While the guards can do buisiness with the Chinese or in the black market easily, the average Iranian will have to rely on the guards even further to make ends meet. And how do you expect them to come out and protest when they dont have food on their tables? Or when they lose their jobs to another man willing to obey the laws of the land?

This article is nothing but wishful thinking and full of Idiotic policies.

It seems the only reason Mark Dubowitz/Noah Chesnut favor unilateral US sanctions on Iran is because they agree with Treasury's Stuart Levey, who says "the IRGC [is] consolidat[ing] control over broad swaths of the Iranian economy, displacing ordinary Iranian businessmen in favor of a select group of insiders."
Why it's anyone's business outside Iran how Iran decides to organize its political economy is unclear.
Iran's alleged engagement in "dangerous or illicit activity that violates international law norms," which includes support for "WMD-related and terrorist activities" cannot be a reason, at least not a serious one, because these are allegations for which Treasury has not made public any supporting evidence. Without evidence, it's just ad hominem. Without some further clarification from these two defenders of democracy, I hesitate -- but only slightly -- to say that ad hominem is enough for them to urge pressing forward with sanctions (financial and energy).
One other possible reason is that D/C simply like Treasury-style sanctions, which are based on threatening companies that do business with Iran either with denied access to the US market or an international smear campaign. These sanctions only work because non-Iranian actors want to avoid the punishing hand of Washington. But this is just an exercise in raw power. It has nothing to do with principle or moral action.
Lastly, D/C don't mind mixing in a little false empathy for Iranians. So let's clarify: Dubowitz likes "energy sanctions" because they "are an extension of a comprehensive economic warfare strategy designed" in part to "feed the flames of discontent" in the only way possible: increasing the suffering of the Iranian people. As for the impact of energy sanctions on the Revolutionary Guards, see my "Why it's anyone's business" comment above.
Chestnut charges a commenter with moral bankruptcy. Perhaps the shoe fits elsewhere.

Actually there is a much easier way to cripple the mullahs. The answer is right at the US's doorstep. Tell companies like Wal-Mart, and HSBC, "make a choice, deal with China who get almost free oil that provides the energy for Wal-Mart's suppliers in China.

The arguments we get are, "oh but no one can argue with the Chinese, because they own all those US Bonds", which is nonsense. If the US wants to, they can tell Wal-Mart to make a choice.

But I sort of connected the dots myself years ago.

I opened the link to the article and expected to find 90 billion reasons why nobody should attack Iran. What I got, however, reads more like a sporting column, and a shoddily written one at that.
Anyway. who sad you can’t apply sanctions to a country AND attack it or indeed BEFORE you attack it? I don’t know why, but Japan comes to mind.
The header itself is a real giveaway. If sanctions are working, logically, there must be a villain to this piece (no guessing who…), and indeed that is the baseline message. It says Iran is, or intends to, violate NPT.
Consider this quote from “Iran's Nuclear Program” by Muhammad Sahimi (readily available in Internet, published in Payvand):
“If Iran has violated certain aspects of the Safeguards Agreement by not reporting to the IAEA what it has been doing (which is still a matter of debate), it has not been the LONE violator. (…) the IAEA has reported that South Korea, Taiwan, and Egypt have, at various times, violated the provisions of the NPT by secretly engaging in experiments on uranium enrichment AND EVEN BOMB MAKING. Brazil (…) refused, for a long time, granting permission to the IAEA to visit and inspect its uranium enrichment facilities under construction. Where is the international outcry over these violations?” (my emphasis)

There have been spats between Iran and the IAEA, of course, but remember, spats don’t automatically translate into violations on Iran’s part, nor need we presume the IAEA is always right.

Consider the following instance, provided again by Sahimi:
“On Friday September 12, 2003, the 35-member governing board of the IAEA gave Iran an ultimatum until October 31 to prove that her nuclear program is strictly for peaceful purposes, by providing all the details of her nuclear program. Iran's reaction was mixed: On one hand, she reacted with indignation, calling the ultimatum "premature" and "unfair," while stating, on the other hand, that she will continue working with the IAEA. It should be pointed out that even Ms. Melissa Fleming, the spokeswoman for the IAEA, conceded that the ultimatum was "highly unusual" in that it was adopted WITHOUT A VOTE.” (Sahimi’s emphasis).
The author therefore concludes, “ (…) much of the dispute with the IAEA is political, rather than scientific or technological.” To cap it all, Iran has to prove a negative, and proving negatives is a tiring business for anybody. No, no. No due process here!
Just two thinks before I sign off: 1) the game looks like trying to get Iran to opt out of NPT and expose itself to any accusation under the sun (Powell docet). 2) We’re taking about sanctions actually “working”, are we!? Am I supposed to be greatly relieved and thankful to the author of this article for his valuable information? The fact is, I have yet to learn of even one unequivocal violation of NPT on Iran’s part - and I would have (as would we all) had this actually been the case. There may be a lot of umming and aahing going on, but that’s the way of the world and absolutely nothing to get excited about.
FP pundit Steve Walt writes that Israel has many false friends. So has peace, FP among them.
The debate needs upping. That’s up to you media folks.

The Green Movement’s defiant legions remain undaunted in the face of brutal repression. Daily Beast contributor Jason Shams defines the group’s motto as, “Each Iranian is a media outlet.” And they practice what they preach.

As Shams observes, “the computer students are all over the place with their backpacks filled with flash drives and proxy programs, always a step ahead of the bearded dinosaurs and their dying ideologies.”

Moreover, while Americans generally use Facebook and Twitter to pour over the excruciating minutae of modern life, the Greens employ these social networking websites to disseminate information, plan operations and mobilize their organization.

Armed with camera phones, laptops and an iron will, these courageous individuals communicate their message to the world even without the journalists imprisoned by Ahmadinejad’s repressive regime.

Read more @ http://armchairfirebrand.wordpress.com/

i think; the usa cant stop to iran.
sex videolar?

middle/working class pocketbooks and their prospect for keeping their jobs, not on the regime!
Mr. DubowItz's affiliation with an organizations made up of an extremist group of neo-cons, Likudniks and Israel-firsters, that has pushed the US into war in Iraq by using lies, forged documents and pure spin, indicates that the author has no qualms to hurt the Iranian people no matter what. The author and the treacherous clique he belongs to have used sanctions and wars of choice to kill as many Iraqis they can, loot their resources and now they are after the Iranian people's country and resources.
Just like the sanctions advocate and pushed by the gangs like the one Mr. Dubowltz belongs to cause the death and economic misery for numerous Iraqi kids and other civilians while Saddam and his cronies made millions, these sanctions will hurt the Iranian middle/working class in the pocketbook while leaving the regime bigwigs to enrich themselves.
Sanctions will cause price hikes and unemployment among the people who are engaged in a serious uprising against the Iranian regime. At the same time, the sanctions will provide perfect excuses for the regime to blame the US and the West for bringing unemployment and misery to the people. As the result the Iranian people will have no choice other than looking to the regime to help them feed their families.
The American people have been deceived by the likes of Mr. DubowItz before, their sons and daughters have perished in Iraq and now Afghanistan for very little positive results; the US national interests have be sacrificed for the hegemonic interests of the Israeli Apartheid regime for nothing and this clique seems to be working on pushing the US towards another war slowly but surely.
These traitors must be exposed and stopped before it is too late.

With all due respect to the two individuals from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, I see nothing in the article nor in Noah Chestnut's comments that gives me any comfort whatsoever.

They both are so willing to support sanctions, and the argument seems to be centered over whether or not sanctions will work and what types of sanctions should we use. But neither answers the question of why we should even put sanctions on Iran, or interfere with that part of the Middle East.

Iran has never attacked nor threatened the United States. Sure, it's threatened to retaliate if attacked by the United States, but that is completely different from threatening to launch a first strike (in fact, retaliation or defense from foreign attack is the rightful responsibility of any government). Have they attacked US soldiers in Iraq? I'm sure they have, but remember that Iran and the USA have been enemies for half a century. America has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which border Iran. Iran probably--and probably rightfully--sees those American troops as a threat to its national security (our constant threats and presidential candidate John McCain's "Bomb Iran" song probably didn't help much). As for the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb, the 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate found that Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and has since showed no signs pursuing a new one. Ignoring such intelligence is no different than the Bush Administration ignoring intelligence suggesting that Iraq didn't have WMDs before the Iraq War. And even if Iran did get a nuke, why wouldn't deterrence work like it did with the Soviet Union for half a century?

So why must we go after Iran? To protect Israel? A country with the highest military spending and largest (meaning "only") nuclear arsenal in the Middle East? Israel should be responsible for its own defense (as if it would ever come to ours). Putting our country between Iran and Israel only makes us a target for those who would otherwise not wish to do us harm. American citizens should not be put at risk to defend Israel or any other foreign nation.

The individuals from the FDD do not seem to realize that sanctions are considered an act of war, and yet are applied to other countries so casually by our government.. Actually, the author of the article does seem to realize it:

"Energy sanctions are an extension of a comprehensive economic warfare strategy designed to weaken the Revolutionary Guards and feed the flames of discontent."

The scary part is he sees this as a GOOD thing. Mr. Chestnut also champions "Iranian democratization", which is simply a positive-sounding euphemism for "war" (and I seriously doubt either men lack the intelligence to realize this). Their belief is that for the "crimes" of the Iranian government--and the Iranian government has certainly committed crimes, but against their own people rather than the United States--we should punish and inflict suffering upon the Iranian people! This is the same mentality Al Qaeda terrorists have when attacking American civilians in retaliation for our foreign policy! Perhaps we should go all the way, adopting the Saudi legal system and punishing rape victims for their own rapes!

The very notion that the Obama Administration should engage in sanctions that punish innocent people abroad is more than just foolish; it is immoral and unethical.

It is also dangerous for the American people. The author states that the Iranian people wouldn't rally around the flag, but rather target the current regime. That's quite the assumption. The "rally 'round the flag" concept has been observed numerous times throughout the history to the point where it's one of the first things taught in any low-level Political Science course. If the Iranian people's suffering is coming from an outside source (namely America), to think that they wouldn't direct their anger and hate towards that source is foolish. But even if the flames of discontent are fed, the idea that they would suddenly open their arms to America is even more foolish. Even disregarding the history of US-Iranian relations (including deposing a democratically elected leader, supporting the dictator Shah, and supporting Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran War, all of which many Iranians certainly remember quite vividly), the fact is that any action taken by the United States against Iran will drive the Iranian people to resent and hate the US more, if it doesn't completely drive the populace to support the current regime. Sowing the seeds of hatred can be dangerous, as we saw on 9/11.

In short, economic sanctions are a bad idea. Sure they feed the flames of discontent, but those people will hate America as much as their current regime. There is also no reason for us to conduct any type of warfare.against Iran (and indeed Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution requires Congress to declare war before such warfare begins. Perhaps these two individuals would like to rethink their support for sanctions, if only for the sake of support the rule of law and the Constitution which is the highest law of the land). This is a country that has never attacked nor threatened the United States nor is in any place to do so. The fact that the regime is oppressive matters not.

Perhaps the two gentlemen from FDD ought to rethink their unbridled support for endless war in the Middle East. Perhaps peace with these countries would better serve our interests. Mr. Chestnut writes:

"If sanctions are not the answer, then what action should be taken?"

The answer is to keep the American government out of Iran and the Middle East. Let individuals, investors, and businesses engage peacefully with their people in a free market environment.

Freetrader:

1) What's wrong with what Diplomate posted? Most of it is correct. Why don't you respond by refuting the evidence instead of taunting? Speaking of refuting evidence:

2) HSBC is a British bank, not a Chinese one. It's headquarters are in London and they do business all over the world.

A quick look at the website of his organization will show you that is a front company in the war against Israels enemies, being waged on American ground. You will on the frontpage of that website find references to some of the most ardent neo-conservatives like Michael Ledeen and Reuel Marc Gerecht .
He also quotes the "Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
"r Stuart Levey, who from his Washington office conducts his own undeclared war against Iran. Both are American citizens acting for a foreign government (Israel) - something that is illegal according to the US Constitutions. Anf they do it so srewdl as to try to convince Americans that their interests are the same as Israels.

Burt a brief look (CLICK) at this article , will tell you that the ones that Levey targets -- "Palestinian extremists.", Hezbollah, Iranian banks, [ and his personal idea:International banks that deal with Iran (he has personally met with 5 dozen] and now Iran's Republican Guard -- are jexactly the same as Israel has an interest in targetting.

HSBC was founded in Hong Kong by the Scots and moved its registered office to London. It is British, I should know I worked for them.

Anyway back to sanctions - what is our desired outcome. If we focused on that and the problems we are trying to address, rather than the process we might start to develop a better plan and bring our allies with us.