It's Time to Get Tough on Iran

The media has recently been rife with speculation about the possibility of a U.S. or Israeli preventive strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure -- from former CIA Director Michael Hayden's observation last month that the drift toward military action against Iran appears "inexorable" to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen's recent statement that the U.S. military has drawn up plans to attack the Islamic Republic. But, given recent developments in Iran, it is at least as likely that an increasingly belligerent Tehran will be the one that makes the move that sparks a conflict with the United States -- whether by an act of terrorism, by facilitating insurgent attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan, or by a military provocation in the Gulf or elsewhere -- unless Washington, acting with both caution and firmness, moves to avert such an eventuality.

There are a number of reasons that Iran, rather than the United States or Israel, may act first. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and other senior officials have proclaimed on numerous occasions their belief that the United States is a declining power, that the international order that underpinned U.S. influence is crumbling, and that U.S. strength has been sapped by long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In his September 2008 address to the U.N. General Assembly, Ahmadinejad asserted that the "American empire … is reaching the end of its road," while in his speech to the same body a year later, he heralded the coming demise of "liberalism and capitalism," decried the failure of "the political and economic structures created following … World War II," and called for the reform of the United Nations, the international economic order, and the entire system of international relations. Khamenei has likewise declared, during a meeting with Iranian legislators in Tehran this June, that "capitalism is collapsing" and that "big changes are taking place with regard to the position of the United States."

Iran has also been reassured by Israel's growing isolation, which it sees as part of a long-term process leading to the demise of the Jewish state, and has been emboldened by the slow but steady progress made by its own nuclear and missile programs. Thus, sensing weakness in its enemies and perceiving an opportunity, Iran's leaders might be tempted to hasten this process of "decline" by making a move intended to humiliate the United States and highlight the limits of American power.

Iran has been irked by the U.S. role in passing four rounds of U.N. sanctions and by what it sees as a hostile American hand behind the emergence of a popular democratic opposition movement. In response to the most recent round of sanctions, Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said that any countries that "inspect Iranian air and ship cargos" for contraband in compliance with the sanctions would be the target of "tough action against their ships in the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman." His warning, which was echoed by several senior military officials, might well set the stage for a naval confrontation.

Moreover, the Islamic Republic also blames the United States for the July 15 double suicide bombing of a Shiite mosque in the city of Zahedan, the latest in a series of attacks by Jundallah, a Sunni extremist group based in the southeastern province of Sistan and Baluchestan. Following the Zahedan attack, a senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officer, Brig. Gen. Massoud Jazayeri, warned that the United States will face unspecified "fallout" for this incident.

Iran also appears to be stepping up support for insurgent attacks against departing U.S. troops in Iraq, in order to create the impression that the United States was forced out of the country. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the senior U.S. military commander in Iraq, recently stated that Iran is arming and training three Iraqi groups -- Asaib Ahl al-Haq, Moqtada al-Sadr's Promised Day Brigade, and Kataeb Hezbollah -- and he warned that Kataeb Hezbollah was planning, with the help of Iranian advisors on the ground in Iraq, to ramp up attacks on U.S. troops. Indeed, one of these groups was likely behind the rocket attack three weeks ago that killed three security guards employed by the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

Relatively recent personnel changes in the Iranian military command structure have created additional concerns about Iranian intentions. Ahmadinejad's new defense minister, Brig. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi, made his career in the Quds Force -- the branch of the IRGC involved in terrorism and the export of the Islamic Revolution. He was personally implicated in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. servicemen, as well as other acts of terrorism. And the recently appointed commander of the IRGC navy, Vice Adm. Ali Fadavi, led IRGC naval forces in the Persian Gulf near the end of the Iran-Iraq War, when they were bloodied by the U.S. Navy. He is reputed to be a hard-liner driven by a desire to avenge this humiliation and the accidental 1988 downing of an Iranian jetliner by the U.S. military. Both were among the chorus of voices warning foreign powers not to board and search Iranian ships in accordance with recent U.N. sanctions.

While some of Iran's leaders may well be content to continue down the country's current path, pursuing a slow-motion nuclear breakout and stoking Arab-Israeli tensions in Gaza or Lebanon, others might welcome, for domestic political reasons, a limited conflict with the United States. This could take the form of a clash with U.S. naval forces in the Gulf or an act that prompts retaliatory U.S. airstrikes but spares Iran's economic infrastructure and its armed forces. Iran's leadership might hope that such a clash would divert attention from the economic hardships caused by sanctions, provide a pretext for a more severe crackdown on the domestic opposition, and rally a divided population behind an embattled and unpopular regime. For these reasons, diplomacy currently serves U.S. interests, while a limited conflict may serve the interests of some senior policymakers in the Islamic Republic.

12NEXT

Save big when you subscribe to FP.

ZORRO

1:00 PM ET

August 12, 2010

WW II...

... started with the Poles crossing the border and attacking a German radio station. Or at least the Germans said so...

RMALOOL

11:36 PM ET

the author is insane

this scenario is less likely than earth being hit by an asteroid. the author of this article must be on some major meds. anyone w the slightest idea about middle east would know that iran WILL NEVER strike first. that would give U.S the reason they have been looking for for the past 3 years. iran needs to play its cards as a victim if they like to get some worldwide support. this author is playing in the hands of false media propaganda. thank you mehran for selling your country. have a nice career.

JOHNBRAGG

7:14 AM ET

August 13, 2010

Why wouldn't the Iranians attack first?

WE have no balls, and are afraid of them. That's why we won't stop their nuclear program, that's why Bush didn't stop their nuclear program, that's why they can support Iraqi insurgent groups with impunity, that's why Pakistan can support the Afghan Taliban and Kashmiri terrorist groups with impunity.

Why would an Iranian action now meet a more serious response than the Khobar Towers bombing, or the seizure of British sailors a few years ago, or the Marine barracks bombing, or the Embassy seizure?

7:15 AM ET

Even this article

Even this article is a cry for the US to make loud noises and bang drums to scare the Iranians, lest they do something that would expose our weakness.

EHRENS

2:21 PM ET

Authors pulling theories out of their rectum

The authors write:

"But, given recent developments in Iran, it is at least as likely that an increasingly belligerent Tehran will be the one that makes the move that sparks a conflict with the United States..."

What, besides abdominal gas and your AIPAC connections, leads you two to this farcical theory?

AVILLA

2:53 PM ET

This article is insane fearmongering.

Iran the first to strike? Let's see how that will play out. If Iran hits the US somehow, the US unleashes its thousands of nuclear bombs and destroys the entire country. If Iran hits Israel, which essentially controls US foreign policy in the Mideast nowadays, the same thing happens. Yeah, the "American Empire" is fading--we don't need the Iranians to tell us that for it to be true. But that doesn't change the fact that we have an enormous stockpile of weapons that would make any country sh*t in its pants. Iran hasn't even got a bomb yet and by the most conservative estimates is still years away from doing so. Let's just put it this way--the likelihood of Israel deciding to bomb Iran is currently about 1000x that of Iran deciding to bomb Israel (and 1000000x that of Iran deciding to bomb America). Enough beating of the drums, its getting old.

JDON

11:40 PM ET

Low chances of WMD's being uses

@Avilla
I highly doubt if Iran and the U.S went to war, that the U.S would use any sort of WMD's.

By using nuclear weapons or other WMD's without first being the victim of such attacks would make the U.S look like a childish aggressor on the world stage. Not to mention the rules concerning the use of nuclear weapons in particular are incredibly strict and if the U.S were to be the victim of a terrorist attack by one of Iran's proxy groups, they would first have to prove this fact and secondly it still gives the U.S no right to launch WMD's at Iran, to which the majority of people killed will be Iranian civilians.

Warfare now a days is changing. Precise, targeted and even covert attacks on structures and people of importance are the way of the future. The world frowns upon the use of force on another countries innocent population.

Humans may be addicted to war, but we do learn from our mistakes. WW1 and WW2 has certainly helped us to understand better ways of warfare. Killing masses of civilians does not win wars, striking important targets does.

A nuclear weapon is designed to destroy whole populations, countries and economies. This can never be justified.

That being said, i cannot comment on what will happen if someone uses a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon against the United States first.

2:54 PM ET

Wish I could agree with you, J

But unfortunately I do not. America has learned nothing from war since World War I (or II). In many ways, in fact, I believe that it's gotten worse. No, we haven't used another nuke (yet), but we certainly have used other weapons in rather brutal ways. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Our country is addicted to war and has proven itself unreliable in terms of preemptive invasions.

FRENCHCONNECTION

3:18 PM ET

@jdon

1) there are no rules in war except winning. Then you write history

2) the idea of a nuclear strike = ALWAYS mass destruction of cities is only true as an ultimate deterrence policy. The current yield of modern nuclear weapons have changed the nature of conflicts. The strategies of destructing whole strategical nodes inclusive population like in WWII would lead to a similar retaliation from countries with real second strike capability. Actually there are only 4, maybe 5 nations able to do that if you include China. For the other ones, even if posseding nukes, all options are possible.

3) the idea of a nuclear strike scares people because it's "big" and because of radioactivity. In reality the radioactive fallout from a modern weapon is much cleaner than the one from Chernobyl and decays rapidly. The strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually killed less people than the firebombing of Tokyo and the human suffering was about the same if not worse in the case of Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg etc... But it does boggle people's mind because the destruction happens in a split second compared to days or weeks of conventional bombing.

4) tactical use of nukes combined with conventional strikes on targets implying otherwise huge collateral damage, could rapidly cripple a country without destroying it. For example a high altitude EMP strike over Iran would fry the countries electronics and probably disable huge parts of the Army, Air Force and infrastructure without causing deaths even by radiation. Use of small yield nukes (3 kt) - remember that Hiroshima was in the 10-15 category - against troop concentrations and facilities in more unpopulated areas would cause little collateral damage. The rest could be done with conventional methods. The strikes could be graduated too, like starting with an EMP and demand of surrender or else.

Point 4 (graduated tactical reply) is the one France has chosen in case of an Iranian chemica, biological or "9/11 type" attack on France or its allies. Besides the Iranian authorities have been notified just in case.

FIRST ADVISOR

3:46 PM ET

Writer Bias

Like other commentators, I am highly impressed by the wild originality and creativity of the speculation in this essay. Like wizards, sorcerers, and witches of old, the writers have thrown together some divergent substances, chanted some jingoistic slogans from the ancient past, thrown their hands around like a stage magician, and conjured up a boogeyman made of dust. The melodramatic spectacle is very entertaining and amusing.

Sadly, I was deeply disappointed to see that aside from some moralizing and admonishments, the writers had no practical solutions to offer. Anyone can tell us what we should do, from an alcoholic or whore on the street, to the pope. Vague pronouncements that the president should do this, and that, or the other, and perhaps the first thing again, are not, in reality, a great deal of useful help in the situation. Aside from sabre-rattling and making ominous,thuggish threats, what is it the writers think the president of the USA should do?

The writers should grasp their courage in both hands and actually propose some actions. Should the USA bomb cities in Iran, for instance, slaughtering fairly innocent civilian populations of men, women, and children? Do the writers think that would be a good idea? How many cities? Alternatively, what else could the US realistically do, aside from drop bombs on innocent civilians in Iran? Some firm, definite, clear suggestions and recommendations from these writers would be good to see. Instead of all this weaselly, mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy hemming and hawing and beating around the bush about the subject.

AL200

Jesus Christ

Sorry for my blasphemy but you must be thinking that the readers of FP, are stupid. I can sanely take in that Iran actually does want to produce nuclear weapons in the near future "although there is no concrete proof yet", that Iran supports Hezbollah, that Iran wants to Undermine Israel and U.S influence in the middle east "just as they undermine Iran" but youre article is an insult and im not even Iranian.

That Iran would attack first, hmmm. Wouldnt that make it sooo much easier. Of course they are the agressor and Israel and the U.S had to put the angry dog down. Clearly that goes in line with what you warmongoring people want, to attack Iran. Just say it. WE WANT TO ATTACK IRAN followed by and also start a war that will encompass half the middle east thereby creating more terrorism, more loss of life, skyrocketing oil prices and another step in the downfall of American might. Be cause the only people who benefit from a war with Iran is Israel. Way to go!

AUGUST WEST

4:04 PM ET

WINEP has zero credibility

WINEP is part of The Israel Lobby. WINEP feed us unadulterated disinformation to con the American public into supporting invading Iraq. Now it's pulling the same shameless stunt.

WINEP must have a really low opinion of the American public.

KINGK

5:08 PM ET

While Obama fiddles the uranium glows

Except for a small group of blinded apologist and appeasers for Iran, the overwhelming consensus is that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. And while Obama may feel comfortable in giving sanctions a period of time to work, the fact remains that in as little as 24 months,and perhaps sooner, Iran may complete it's first nuclear weapon. Obama is betting that the roullette wheeel will spin long.
While I have to applaud the recent efforts to pursue sanctions while also talking about "other options" and military plans to attack Iran, it does not appear that Iran is getting the message. To the contrary,all indications so far are that they are moving ahead full steam, regardless of what roadblocks are put in place to try and get them off course. Weakening the road blocks by making predictions that there is plenty of time before other measure need to be taken is not only dangerous, but it undermines the pressures Iran is forced to face in deciding what course of action to take. Indeed, if the hard line elements inside Iran percieve any weakness or backing down on the part of the US, they will surely make every effort to excellerate their program and thumb their noses at sanctions and the mixed rhetoric coming out of the Obama administration.To the extent Iran sees any sea change in US foreign policy or our ability to carry out military operations because of a perception that we are stretched too thin, it will only embolden them further.
Clearly, if Iran did have any significant fear that an attack upon them was to take place any time in the near future, they would not be announcing that they have done things like employ a second cascade to increase enrichment(to the20% level) productivity by using the second cascade to enrich tailings not enriched by the first. Such announcements, they must know, only serve to call into question their stated purposes for their program and the timing at which one can expect they will reach their goal. Indeed, if they were set on trying to reach a negotiated agreement and proving their program was for peaceful purposes only, they would simply agree to suspend all such activities until the conclusion of negotiations. Which would obviosly go a long way towards building trust and stopping the pressure, on all sides,to find a solution before it becomes too late. Hence, the only reasonable conclusion one can reach, when looking at the entire scenario (including the broken down sawp and enrich negotiations and Iran's refusal to include in the proposed Brazil deal the uranium it enriched between the breakdown of the swap and enrich deal and the Brazil deal) is that Iran has no intention of ever ceasing it's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Other wise why would the Iranian leadership risk subjecting it's citizens and infracture to a prenptive strike that could take place in a matter of mere months? Because, while Obama may be willing to let the wheel spin long, it is doubtful that Israel will take that gamble with him.

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHY

8:15 PM ET

These authors are the men we need to fear, fear ignorance.

Herdotus wrote of "Reciprocity" in 6BC, and still today we have men like these clowns that have not learned the lesson. It is even harder to believe that we are still so stupid that we don't understand that the US caused the societal deficiencies that we see in Iran, caused the lack of what we like to call human rights and freedoms. Immediately following 911 it happened here in the United States, the first bit of fear that we could be attacked on our soil cost so many Americans so many rights and freedoms (Patriot Act). In 1953 when the US CIA led the coup in Iran inserting a man (The Shah) who believed he was God (apparently a good version of Kim Jong Il). He was the Lord of Lord's the King of King's. When the US did that Iran learned they had to fear US infilitration and and loss of sovereignity. They had to control their society. Now our media is bemoans those actions we caused. Pathetic and cowardly, are the best descriptors for the writers of this article. Ignorant and misled are apparently the other qualifiers to work at the Washington Institute of Near East Policy. Ridiculous.

NICHOLAS WIBBERLEY

9:07 PM ET

...and pigs might fly

Even were there a shred of validity in this preposterous hypothesis, it would be jejune to imagine the President might be in need of these authors' advice. However, it is perhaps salutary to be reminded how these fear mongers go about their dirty business.

DEBANJAN

12:56 AM ET

@AMOSYARKONI

If you want to let us remind that Iran is holding 3 US citizens let me also remind all of you that Israel just killed a Turkish-American citizen on board Mavi Marmara.

So if you hold Iran responsible for those 3 citizens then what about the death of the Turkish-American ?

Is it that you do not give a damn about that Turkish-American since he was a Muslim and was killed by your country , Israel ?

@Avner Stein

"I don't see Jews blowing up embassies or flying planes into buildings"

Yes Jews have been doing worse things that. They are putting an illegal blockade on the people of Gaza , they have fulled the American people into going to war on Iraq and now they are baying for Iranian blood.

Actually speaking Hamas or Hezbollah did not kill as much Americans as the Jews did by imposing the immoral Iraq war upon the American and Iraqi people.

AVNER STEIN

6:17 AM ET

@Debby

"If you want to let us remind that Iran is holding 3 US citizens let me also remind all of you that Israel just killed a Turkish-American citizen on board Mavi Marmara."

This is relevant why? A Turkish-American who lived in Turkey all his life?

And this is irrelevant considering he was a combatant. You think Israel deliberately targeted an American. You are a fool.

"Yes Jews have been doing worse things that. They are putting an illegal blockade on the people of Gaza , they have fulled the American people into going to war on Iraq and now they are baying for Iranian blood."

Let's step back:

9/11 < blockading a state that is dedicated to its destruction?

Is that your final answer?

Oh, and it's perfectly legal. Israel can end trade relations with anyone. South Korea has blockaded North Korea's economy for 2 decades and over 2 million Koreans starved.

But regardless, your use of "Jew" borders on antisemitic. Dare I say, it is. Should have used Zionist instead, that's how the Waltists get by.

But sometimes they slip and their true colors show.

12:16 AM ET

August 15, 2010

Misuse of terms

Anti-semitic includes Arabs, Uighars and many other people. The continued misuse of the word doesn't make it correct. The correct term would be Anti-Jew or Anti-Israel.

As far as Israel/Palestine...I (along with pretty much everyone else) believe in the philosophy of King Solomon and whether you like it or not, it will be so. That was, is and will be the policy of the US.

NICOLAS19

2:38 AM ET

never underestimate the predictability of stupidity

You were expecting this, weren't you? All US wars started like this.
"Afghanistan attacked the US!" (it did not. Al Quaeda is not a national organization)
"Iraq wants to attack the US with its WMDs!" (it did not, nor had it WMDs)
"Iran wants to attack the US with its nuclear bomb!" (it does not, nor has it nuclear bombs)
Shame on you for posting a warmongering article like this. I sincerely hop all the American war-leaders will eventually get hanged for their war-crimes after a Nuremberg-like trial.

BUDAHH

3:38 AM ET

Iran has already struck the whole world with Terror

Israel is constantly attacked by Iran and it's proxies, most of the terror groups around Israel are funded and supplied by Iran, Hamas Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad, what do all you commentators against this article have to say about that, why why does teheran supply missiles, weapons ,and funding to terror groups which target civilians and are only destablizing the region.
Who supplies the Hooti "rebels" in yemen, who meddles in baharain, or any place with a shia population.
Who has commited the biggest terror attack on argentinian soil and killed lots of innocent vicilians, who killed marines in beirut and kidnapped westerners in lebanon.
Who keeps on killing U.S troops in Iraq nad afghanistan. Iran gives them the good IED's which cuased the most deaths for u.s troops. Iran sponsors the shia militias and even sunni groups in afghanistan as long as they kill u.s trroops and for what reason? Iran is actively killing Americans and the u.s is just taking it(don't know why) it wasn't a secret to the bush administration either.
The iranians are holding the world hostage by the threat of terrorism, they let the world know that if they are attacked there will be terror attcks against the west in america and europe and the middle east.
They are the number one state sponsor of terror in the world and the u.s is the only country stong enough to lead the effort of stopping this madness, all the Iranian regime lovers on foreign policy are saying it is crazy for teheran to attck , well they already have started a long time ago and action is needed now.
How can we let the number one state sponsor of terror have nukes it will make the world a less safer place and when you guys get your kids blown up in America you might change your mind

6:19 AM ET

Iran is the victim

Don't see you? Walt likes to crap himself around the American flag and accuses the Zionists of conspiring against him, but those Zionists save American lives and have contributed more to this country than any Islamic cesspool like Iran.

Progressives just hate America. That's why they identify with Iran, even though it's a fascist dictatorship with a terrible human rights record.

Selective morality is part of the ideology. If it doesn't fit their narrative, just sugar-coat it with anti-Israel buzzwords. All else fails, resort to ad hom attacks.

8:29 AM ET

You just dont get it

I dont think many westerners would defend an islamic theocracy, hell im catholic. But thats just it, its not about defending their human rights record or supporting the ayatolahs. The fact is that Iran is a sovereign country and if they want a goat to be their president its their choice and nobody likes to be told what to do (Israel being a prime example of this). Pressuring them and attacking them isnt gonna change any of this, just gonna piss them off and thats how you create real terrorism. By ignorantly attacking anybody who doesnt think like you and is getting powerful so you feel threatened.

6:21 PM ET

@Budahh

Iran is a mass-murderer of American citizens and sponsors two of the most powerful terrorist organizations on the planet that have scuds pointed at an historic US-ally. They've called for the destruction of a UN-member state (a violation of the UN charter) and a violation of international law.

Israel doesn't like a lot of countries, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc...but those countries are not threatening Israel's destruction while developing a nuclear program.

If the USA were Israel Obama would treat the mullahs with kid gloves. We'd bomb the state into the stone age.

6:39 PM ET

Unfortunately israel is held up to a higher standard than the

rest of the world, if we were the size of russia or china we can commit mass murder and no one would care not that we want to, the u.n is useless and controlled by fake rouge countries it should be disassembled it has lost its purpose. The arabs are delegitamizing israel's right to defend itself and the europeans are acred little kitties are getting behind some of their craziness.
Walt is a prime example that comes to show you that even if you have a phd from an ivy league school it doesn't necessarily make you smart or shows you have integrity. I think walt has different motives for his ideas and if he was as smart as he claims and likes to think he is he would be singing a different song

JKOLAK

7:41 AM ET

The authors should not

The authors should not mistake Iranian bluff and bluster for what they really think. All this talk is for internal consumption for propaganda purposes. They do not have the military capability to do the things suggested in this article.

KA5S

8:35 AM ET

Governments around the world

Governments around the world will respond to help Israel if Iran does attack first, expressing willingness, once procedures are set up, and studies of impact of the influx have been made, to accept some few thousands of Israeli refugees as a humanitarian gesture. They will of course deplore any military action, not least defence and counterattacks. Should Israel prevail, they will of course call for war crimes trials. This is how Israel's (friends* are now, so how much worse friends could they be if Israel struck BEFORE the Shahab and Sajiil rockets fly? By the way, for our Moslem friends, Ramadan mubarak!

A BALANCED VIEW

10:20 AM ET

This is a mind numbingly

This is a mind numbingly idiotic article, the premise of which is so absurd and historically insupportable that it seems impossible to believe that the same nincompoops who sold the Iraq war with precisely the same BS could possibly have the gall to turn around and try to sell that same snake oil to the war weary, economically depressed, American people. But they are.

Oh, by the way, Pakistan is OVERFLOWING with radicals who hate the US and Israel. Osama Bin Laden lives there (He ACTUALLY attacked the US). Al qeada and the Taliban control huge border areas of the country, and the military sympathizes with Al qeada. Oh yea, Did I mention that they already have nukes? That they sold nuke tech to north Korea and Iran (and probably unknown others)? And, let me get this straight; Iran is a greater threat than Pakistan, whom we refer to as our ally? Pakistan is currently at war with an actual ally, India, and constantly threatening more. Conversely, Iran has not attacked another nation (without being attacked first) for about 250 years.

The authors of this article are simply without shame. They have no regret for similar past lies (which have now come home to roost in myriad horrible ways), and no compassion for the hundreds of millions of Americans they would cast into the jaws of economic depression if they were ever successful in convincing the US to go to war with Iran, which would cause oil prices to go to about 500 per barrel, due to protracted gulf oil flow interuptions. The Iranians could keep pressure on for years, and even the THREAT of a closure or slowdown would cause oil futures to skyrocket.

Not to mention the massive new and prolonged suffering of yet another nation who was attacked preemptively for reasons which will turn out to be lies.

My god, is ANYONE gullible enough to buy this crap the second time around?

12:20 AM ET

Sadly

Sadly enough I believe that we have a rather large population of idiots and sociopaths (Tea Party).

Stephen Hawking for President.

EATBEES

12:11 PM ET

We need less bombs and

We need less bombs and bombast, more men dressed in wigs and lipstick.

RANAOBOY

2:10 PM ET

iran's first strike!

this is the most absurd article i have read, how could anyone contemplate on it when we are already counting the days when israel will attack it withou impunity! everybody is expecting an attack by israel or if not , by america on behalf of israel. so where does this idea of an iranian first strike?

FREAK.DOM

3:32 PM ET

Totally Illogical

Why would Iran give the US and Israel an opening for attacking it if it nows that it can head off a global coalition using dilatory tactics at the UN? It just seems illogical to give your enemies a pretext in attacking you. The mullahs are not that dumb. They have Saddam's example in Gulf War I to learn from.

TEXNRODEO

5:02 PM ET

Is this author for real?

It would behoove the editors of Foreign Policy to dispense with the bull*#@! and stop trying to undermine American's intellect by running such nonsense. For example, articles like this do not belong in a magazine titled "Foreign Policy" because it is a contradiction in terms. To say that this author's ideology is skewed would be an understatement. Would have us believe that Iran would strike Israel or American forces first? Does this author also hold a desk job at the Brookings Institution? If so that would explain how they can feed the same rhetorical bull*#!* to the public. Obviously, this man has never read Sandra Mackly's book "The Iranians" nor Professors Kennedy's Book "The Rise and Fall of Nations". I wonder if this author has ever been to the Middle East, or does he spend all his time in Israel? We can only speculate.

Apparently I'm not the only one who thought this was article was written on a preconceived notion that Iran would error by attacking opposing forces with vastly superior military forces. Foreign Policy, if you have men like Rummy or Dick running your magazine then please change your name to "Foreign Police" or "Foreign Pluralism". If you are going to be bias do not also be bashful in your egocentric approach to spoon feeding us such bull@*!$ from fellows at the Near East Center.

"The elitist approach, on the other hand, asserts that democracy is 'a method of making decisions which insures efficiency in administration and policy making and yet requires some measure of responsiveness to popular opinions on the part of the ruling elites. In this view, citizen involvement is primarily a check on the actions of political leadership, although there is the possibility for competition for the vote between competing elites. The classical democratic response is that the effects on human beings are of first importance, not efficiency" Lyman Tower Sargent 4th ed. 1978.

5:24 AM ET

I wish Iran

Had two proxies on our border. With an Hezbollah in Canada and Hamas in Mexico, with scuds pointed at Barack Obama's white house - I think the raging progressives and their bleeding sympathies for Israel's enemies would suddenly disappear.

Like how the Afghanistan war became suddenly okay when Obama showed up and said it was.

9:15 PM ET

August 23, 2010

How many times must this be

How many times must this be restated? I suppose indefinitely, as you will continue to misrepresent this situation ad nauseum.

If Iran was blown to bits tomorrow, Hezbollah and Hamas would continue along almost completely undeterred. They were not started by Iran, nor does Iran do anything more than offer them the same support that they receive from many other middle eastern nations and sources. In fact, Israel helped start Hamas, as they thought that they would be a counterweight to Fatah.

It's like suggesting that the entire US revolution was really a proxy war fought for the French, who assisted America. If the french had not helped, would we have laid down our arms? Not a chance, and I sincerely doubt that Iran helps hezbollad or Hamas anywhere NEAR as much as the French helped us.

Get real.

NAIUY

10:30 AM ET

September 10, 2010

g An interesting and well

g An interesting and well written post. Thanks for sharing. As commented above, The authorities certainly seem to have enough to keep him in jail for the next few decades, but if the past year is any indication, it will take more than prison to keep this tycoon away from the company he founded." Search for m2ts converter ? flv to wmv converter. Hulu Downloader

Foreign Policy Magazine

Inside National Security

It may be Iran, not the United States or Israel, that strikes the blow that sets off an international conflict. President Obama must act firmly with the Islamic Republic to prevent the situation from spiraling out of control.

BY MICHAEL EISENSTADT, DAVID CRIST | AUGUST 11, 2010

(35)