So let me get this straight, Israel can claim 'ambiguitiy' over nukes but Iran who is publicly stating 'we're not interested in nukes' is only good for a 'defensive' war started by yourselves? I've heard it all now.

And as long as Israel defends nuclear ambiguity as 'strategic advantage', Iran can also defend it's nuclear ambiguity as 'strategic advantage'. So leave Iran alone as long as the neocons allow Israel and to defend it's nuclear ambiguity as 'strategic advantage'.

If the US and Israel want Iranian nuclear transparency, then Israel better be just as tranparent.

This whole Iran issue is only being pushed by people whose loyalties are with Israel and it is to the detriment of America's interests.

Iran has not broken a single article of the NPT, and there is no evidence behind anything essential they are being accused of.

The war drums, fear mongering, racism, all the rest, and all the noise we are hearing is AIPAC/Israel lobby/ Israel firsters/ Israeli agitation-propaganda trying to get their way and have America fight a war for Israel which is not in the US interests...just like Iraq. Remember Iraq and Iran were/are the two major foreign policy threats to Israel, not America. Reject and ignore all the propaganda.

Given the rate of approach to Global Peak Oil, the ME will have the only oil besides in Russia within a few more years, not 10 to 20.

Pretty soon, the Saudi rulers will have to choose between continuing to be US puppets and losing their lives or throwing the US out and continuing to rule. Iraq and Iran are already anti-US as are most of the other Caspian Sea oil producers.

Note that while the US has been attempting to control the oil by force and failing, China has been making lots of friends with oil around the world and now has contracts for a vast majority of all the future oil. China also has lots of CASH and the US has none (we gave it all to China)

It will not be too many more years when Americans will have to choose between supporting Israel and having sufficient oil to sustain their economy. My guess is that when American's lifestyles are threatened, they will quickly and efficiently throw Israel to the wolves,as they should, and just turn up the volume on their TVs when Israelis yell in anger or with their never ending victim rhetoric.

Israelis do not seem to understand this. Israelis seem to think the US will ALWAYS protect Israel, and history shows that will never be true.

Wars and military actions create more problems, they do not solve any. So everyone wants the US to whack some favored enemy of theirs or other and we just go right along with it like automatons??? Using our money and blood, and risks... what nonsense this policeman of the world thing is, it makes no sense for one, and we can't afford it for another, and thirdly but not lastly lots of innocent people get killed too...

Exactly the same people who beat the drum for war with Iraq are doing the same with Iran, and over the same issue of WMD. They got it wrong last time at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dead. Under any sane system (ie one not dominated by Israel's lobby) these people would be called to account. You don't get a voice this time round unless you can explain why you got it so wrong last time and why we should believe you this time.

I normally find myself disagreeing with most of your arguments (especially those on the 2009 election), but I think you make a very strong point here. Clearly, normalization of relations with Iran, a la China or Egypt, would do far more to secure Israel, especially in the long term, than an attack. That being said, there are a number of questions I have that I cannot find an answer to:

How would President Obama accomplish any kind of normalization? This won't be easy politically, and it will effectively spell the end of his political career. Would it even last?

How would the US approach Iran in attempting to normalize relations? How would the regime in Tehran receive such approaches? Would they be viewed as an opportunity to be taken or a sign of weakness? Wouldn't the regime be undermining its own legitimacy, especially among its most ardent supporters by dismantling a critical pillar (anti-Americanism) of the Islamic Republic? This is especially important now, considering the widespread protests last summer and the widening divisions among the conservative elite.

A normalization of relations with Iran would have broader implications - it would allow us to effectively address (and end) the threat that Hezbollah poses to Israel, and perhaps be the first step in cementing some sort of lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It's certainly a nice idea, but we need to give more thought into how this would be implemented and what the Iranian response would be.

I'm neither a war hawk nor a pacifist. Ahmadinejad's genocidal statements cannot be ignored. I really don't see Israel sitting this out. http://bethsaidafigtree.wordpress.com/

That is its right. There will be consequences of course, but Israel has by far the best equipped military in the region. Iran, as has been observed, is viewed with more trepidation by some Arabs than is Israel. A worldwide economic depression might follow as a result of the tripling of oil prices, but, whats a worldwide economic depression among friends?

No one asks the US to commit even a single soldier to israel's defense. In fact, the last thing Netayahu wants is an American military solution because then he will have to pay with the deepest concessions vis-a-vis the PA, which is greater threat to israel than iran is by sheer demography. Nor does he ask for American laissez-faire, because American's cannot see Israeli jets or missiles on their way. Examples: the 1981 Osirak strike over Saudi airspace not seen by AWACS. The 1985 strike in Tunisia not seen by the Sixth Fleet. The 2007 strike on eastern Syria within a stone's throw of Iraqi air-space, not seen by American or Turkish (NATO equipped). As for the fall-out of oil prices, well then, its time to buy an electric car isn't it? Israeli technology will make this available 3 months hence.
As for the attractiveness of the US for Israeli PhD's, why is it that Better Place, Intel, Motorolla, and every other american firm worth its salt maintains its development center in Israel? How come Israeli firms are represented in the NASDAK ahead of every other nation but the USA which is 50 times larger?
Taking ideological cues from Barak and Sneh is like taking ideological cues from Barack Obama about the nature of the Middle America Bible-belt. Although security minded they are the relics of a failed political entity now having its death-throes.
So please, endorse American non-action and appeasement, indeed this is not 1939 and Israel is fully capable of defending itself against the judeo-cidal maniacs of Iran. Buy an EV while they are still cheap.
Yuval Brandstetter MD, Lehavim, Israel

Israel/US attacking Iran is by no means better than the other way around. It's just as bad. "Let us be warmongers first just to stop them becoming just as aggressive as us!" The worst part is that the idiotic American hawks and their blindfolded vassals (all countries participating in the occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq) buy that crap.

I've read quite a number or articles on this issue, should Israel attack, shouldn't Israel attack, should the U.S. attack, shouldn't the U.S. attack. But what I feel is always missing is a discussion of what the people advocating a strike by Israel or the U.S. think the outcome would be. There is much discussion of why the hawks think a strike is necessary, but as far as I can tell, no discussion of what the imagined positive result would be. Someone will probably respond by saying that the hawks are warmongering fools who haven't given it much thought, but that is evading the question. I'm sure at least some of the hawks have attempted to consider the likely results of a strike, and I'd really like to hear what people from that camp think they would be. I'd really like to hear them describe how and why it would play out well, as I just don't see it.

The heat generated by what's written above has caused me to seek shelter in minimalism. I don't think we should go to war with Iran because we can't afford it moneywise.. That this has not deterred the warrior trio of US, Israel and Iran on prior occasion is lamentable but should at this point finally send 'em shuttling to their piggy banks to check out all those IOUs. Either that, or investigate the viability of really cheap wars. And ,no, not like the Taliban's.

You can tell when someone's arrgument is weak when they blatantly misstate their opponents case. I am unaware of anyone calling for war with Iran. No one is calling for war with Iran.

There are hawks who are calling a day of airstrikes on Iran if sanctions don't work. That would be a very serious act of aggression, even if it is ultimately defensive in nature, but it is not war.

How about an honest article for a change?

Israel's unofficial possession of nuclear weapons alone weakens any U.S./Israeli opposition to such weapons in the hands of other Mid-East actors. Hypocritical. Double-standard. All of the above.
But the real dirty secret in Washington these days has less to do with Israel and Iran than with Saudi Arabia's covert, NPT-violating weapons dealings with the People's Republic of China, the subject of my book Patriot Lost, based on my time working at the CIA during the height of the Bush-Cheney years. When Riyadh's unspoken bomb power is finally brought out into the open for all to consider, this chatter about whether Israel will strike by summer 2011 will go silent. Enter an entirely new dialectic.

The level of discourse on this site is usually a cut above the internet fray but whenever Israel is involved, the comment board turns into a passion play. That aside, let me be briefly explain why this article parrots the fundamental error in the assessment of Iran's nuclear ambition propagated by so-called Middle Eastern experts.
First, Iran wants the world to frame this conflict as Iran v. Israel because the world is mostly unsympathetic to the very concept of Israel. Second, real political power is exerted in the privacy of the "Arab basement", away from everyday rumour mills, i.e. through sub rosa deals in the middle of the night. Third, Iranian nuclear weapons, tactical, strategic, overt, or covert are not a direct threat to Israel. These devices threaten the Gulf States and the Saudi's because they have only boutique armies that are largely disfunctional make-work programs. They have the world's richest cache of resources. Persians and Arabs have been going at it since before the days of the prophet. Fourth, the elites of the Arab world have made peace with Israel because Israel is neutral in their internal conflicts and Israel has some real dirt on everybody. The Arab world has abandoned Palestinian cause ever since Arafat tried to take out the King of Jordan. Anti-Israel rhetoric is strictly for the masses and is good business, has been for centuries. Fifth, Israel's dog in the fight concerns the confidence level of Hamas and Hizbollah. Upsetting the balance of power will cause these two actors to become desperately irrational because their patrons will be caught up in a regional shoot-out. Sixth, when the US intervenes, most likely covertly, it will be in protection of the Saudis. If Israel intervenes overtly, it will be because they have become an attack dog on behalf of the Gulf States in exchange for moderation in Judea and Samaria.
War with Iran will happen only if the Saudis continue to appear incompetent in the face of the encroaching Revolutionary Guards. Then again, by definition, conflictin general is irrational and illogical so no amount of hand-wringing and bluster will make the slightest difference. Ain't life grand.

"If the Iranian physicists who created Iran's nuclear arsenal could somehow have ripped a hole in the space-time continuum and sent a squadron of fighters back to 1948, then the problem of the Nakba and Gazauschwitz would have been solved in 1948. In other words, the creation of a serious Iranian military capability-a nuclear bomb, say, or the Iranian air force-during 1948 would have meant a quicker end to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. It is fair to say, then, that the existence of the Iranian air force, and of Iran's nuclear arsenal, means axiomatically that the Israeli nuclear program is not the equivalent of Gazauschwitz."

Even one-time historian Benny Morris is on the Get Iran boat-->http://menso.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/iran-is-nazi-germany-and-other-fairy-tales/

I agree with Ziggy B, who suggested that we threaten Israel with attack, and carry that attack out, If they would ever dare to scramble aircraft in an effort to attack Iran without reasonable provocation.

The result of a preemptive strike on Iran would lead to an Iranian threat to gulf traffic. Even the THREAT of this, if it persisted, would cause the price of oil to go to about 500 dollars per barrel, and would lead to a REAL depression, with actual mass destruction of core small and large businesses, skyrocketing food prices, massive unemployment, and actual hunger and desperation in many parts of the US.

In other words, an Israeli attack on the Iran is like an Israeli attack on the US, and one that would be vastly more devastating than any bombing campaign that they could ever muster over the heartland of the US.

Therefore, we would be foolish to do anything other than offer Iran protection from unwarranted attacks, in defense of our own national interests.

Those in Israel and in this country who back an attack on Iran value their dreams of US/Israeli hegemony in the middle east a great deal more than they do you or your family, or the welfare of this nation. They are more than willing to sacrifice everything in order to achieve their goals.

And please, when they poo poo this analysis, just try to remember the utter BS that these same rocket scientists tried to feed the US about the outcome of an unwarranted attack on Iraq; It was ALL LIES. all of it.

" But neither Ahmadinejad nor any other Iranian leader has threatened to destroy Israel by initiating military conflict."

Iran is already at war with Israel via proxy.

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0805_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.aspx

This recent survey from Maryland University appears to suggest that Ahmadinejad is something of a hero among Muslims. In addition to the other negativity flowing from an Israeli raid on Iran, any absence of support for Iran might serve to ignite political tinderboxes leading to revolution in many Arab states, particularly Egypt with an ailing Mubarak. When the dust had settled Israel could find itself surrounded by regimes more like hungry wolves than the largely laissez-faire rulers now its neighbours.

It is further interesting that while the Arabs (and these are people not rulers) would overwhelmingly prefer a weapon free ME, while Israel possesses nukes they think they would be safer if Iran had them too, a finding which adds a further dimension to their likely response to an attack..

The picture of Ahmedinejad topping the Leverett's piece is priceless. Better even than a good caricature. Suggests Peter Lorre in a satanic mood.

I took issue with several of the points made by the authors of this article. The authors describe Ahmadinejad's outright denials of the holocaust as only "questioning" its existence. Ahmadinejad's statements do not question anything, in fact he makes it quite clear that his government "does not accept" the occurrence of the Holocaust (Al-Alam interview 12/8/2005). Furthermore, the authors explain that "neither Ahmadinejad nor any other Iranian leader has threatened to destroy Israel by initiating military conflict" in an attempt to minimize the extremely aggressive rhetoric employed Iranian leaders toward Israel. Granted, Iran's leaders have never said "we are going to initiate military conflict to destroy Israel", however the destruction of Israel is clearly an obsession of the Iranian government and it is not difficult imagine them pursuing any opportunity to achieve their fantasy of a world without Israel.
The authors also make the mistake of viewing the Iranian nuclear crisis solely through the prism of Israeli interests. The argument is made that although a nuclear Iran would be detrimental to Israel that is not enough to justify US military involvement. However, a nuclear Iran has further reaching consequences than just hindering Israel. In my opinion, the greatest threat of nuclear Iran would be the loss of moderate Arab nations from Western influence. Although Goldberg's article discussed at length the Arab dimension of the crisis it is not mentioned at all in this article. Regardless of detriments to Israel, the loss of Arab allies in the Middle East would cripple our ability to protect US interests in the region and that alone creates a compelling reason to consider military action against Iran. While I do not necessarily think strikes against Iran are the best option I found this article to be completely dismissive of the idea and lacking in analysis of essential elements to the situation. I'd would love to hear anyone else's thoughts as well.

Under IAEA supervision, Russia has just installed nuclear fuel rods in Iran's reactor which will come online in about a month. The White House says this is fine and proves Iran has no need to enrich its own uranium. If, as seems likely, this finesse was cooked up between Obama and Medvedev, it is a remarkable example of what two clever guys can do if they put their minds to it.

For around a decade now America, Israel and in truth most of the world have misunderstood Iran and its intentions. The Iranian opposition to Israel is nothing more than convenient because it allows the regime the ability to gather the support of a portion of the Middle East. This opposition is seen as neccesary as Iran looks to fill the void left by the fall of Iraq. Irans opposition to Israel is much like its allience with Syria in the fact that it is nothing more than convenient which is why Israel and Israeli's have nothing to fear, providing they do not innitiate a war.

Iran is not a country run by fools or people who are stuck in the past, it is run by pragmatists who see it is neccesary to protect themselves in the future much like Pakistan, India and Israel have done in the past by aquiring a nuclear bomb. The Iranian leadership is far to intelligent to in any way attack Israel because of its status with the US hence its use proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon. Therefore there is very little for Israel, America and Europe to be fearful over in the case of Iran because all it is looking to do is establish itself as a regional giant.

Instead much of the world decides to reject Ahmedinejad and the Iranian regime as a threat, a nation of evil and a land of terror because of it Islamic nature. If the world were to embrace Iran instead of castigating it would the word WAR even be used?

If a war starts between Israel and Iran or America and Iran you can be almost 100% sure that it will not be initiated by Iran and it will be a 'real' war, worse than Iraq, worse than Afghanistan with major consequences for the world and especially America.

Nobody in the Muslim world sees Iran as threat except the tail and the dog, viz. paranoid Jew Israel and the American Christian Zionists plus the American Military Industrial Complex, respectively.

The reasons for daily sabre rattling by America against a totally innocent Iran is because the Jew tail is wagging the American dog.

To even suggest that anybody in the Muslim world thinks of Iran as a threat is a canard, a total lie, pedaled by the Jew in its usual convoluted Byzantine, hasbara, propaganda laced logic.

Go sell your wares elsewhere.

lalqila.wordpress.com

But, in this case the tail wags the stupid dog.

The Israeli tail wagged the American dog and thus America invaded Iraq twice, along with a brutal siege and occupation that has completely destroyed Iraq.

The Israeli tail wagged the American dog and thus America is now planning to invade Iran. It has already started al siege of Iran with the usual American arm-twisting "approval" of UN.

America is occupying Afghanistan to destabilise and attack Iran. It has nothing to do with anything else.

Stop drinking the Cool Aid provided by the American newspapers which are nothing but a mouthpiece for the Israeli "narrative".

lalqila.wordpress.com

Look no further and see your ugly face in the Israeli mirror.

There is no difference between the Israeli crimes against humanity and American war crimes.

Now, can you tell me why the American and Israeli ways of waging wars against, mostly children of Muslims, so similar?

lalqila.wordpress.com

A normalization of relations with Iran would have broader implications - it would allow us to effectively address (and end) the threat that Hezbollah poses to Israel , and perhaps be the first step in cementing some sort of lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It's certainly a nice idea, but we need to give more thought into how this would be implemented and what the Iranian response would be.

The Leveretts’ article is timely and necessary in light that there are gatekeepers who would prefer that we blindly continue to support of Israel, and sacrifice American lives for that country’s causes. I am just curious to know if any of you read Robert Gates’ article in Foreign Affairs, “Helping Others Defend Themselves”, May/June 2010, in which he emphasized the use of diplomacy, and stated that he did not foresee in the near future the U.S. undertaking any more “forced regime change followed by nation building under fire.” Contrast that statement against hawks’ intent on dragging the U.S. into a war with Iran while it grapples with a mountain of debt (“$130 trillion”). You may find “For Whom the Bell Tolls: Will the nation meet the challenges of the 21st Century” in a little know blog called The Muffin Post, which cites the Leveretts’ article, and others such as Paul Krugman’s “America Goes Dark” an interesting read. An excerpt from the Muffin Post article follows:

“The case for maintaining the U.S. eminence in the world cannot be settled by a mere doubling of taxes, or by increasing the tax burden on the rich. Such an aspiration can only be achieved by the redoubling our efforts at home, cutting some of our costs here and even more of that we spend for our military ventures overseas. Americans must look inward, and tackle what ails us at home. We must give up the mentality of hawks and special interest groups who are trying to impress the world with our military projections and accoutrements but ignore that the true strength of a nation is what is developed within. Societies grow rich during times of peace, and not when they are systematically engaged in conflict.

It appears that U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates agrees with this fierce reality. Last Monday he announced a number of measures intended to cut costs in the Pentagon’s budget. See, “Pentagon Plans Steps to Reduce Budget and Jobs”, New York Times. By his analysis, the “U.S. is unlikely to repeat a mission on the scale of those in Afghanistan and Iraq anytime soon.” The nation simply cannot afford to undertake any more “forced regime change followed by nation building under fire.” Gates appears to subscribe to a new military doctrine that calls for “building partner capacity”: “helping other countries defend themselves or, if necessary, fight alongside U.S. forces by providing them with equipment, training, or other forms of security assistance.” He warned against a “creeping militarization” of U.S. foreign policy, and advocated a strengthening “for diplomacy and development and for greater emphasis on civilian programs.” See, “Helping Others Defend Themselves” by Robert Gates, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2010. But by far, it seems, the U.S. needs to change its way of thinking, and do away permanently with minefields that occupy too much of the nation’s time and resources.” -- The Muffin Post, August 16, 2010.

For full article, cut and paste to browser. http://themuffinpost.com/2010/08/16/for-whom-the-bell-tolls-will-the-nation-meet-the-challenges-of-the-21st-century/