That seems like a good argument against an Israeli strike, but what about a strike by the U.S.? I don't want to see yet another Middle East war either but when push comes to shove, it's starting to look like either a war or the death of nuclear nonproliferation.

Why did Israel tell everybody that it is going to bomb Iran? Iran can move nuclear bomb making materials to other locations.

I would like to think this announcement of Israel is psychological warfare. Israel is telling everybody to do something to disrupt Iran's nuclear ambition or Bibi is going to do something to make a really big mess that everyone might find really distasteful.

It is also a hint that Israel is facing a vexatious difficulty with few effective solutions. A successful airstrike in Iran would provide immediate relief to Israelis and deliver a temporary soaring poll number to Bibi, but has no short-, medium- or long-term strategic advantage.

Unless, the US is contemplating an invasion into Iran. A country with no possible nuclear capabilities is easy to invade. That's would be really bad to Iranian clergymen.

A really clever Iranian politician should embrace the airstrike, secure your nuclear scientists and prepare to minimize the damages. After the strike, it would be easier to mobilize the population to openly support development of nuclear bomb.

I don't quite understand Muslim politicians. It seems to me that they are more concerned with paradise and heaven than long-term strategies. When you desire paradise now, you can hardly think long term.

The IAEA report is just going to accelerate the timetable. The options are...

(a) Israel/The USA bombs the Iranian sites in an Osirak like defensive measure. The Iranian public will go berserk and a regional war will break out. Millions killed.

(b) The West does nothing. Iran manufactures a nuclear weapon or provides enough weapons grade material for a dirty bomb which is given to Hezbollah or others and Israel is attacked. Same outcome as above. Regional war breaks out. Develops to WWIII. Millions killed.

(c) The stalled NPT conference is reconvened to be hosted in Jerusalem. Invitations are sent to Iran. They agree to attend. Time is bought on all sides. People can take a deep breath but everyone is not out of the woods yet. Some chains of trust that have been established are built on. The one week conference takes place, say on April 23rd, 2012. Maturity is shown by all sides. The IAEA headquarters is moved to Israel. A thirteen year program is mapped out and agreed on for the phasing out of nuclear weapons by 2025. Nuclear energy is agreed upon as being a valuable resource to satisfy energy deficits around the world and peace unfolds in the Middle East. Iranian and Israeli tourists visit each other's countries from late 2013. It becomes possible to drive on a road from Jerusalem to Tehran in 2019, and Saudi Arabia, Iran, the USA and Israel play each other in Group D of the 2022 Qatar World Cup.

Cool heads are required now. Nothing will replace vision, courage and trust building at the highest levels. There are many calenders. Christian/Gregorian 2011. Muslim 1432. Jewish 5772. Iranian nuclear enrichment red line - Soon ??? Everyone should take note. The divine calender will trump all others. Napoleon said "Strategy is the art of using time and space well." G-d is the ultimate strategist. A warning everyone. Ignore him and see what unfolds.

So, let's assume that the Iranians are rational actors. They look at Iraq and they look at Libya and then they look at North Korea. Then they listen to threats from Israel and its poodles in Washington. They would be quite insane not to pursue a nuclear weapon.

It would also be irrational for Iran to attack Israel with nuclear weapons as Israel could do huge damage to Iran in a nuclear retaliation. A much greater threat to Israel is an exchange of missiles with conventional warheads, repeating the "war of the cities" in the Iran-Iraq war. Small densely populated Israel is much more vulnerable than Iran and an Iranian bomb effectively removes the threat of a first strike from Israel which is the only way that Israel could "win" in such a conflict.

The best possible outcome is to encourage Iran to become more like Turkey. That won't be achieved by bombing.

WINEP (AIPAC) casts the Iranians as irrational actors with an apocalyptic mindset. Given the article above, which government would that describe best if Israel attacks Iran?

The single person has been given authority and he has been moving every one here and there..!! he was the best person in the world. I have never seen such a big and authentic person in my whole life. He has been one of the major person for iraq and i think he is the one who control over the poeple heart. :)

Iran's supreme leader will deliver a sermon Friday at Tehran University, just days after a bloody crackdown at the school, according to a statement from the pro-government Basij militia. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will give his sermon during Friday prayers. It will be closely watched for a sign of how the government plans to resolve the stalemate over the country's recent presidential elections on Cruise Agency. Crowds of demonstrators have been protesting in the streets of Tehran, demanding that officials throw out election results that showed hardline incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defeated opposition leader Mir Hossein Moussavi.
Look and read this :-
By the CNN Wire Staff | March 1, 2011
Tehran residents reported pockets of protests and clashes with security forces Tuesday on the streets of the Iranian capital. But protesters appeared, by all accounts, to be heavily outmuscled by police, who showed in force in Tehran's squares and major thoroughfares in anticipation of demonstrations called by supporters of two key opposition leaders. The Iranian opposition website Kaleme reported that security forces fired tear gas into a crowd of protesters in front of Tehran University.

I think this praise is enough to demolishezed the americans and i love Muslims. :)

Unfortunately both Israel and the US have managed to paint themselves into very losing corners in this situation. The only options are to look increasingly foolish or start a war.

Iran has the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Nobody can take that capability away from them short of invading the country - a far more difficult proposition than invading Iraq was, and one which, ethics aside, the US no longer has the deep pockets to do.

So, let's face up to the worst case. Iran gets some nuclear weapons.

How bad is that, exactly?

Worse actors than Iran have nukes, including North Korea. (Some would say, including the US.) None has been used in anger since World War II, when the US was guilty of it.

Nuclear weapons are a security blanket. Israel has them; very few in Washington will talk about taking the nukes away from Israel. So long as nukes exist, there is risk; adding Iran to the nations already possessing them doesn't make the risk much worse.

We should all be more worried about India, Pakistan, China and Russia, whose collective stockpiles of nuclear weapons are sufficient to doom all of us and whose governments are either shaky, corrupt, totalitarian, or a combination.

Iran might make a dozen or two dozen weapons, enough to pose a credible threat but not enough to wipe out humanity.

The best security from nuclear devastation is nations acting responsibly: as in, foregoing the invasion of sovereign nations (Iran hasn't, the US has) and pursuing foreign policies aimed at compromise and peace rather than confrontation and war. In this regard, the US has further to go than Iran.

The less threatened Iran feels, the less need they will see to use the weapons they can create. I think it's past time to put our hawks to pasture and bring in the doves. No solution involving an attack on Iran will serve our national interest.

Anyone who suggests that bombing Iranian nuclear facilities would produce a satisfactory outcome for the US, Israel, or the world should be in therapy - or committed to an appropriate asylum. Anyone watched Dr Strangelove recently?

it is very likely that Iran will have nuclear weapons. Look at the nations we have invaded or occupied recently - Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Afghanistan -oh, and Uganda? On the other hand, we have not invaded Russia, China, N Korea or Pakistan all far more dangerous foes at one time or the other in our history. Iran would indeed have to be crazy not to weaponize as soon as possible.

Instead of formulating foolish strategies to bomb Iran, we need to determine how to live with the fact of an Iranian nuclear weapons capability. To do otherwise might not mean the end for Iran, but it surely could be the end of us.

t makes no sense for Iran to attack Israel as they know the US would wipe them off the face of the earth. But just you wait for the war propaganda, I can see it now... "The evil Iranians have nuke's and there going to strike porn movies at any minute, nuke them now before its too late!" F*cking disgusting I know, but it's coming.

- Vince Delmonte

getting its own nukes? Or Venezuela? Is everyone who signed the NPT now permitted to break it at will?

We're right back in the same old scenario. A bad acting country is violating their commitments and not cooperating with inspections. They get away with non-cooperations for many years thinking they can get away with it completely (true in the case of North Korea). The UN process and sactions prove completely ineffective. Russia's and China's (or other's) blocking encourages the bad actor. No amount of non-cooperation or evidence changes their minds. We wait and wait for an internal revolution or coup but it never happens. All nature of bad outcomes is predicted. Whoever eventually decides to act is condemned by the same countries that gave the bad actor encourage with their blocking stance at the UN.

What's needed is to remove all doubt about the consequences for all if the bad actor doesn't cooperate with inspections and to set a deadline so that no one thinks that they can dither and stall resolution of the problem until everyone forgets the most recent violation / finding. Something like one year (no more) should be given after which military action will be taken unilaterally by any of the willing. The justification is the lack of full cooperation and unresolved outstanding problems (e.g. the warehouse that they made disappear) and NOT any "smoking gun". Hopefully, the seriousness of the situation will get Russia and China to allow for actually effective pressure though I doubt anything would get them to allow effective pressure.

During the year, open alliances should be formed if possible. For example, Saudi Arabia has said privately that they want to see the "head of the serpent" (i.e. Iran) cut off. Well, they should be urged to take this position openly and provide support (e.g. landing and refueling).

Secondly, it should be openly recognized that the goal is to resolve the problem once and for all. If it starts with a strike on the nuclear facilities and they still don't open up to full inspections, then their military facilities should be put in the crosshairs (i.e. a sizeable American attack despite the consequences). Depending upon how much of the Iranian military was destroyed, the Iranians would reasonably be concerned about their ability to hold their oil producing regions near Kuwait. This, more than anything should give all Iranians great pause as to whether their nuclear program is worth that much.

Some countries would object strenuously but, when it came down to it, no one would militarily stand with Iran. Of course, the efficacy and legitimacy of the UN would again be called into question.

If Israel and especially the US were openly willing to go this far, it would give diplomacy the best chance of actually working since everyone would know that the game was up. And no country in their right mind would ever pursue a secret nuclear program.

Anyone attacking Iran, should expect some response from China which buys 400,000 barrels of oil a day from Iran and has extensive investment interests there.

If the objective really is a nuclear free Iran, then it would be most easily and economically achieved within a nuclear free ME. The stand-off between the US and Iran is plain silly, there are hosts of ways in which they could benefit each other, in fact strategically Iran could probably aid the US more than the other way round right now. Furthermore educated Iranians remain Western orientated.

Against both a nuclear free ME and a potential US/Iran rapprochement stands Israel, the Ubangi in the fuel supply, to adapt W C Fields.

A media hog and media who worship him: dangerous.

If the weeds are threatening to strangle you, you cut the grass, even if you'll have to do it again sometime down the road.

Should Israel be concerned regarding the global effects which a preemptory strike might generate? If Israel's leaders see that Iran is on the verge of going nuclear, should they turn the other cheek and say, "for the sake of the world economy, we'll live under the shadow of a nuclear Ahmadinejad"? He has, you'll recall, stated that "it is quite clear that a bunch of Zionist racists are the problem the modern world is facing today"?

The photo chosen to lead this article is great - a smiling Ahmad flashing the peace sign. Looks like my Uncle Louie.

Mr. Miller writes: "All these concerns are offered up knowing full well that Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon is a major problem for the United States, Israel, and the international community. It might even be a game-changer."

Game-changer alright but why is "Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon is a major problem for the United States, Israel, and the international community" any greater than Israel's nukes?

Mr. Miller, while appearing rational in your entire write-up, you end up betraying your tribal allegiance.

I am an American and I hold the opinion that Iranian nukes are just as dangerous as the Israeli ones. Either we deny them both, or let them both have 'em. That's only fair.....don't you think so?.

If only China and Russia would co-operate in the UN, perhaps the UN might have some real teeth.

I wouldn't want to see any action taken without all the facts being very clear and very public. No one is going to forget the Weapons of Mass Destruction hunt for a long time.

Hold the jets, missiles and helicopters. Let's work on uncovering what is really going on in Iran and then do something decisive with the backing of a high proportion of the international community.

Rather than formulating foolish ways of bomb Iran, we have to figure out how to reside using the fact of the Iranian nuclear weapons capability. To complete otherwise may not mean the finish for Iran, however it surely may be the end people. I am not sure if Iran has ever stated its position on same, although obviously even when against it might be swept up against its repeated declarations of getting no wish to have nukes, after which would not be under enormous pressure-not least from Russia and China too to sign this kind of accord. With numerous of agreements for very intrusive inspections and monitoring.