To all posters that really have little knowledge of what is going on in Iran, and are not just Zionists pumping for a THIRD and even more catastrophic war, a few comments.

My wife is Iranian and an American citizen. I have had two extended trips to Iran in recent years, and have been all around the country. As an obvious American, I was received everywhere with courtesy, respect, and civility. Iran is changing very fast. It has a large and growing, educated and westernized economic class, more women than men have advanced university degrees as architects, educators, attorneys, and they drive and vote. Iran has a major underground of artists, intellectuals and literati (what we would call liberals), young people clued into all the latest western fashions and music. ALL are sick and tired of the present theocratic Mullah dominated state.

If they are attacked, it is true that they can easily close the Straights of Hormuz via small ship actions, mining, and missile strikes. They do not need to defeat or sink the American navy to do this.

Insurance rates on tanker traffic would do the job very nicely. 30% of all the world's petroleum transits this narrow passage. A new war with petroleum price spikes to who knows what, would collapse the fragile American economy, not to mention the whole world economy, like a house of cards. China would NOT be pleased.

Regarding the most recent IAEA report, I have taken reasonable efforts to look at it. It does NOT maintain that Iran has diverted any enriched uranium from its constant 24/7 inspection, NOR does it maintain that any material has been enriched beyond the 20% level necessary for medical imaging isotopes. Most posters may know that enrichment to over 95% is necessary for weaponization purposes. The radiological signature of such enrichment is actually quite easy to detect, if it occurs.

The IAEA report DOES mount political attacks that Iran may have the capability to do something in the future that to date, they have not done. "Might" "could" and "maybe" are not reasons for another disastrous preventive war.

Recently, we have seen the splitting of the conservative factions that to date have formed the backbone of the IRI. The current elected president (Ahmadinejad) is in increasing and active conflict with the Guardian Council, being the core of the Mullah leadership of the state. Even elements of the Revolutionary Guards have grown greatly disillusioned with the thuggish clampdown on protesters.

My father in law says, leave them alone. Do not provoke a new war that would result in vast chaos worldwide, geopolitical, economic, and military.

I hope no one takes this as an apology for the regime. If we had not overthrown the Iranian democracy in 1953 via the CIA’s Operation Ajax, which put the hated Shah back on the throne for several decades (he had been expelled at that time), none of this would have happened.

Let us not compound historic mistakes by making a far greater one now.

Unfortunately that presumes that sincere offers of peace will be met in kind. Humans are not omniscient creatures capable of perfectly understanding each other. They are limited to their own minds and forced to rely on history to guide them. History suggests that the U.S will look for ways* to topple the Iranian government and also that the Iranian government will use force** to remain in power. Additionally there is no guarantee at all that if one side does show an interest in compromise the other will not see it as a victory and go to even greater demands.

*By which I mean revolution, coup, war etc.
** By which I mean murder, torture, a judiciary created for the purpose of giving convictions etc.

From what I have heard, a large proportion of the Iranian diaspora in the US (particularly in Beverly Hills and its environs) is Jewish. How do these Persian (Mizrahi) Jews see the matter of Iran's nuclear program? Do they take the same hardline positions as American Ashkenazim? Or do they fear that a war with Iran would endanger the 20-30 thousand Jews still in that country? I'm curious.

Although the focus of the article to demonstrate the Iranian diaspora's resistance to war is commendable, the premise around this diaspora's desire to change the 'system' is not well founded. The Iranian diaspora, for the most part, is like the Cuban diaspora--those that left for various not so noble reasons--many losing ill-gained fortunes to the revolutionary government. Regardless, their desires are rarely relevant in 'changing' a system they are no longer a part of.

On the other hand, the current Iranian government enjoys significant and MAJORITY support of the internal population (unlike Iraq under the brutality of once Amrican-backed Saddam). This is not to say the Iranian government can't do better because it can under normal circumstance and it WILL under normal circumstances. The Iranian government is correctly behaving and taking action under threatening national security conditions emanating from the West. This simple fact may have been lost in the author's analysis, although I'm sure he means well. But it is crucial and more powerful in explaining the outcomes of a possible war and preventing it.

no one is looking to invade iran..there will be no boots on the ground. The nuke sites will be taken down from the air.

He also assumes that change will come although when he doesnt say and if it comes before nukes he also doesnt say....do expats want change? some, yes. Do they see the nuke program shutting down even if the govt changes? he doesnt say....

all he does or wants to do is assign lables and blame to "neoconservatives" ....ooooooh, those dark sinister folks.....

OVERALL? A very shoddy article.

Everyone thinks the US is so bad...They can try a couple of alternatives until they are become a part of Russia or China.

regards!
Filme Noi

The whole opening thesis is false, and I frankly resent my community being characterized as in support of the 2003 invasion. I was among tens of thousands of diaspora Iraqis who marched against the invasion in 2002, and among a couple of dozen who marched against the invasion in New Orleans in early 2003. Just because the DC establishment at the time was able to find some prominent diaspora Iraqis to support their invasion doesn't in fact mean that Iraqi-Americans were in consensus agreement supporting the invasion. Not by a long shot.

While one might accept the thesis that Iranian-Americans have learned from the disaster that came out of 2003 (Who hasn't? Oh right, Neo-cons), it is wholly inaccurate to paint the Iraqi-American community as in support of that invasion back then. And one more point -- don't think the Iranian-American community doesn't have its own share of Chalabis and Makiyas. They're out there, they're ready to feed on their fellow Iranians, and they can be trotted out just as easily should DC decide to call on them.

I don't know if you are a lunatic or a liar...or both. You should both stay in Iran since the free world scares you. freedom of speech my friend trust me!!!!

job search blog

We have seen the splitting of the conservative factions that to date have formed the backbone of the IRI. The current elected president (Ahmadinejad) is in increasing bwin bonus and active conflict with the Guardian Council, being the core of the Mullah leadership of the state. Even elements of the Revolutionary Guards have grown greatly disillusioned with the thuggish clampdown on protesters.My father in law says, leave them alone. Do not provoke a new war that would result in vast chaos worldwide, geopolitical, economic, and military. The Iranian government is correctly behaving and taking bwin action under threatening national security conditions emanating from the West. This simple fact may have been lost in the author's analysis, although I'm sure he means well. But it is crucial and more powerful in explaining the outcomes of a possible war and preventing it.