One wonders if Makovsky can get his story straight in this piece full of half-truths while carrying water for Israel. FP readers are sophisticated enough to spot most, if not all of them. Here are a a few:

Iran is on the receiving end of increasingly aggressive threats, sanctions and covert war. Is it truly any wonder that it responds with its own threats, whether meant for internal consumption or not?

How is it an aggression by Iran to cut off it's oil sales to Britain and France in advance of their their own threats to cease buying that oil?

Makovsky says IAEA nuclear inspectors were denied access to a military facility. The IAEA sent representatives on the second round of recent visits, not inspectors.

Israel has put the U.S. on the horns of a dilemma. Israelis are not so stupid to truly believe Iran is an existential threat to anything, not even it's regional military superiority. Israel wants Americans to bear the cost in blood and treasure of a war it could not finish by itself, and striking Iran will start a war that is NOT in our interest. We've already had a long war in Iraq pushed on the American people by lies and the interests of Israel. Enough with lies and half-truths.

The only way Obama can be seen as pro Israel is to capitulate entirely to all and every wish and demand. His silence on settlement expansion, as only one example, to the US detriment, is a major detraction for me in his relationship with Israel. Unlike others I find his willingness to allow Israel virtually full and free reign the damning actions.

Iran with no nuclear weapons is zero military threat against nuclear superpower Israel. Israel is in possession of hundreds of nuclear warheads. More importantly, it possesses the most advanced delivery systems in the world including nuclear powered ballistic missile firing submarines. A nation with zero nuclear weapons does not attack another with hundreds. Even if (a hypothetical) Iran did some day acquire a nuclear weapon (to secure itself from vicarious nuclear attack) it could never use it against Israel because of the intertwined nature of the Palestinian and Israeli populations. Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in world Islam is in Jerusalem and they would never risk its destruction.

But lets just ignore all of that.

I ask Israel supporters to seriously consider the CONSEQUENCES of an attack. A war initiated by Israel would spread to our interests in about half an hour. Iran would certainly hit back to the best their abilities. Prices for petroleum would certainly skyrocket to who knows what level, collapsing our fragile economy like a house of cards. Same for the whole world's economy for the same reasons. Mass chaos from Lebanon to Pakistan. Things quickly spiral out of control. Afghanistan explodes. Al-Qaeda claps its hands in glee in Yemen and Somalia. China and Russia get quite hostile. Radioactive clouds drift eastward over India.

And of course in this event, Iran would conclude that it must quickly obtain a nuclear WMD capability. Achieving exactly what you claim you want to avoid. Great! An Israeli attack slams the whole world into what? Choose your own apocalyptic metaphors. Just who else would the world blame?

Iran has become nuclear, let's face it. And frankly, given that Iran is surrounded by hateful Sunnis, including a nuclear Pakistan, and a nuclear Israel, it's understandable. Sanctions and military aggression will not change Iran's course. And anyone talking about war against Iran should have his head examined, to paraphrase Robert Gates.

That we are now dependent on Obama and Netanyahu finding some way to trust one another is about all the proof anyone needs that Obama's conduct of relations with Israel have been a disaster and with Iran a fiasco. It's about time even the Left acknowledge that Obama has messed up.

This failure offers Obama an opportunity to address his problem with Israel by acknowledging that he has been wrong about his understanding of the problems of the Middle East. The real problem between Israel and the Arabs isn't settlements, it's the Muslim inability to accord any rights to Israeli Jews (or, as we are seeing in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, etc., any non-Muslims). Once one understands that, the next step is to figure out how to address this central issue.

This is where we get to Iran and its aspiration to use nuclear weapons to bring about the Islamic apocalypse. Iran isn't seeking nukes to deter Israel or Pakistan. Israel has had these weapons long enough that if it was inclined to use them for aggression, it would have done so already. Pakistan's nukes were developed to deter India, not to threaten Iran. Thus, the case made for Iran's entitlement to have nukes, made by some posters, falls apart completely.

Meanwhile, the Iranians have been fairly explicit about their goal: to create the havoc their religion tells them will usher in the return of the Mahdi. That this idea sounds nuts to Westerners doesn't mean the Iranian leadership doesn't mean it when it says this is their objective.

If you are Israeli, you must take these Iranian threats seriously; many of the people charged with defending Israel are the children of Holocaust survivors, so the prospect of a genocide is very real. The issue is how to prevent Iran from acquiring the means to carry out a genocide.

There are really only two possibilities: either get the West to handle the problem or do it yourself. If Israelis can't trust the West, that leaves only the do-it-yourself option. Obama's handling of Middle Easterrn issues have gone very far in demonstrating that Israel cannot trust the US under Obama, so if Obama cannot establish trust, Israel will attack Iran, regardless of the consequences. Obama's chickens have finally come home to roost.

Obama double speak on Iran (saying US will not allow the bomb, but making publicly sure that no real actions are taken by Israel, so Iran will keep enriching U235 at high rate) begs to question not rationality of the mullahs, but the rationality of Obama. Hamaney is rationally pursuing absolutely rational goal of Israel destruction. Same way as Hitler rationally and efficiently organized the industry of mass killing.

After Iran soon moves most of the production underground US will not be able to destroy the installations without use of thermonuclear weapons, so Obama should be "asked" (as he himself usually says) about this imminent physical deadline and unceremoniously pushed to answer.

Makovsky asks this question, but this message has to be delivered to Obama by much stronger force. Perhaps, his key Democrats need to be prodded. This is not a question whether FP readership (or writership like Steve Walt) is aggressively anti-Jewish and racist, but whether US government is deliberately destabilizes entire Middle East because of quite rational assumption that Obama arrogantly follows his instincts and ideology, rather than reality of centrifuges spinning under the mountains.

It should be stated that unless and until Iran is proven to be actually building nuclear weapons, its nuclear program may not be illegal in any sense and it would be living within the spirit of the NPT, to which that country is a signator. All the articles I have read continually refer to the Iranian nuclear program as if it is a weapons program. Let's be clear that iran has a right to nuclear enrichment as long as it is doing so for peaceful purposes. The obvious issue is that enrichment can be used to develop fuels for peaceful nuclear power projects, or for the manufacture of weapons. If we go to war again, or are pulled into it by the actions of another country, and it cannot be clearly proven that Iran has begun building weapons, we will repeat our foolish Iraq experience. The results will be many times more horrific for us and for the world.

It is ironic that the nuclear program of iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of ....... the United States. It was initiated as part of the "Atoms for Peace" program. The US and European governments all supported Iran's program until the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Once again, the dog we took in has bit us in the arse!

It seems that certain people are being censored, their comments being removed, and yet others, like charles firth, and tarquinis are free to keep posting hate speech.

Is there SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP being practiced at FP and if so, why?

could it be the backround of the owners of this site and the agenda they are pushing? many come from npr, some are into the climate change energy scam of the very far left... seems to me you either allow everyone's comments OR no ones comments.

What gives? I thought censorship was the ultimate nono in both america and in the press...? am I wrong?

And end this nonsense already! What is Israel waiting for, for Iran to drop a few on ISrael first? Israel: FIre AND FORGET! The US is not coming to you aid. The US only comes to help when Muslims are in trouble, like in Kuwait, Kosovo, Libya, etc.

At least, with David Makovsky's comments, we have insight into the AIPAC line for their upcoming joint meeting of the US Congress, Senate and Administration.
Despite it being an election year, I hope that Mr. Obama will listen to his military and resist AIPAC and Bibi's blandishments to participate in a War against Iran.

The commentator "CENSORSHIP" above claims to see something funny going on in these FP comment sections along the lines of censorship, and I have to agree, although I don't know that I see any partisan directionality to it as he does.

I posted an early comment here asking what Mr. Makovsky's citizenship status was (given that he was a former editor of the Jerusalem Post) and I see that has somehow disappeared, and then suddenly I had trouble logging in to the comment section of FP at all.

Plus I believe I've seen some previous posts of others disappear as well, although I don't recall their political orientation or who wrote them.

In any event my own experience is the opposite of what CENSORSHIP seems to see which is someone trying to muzzle pro-Israel comments, but, regardless, it does seem that something might be going on that I doubt FP formally endorses.

Print 'em all, FP; print 'em all.