"The Iranian people are probably the most pro-American population amongst the Islamic countries."

No, they're not pro-American. They're pro-Persian, and are arguably the most nationalistic people on the planet. A big part of the Persian identity, especially among the more educated classes, is the idea that they're extraordinarily cultured, sophisticated, cosmopolitan, etc. As such, much of the country is severely bent out of shape at the fact that their access to Western TV, literature, etc, is limited. They resent the mullahs for this, and many have become aficionados of American popular culture as an act of protest. We should not confuse this with their being "pro-American".

"What we need to do is covertly assist the Iranian population in their efforts to be free of the mullahs and Revolutionary Guard."

If I had to guess, I'd say we're probably doing this already to the maximum extent possible, but given that it's COVERT, it's probably a series of tightly compartmented operations that we don't read about in major newspapers on a daily basis.

"If both Israel and United States exhibit patience, then it becomes a question of Iran's self-control. If any element of the Iranian government acts rashly, it would likely be naval action in the Persian Gulf."

Agree on this point. Common sense suggests that a limited naval battle in the Gulf will not inflame Iranian public opinion to the extent that a bombing campaign would, especially if prompted by a Gulf of Tonkin-like incident (i.e., one of their speedboats gets too close to a carrier, we blow it up, they call it an act of aggression, we say we were just defending ourselves, etc). In that case (this is just a SWAG) I think a lot of the Iranian street will say, "those Pasdaran are a bunch of reckless dumbasses for antagonizing the Americans in international waters" and the Green movement may stay intact. Then again, they're nationalistic people, so maybe I'm wrong. I think no matter what, if we bomb them, the whole country, including the current opposition, turns bitterly against us.

>What we need to do is covertly assist the Iranian population in their efforts to be free of the mullahs and Revolutionary Guard. Were it not for the forces of repression, the Iranian people would now be free.

Jouvenel pointed out that a successful revolution always results in the renovation, strengthening consolidation of a weak Power, increased absolutism and aggression. The "free" Iranian people will be under the tighter grip of a more radical and aggressive regime. Is this what you want?

that explains where you've been coming from (not a slam, though we disagree at least half the time but it honestly explains much of your approach).....

What we really need to do is practice what we preach. American values (like the freedoms in the Bill of Rights, hard work, helping out our neighbors) are awesome, admirable things. However, when we contort ourselves into all kind of hypocritical apologetics for why we are betraying our values, other people notice.

In general, we should mind our own business and maintain educational, scientific, and trade ties with other countries on the basis of equal partnerships and cooperate on things like piracy and trafficking. Beyond these areas, we are wading into uncharted and dangerous waters, and the current might take us anywhere, with serious negative consequences. George Washington was smarter even than we realized when he cautioned to avoid entanglements. Let's listen to the counsels of our founding fathers.

Do you forget the fact of Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Wars? We must not sit silent in the face of evil - especially when that evil threatens humanity. It is our moral imperative to act. Staying silent and becoming an isolationist is a morally cowardly position.

very good web: === http://www.plzzshop.com

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations.

All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time.

We will give you a discount

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT

YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

=== http://www.plzzshop.com

thank you!!!

Believe you will love it.

We have good reputation, fashion products,

come here quickly== http://www.plzzshop.com

Opportunity knocks but once

Radioactive fallout from a major attack on Iranian nuclear/radiological facilities would be real and substantial. An informed discussion of attacks on Iran nuclear program, by the US or Israel should at least mention the radiological fallout. The N-fallout in this case would be generated operational design and advanced tactical weaponry. More on the Fukushima/Chernobyl scale, not TMI.

Failure to atomize the enriched U235 beyond recovery would sort of make the effort seem futile- not the 'moral defeat of the enemy' that St. Carl of Clausewitz talks about. How would major fallout on civilians, crossing borders, affect the public diplomacy, the strategic endstate for US overseas and domestic interests?

Because radiation is a hot button, and because this would be a first-ever (to my knowledge) attack on sovereign nuclear material, the fallout issue is proportionally huge; politically, diplomatically, legally. Yet the prospect of radiological-cum-political fallout remains the invisible elephant in this chat room.

The Israeli's bombs can only seal the entrance to underground facilities (according to public information.) So, the danger would come from bombs which fall upon surface facilities. I don't know what's where. There was an above ground centrifuge facility and I guess that their reactor is above ground.

Perhaps we do have historical precedent! The Israeli strike on Iraq's reactor. They pierced the containment build with what appeared to be a single hole created by 4 MK84 bombs. I do not recall anyone suggesting that radiation escaped. The Israelis said that the reactor was going to go critical, but no radiation leaked out. Another rumor said that French engineers placed charges inside the plant and did the real damage. Good story.

Then they bombed the Syrian reactor where, later, IAEA found radioactive particles in the soil. No complaints about radiation downtown; but then they wouldn't would they?

So it isn't clear how much radiation would escape. Our still to be produced (we say) 300 foot penetrators would likely collapse the underground facility in on itself with little radiation escaping.

But that's just blue sky bull because we, the public, don't really know the truth of any of it. Wikipedia has articles on all the strikes. They present one quote which is interesting:

"An analysis by Warren Donnelly of the United States Congressional Research Service concluded that "it would be most unlikely for an attack with conventional bombs upon the reactor when operating to have caused lethal exposures to radioactivity in Baghdad, although some people at the reactor site might receive some exposure."

That probably reflects what would happen to Iran's above ground reactor. BUT, the most recent US intelligence estimate says that there is no proof that they are working on a bomb. My question is, "Why have they built all these underground centrifuge plants?" Since scientists are being assassinated; does that mean that the Israelis honestly believe that they are working on a bomb?

I'm afraid the important question is what do the Israelis believe? I'd like to think that the Israelis and the US are working from the same intelligence; although we may not see it the same way.

Big diff between shattering concrete under construction, and blasting the hot stuff. I think you're ill informed about the efficacy of sealing enriched uranium by bombing the underground portal closed. The enrichment working medium is a pressurized gas, UFl6; both centrifuges and stored stocks would be targeted. Since dangerous and heavy material can't be removed without holding the ground, the only way to permenantly deny the enriched product to the Iranians is to disperse as widely a possible- thru demolition.

If a bomb breached containment on a fueled power or processing plant containing tons of fissionable uranium, you wouldn't need to pull local dirt samples to detect the radiation, as was reported in the Syrian case. Since Israeli commandos were said to have visited the the Syrian site, trace evidence taken by the IAEA may or may not be ground truth.

My guess is that the Syrian facility was intended for cooking natural uranium into plutonium, and perhaps they were running samples, or demonstrating handling with used and/or contaminated Nkorean machines. That seemingly also happened in Iran, when Pu showed up in IAEA inspections of Paki-NorK machines there.

The wiki article linked below raises some questions whether explosions inside N. Korea linked to the Syrian N-program might support part of your contention: operations against radiological storage and transportation targets may have taken place there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard

All I know is what I read in the papers. I like your idea of the commandos planting the evidence. But it's confusing because one could infer that the N. Korean ship was delivering fuel rods. Then we have the massive and quick cleanup of the site. the most recent speculation suggests it was a reactor. I think that a key indicator was that the Iranians funded it; allegedly to the tune of one billion dollars. If they don't have nuclear weapons intentions, why did they build a backup in Syria? On the other hand, perhaps it had been a plan to counter Saddam's WMD program.

I lack your understanding of the matter, but I was referring to an ability to seal the surface entrance and some portion of the access tunnel. For the underground factories; we have been lead to believe that they lack the bombs to reach them Obama did release penetrators that Bush had promised the Israelis, but the Israelis are limited by what their aircraft can carry. Of course, they could have come up with the same enhancement we have. Take a smaller bomb and give a rocket booster so that when it hits at high speed, it conveys greater kinetic energy. Is it relevant that our underground testing had little leakage?

Well, I don't "want to see the rubble bounce" so I hope that our latest estimate is correct and that the Israelis agree. Our times are sufficiently interesting already.

is an old rhetorical device, justifying interventions, sanctions and any other actions that will result in an outcome that our leaders want. We would like to help- key word is help- the Iranians rid themselves of a tyrannical regime, a tyrannical regime that just so happens to be an annoyance to ourselves and our, by most measurements equally tyrannical, Sunni friends.

But it isn't just the governing regime and lower level parasites. Just as Dubya personified something very dark in the heart of America, so Ahmadinejad represents a section of the Iranian population. It would be more accurate to say the US is opposed to his regime and the thugs and mouth-breathers who support him, but that would delegitimize our "get rid of a few bad eggs" in country X foreign policy meme.

America's interest has had nothing to do with any of our wars for the last 2 generations, and that has never stopped us before. Unlike most pundits, one should define America's interest as the common weal, that which benefits the largest number of citizens and not the usual definition of the phrase "our interests" which means the economic, psychological and institutional interests of NY and DC. Perhaps in regard to a war with Iran the interests of our leaders coincide with the interests of the nation.

So a lot of people in gov are scared of attacking Iran? And well they should. Yet how many of these people rhetorically goose-stepped behind Dubya to Baghdad, only jumping ship when things got really bad? If Netanyahu goes off the reservation or if the Iranians get spooked into doing something stupid what will be the response? Will senior officials publicly denounce the initiation of hostilities or will they pull a Leslie Gelb et al, keep their mouths mostly shut, and then later on start in with the I told you so's and self-serving memoirs? I question the ability of the general run of the bureaucratic or political classes to commit career or political seppuku for the greater good.

These two groups have a collective responsibility for standing by quietly while demagogues and amoral profiteers aroused and frightened "the folks", as Bill O'Reilly calls them, convincing the hoi polloi that terrorists are around every corner, with even the FBI going so far as to egg on semi-retarded ne'er do wells. So please, no pious Centrist sighs at red state barbarism if a GOP president is forced to launch a war to please the rednecks.

Sovereignty is a stubborn concept for most people.

You are a critical thinker not let by the Pied Piper, his minions or the sycophants that preach his policy of leading from his rear.

You are a critical thinker not let by the Pied Piper, his minions or the sycophants that preach his policy of leading from his rear.

I think that attacking Iran would be the worst of a set of bad options. But you hurt your credibility when you start talking about "millions" which is a vast overstatement of the likely death toll from a couple low-yield devices.

"Incidentally, who is happy with their mullahs? I ain't happy with mine on Capital Hill either."

But nobody tries to shoot you, put you in jail or have you bodily violated for disagreeing with those on Capital hill.

"Why would a presumably democratically popularly elected government suddenly decide to give-up it’s country’s nuclear ambition(s; what would be the game changer all of a sudden? "

South Africa did exactly that. Several former Soviet states did the same.

My end statement was meant in jest SPOOD. But I stand by the gist of my comment that there is no reason why a regime change in Iran would see a stop that country's nuclear ambition. . .even if they stated it was peacful. . .we would never accept that because the tail that wags the dog, Israel, would never accept it.

Your comment is still silly even if you claim to be joking now. The Israel comment makes it all too clear that you are not to be taken seriously.

Iran's biggest rival right now is not Israel, its Saudi Arabia. Israel's government has been just taking advantage of the situation to make domestic political rivals look foolish. Much of their talk has been overblown bluster.

In no way can a sane person can claim Iran really intends a peaceful nuclear program by the way its been acting.

A democratic Iran would have much fewer enemies in the region and much less need to worry about a nuclear deterrence. It would probably cut off support to its proxy forces in Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq for the sake of better relations with its neighbors.

Much of hostility against Iran is well deserved. They intentionally have tried to destabilize the Arab world for a few decades. There is a lot of bad blood between them and the Arab world.

I already named a couple of countries which abandoned nukes for the purposes of better relations with neighbors.

I am well aware over the years, Saudi Arabia has had hesitant relations with Iran at best, and been almost on a warlike footing at worst. . .but I appreciate you going to the trouble to give me a primer on the subject.

The two have always been at odds over who should be the power broker in the Persian Gulf, which is what allowed the U.S. at one time, to play one off the other, with the “two pillars diplomacy” policy. . .soft power, keep it mind, it seems to be a lost art form.

The House of Sa’ud will do what it thinks necessary for their own deterrence, and play their usual regional realpolitk. . .but that doesn’t include beating the drum on a preemptive strike on Iran. By the way, both countries are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which I remind you Israel isn’t.

You talk about a democratic Iran, this and that, but I don’t see it happening, just like I don’t see it happening in any country that took part in the so called Arab Spring. . .so let's deal with actuality, not hypothetical’s, and talk containment, pressuring Israel to accept the same (although their apprehensiveness isn’t lost on me), because as it stands now, whether Iran and Israel feed off each other or not, it is Israel that is driving this to a large extent.

"A democratic Iran would have much fewer enemies in the region and much less need to worry about a nuclear deterrence. It would probably cut off support to its proxy forces in Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq for the sake of better relations with its neighbors."

The fetishization of Democracy is one of the primary weaknesses of American foreign policy, leading to poor decisions based on wishful thinking and to Anti-Americanism as people see the US behave in hypocritical fashion, claiming to act for the cause of Democracy and yet supporting dictators out of expediency.

You hope that the Urban, technocrat-inclined professional middle classes will eventually rule Iran. There is no guarantee that will happen. And why would the Sunnis, particularly the Wahabis, change their attitudes towards Iran because of a change in government? Economic improvements, presumably brought about by a relaxing of sanctions on a "responsibly", i.e. subservient to the US elite, democratic Iran wouldn't necessarily help issues like the exportation of terrorism or civil rights for locals; sf Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Perhaps a democratized Iran would consist of a neoliberal, pro-western elite, ruling a country through the use of a neo-Savak gang of thugs, and yet still not being able to curtail private donations to terrorist groups. Rather than having an ally and partner, the US might find itself with another back-stabbing parasite, i.e. ME ally in the WOT.

On the other hand, for WOT profiteers, such an Iran might not be a bad thing. Got to keep the game going, and there is nothing like all these little hot wars to keep the juice flowing.

"Iran is by most accounts the most democratic country in that part of the world, weird though that might sound."

huh? it sounds weird cause it's bullshit. by who's account? Susan Lindauer and other clinically insane folks? yeah, they just had an election. remember what happened to the opposition candidates? by that standard the Soviet Union was the most democratic country in its part of the world.

in reality, Israel, Tunisia, Lebanon and yes, Iraq (for the time being anyway), are clearly more democratic. what have you been smoking? cause I want some (so long as they don't do another piss test anytime soon).

...even if you provide good examples of other states.

And it's not just full of cosmpolitan urbanites who like booze and porn and Tweets. There's lots of working-class and village folk who probably assess their current circumstances as being an improvement over what they used to have when the Shah ruled Iran. Remember that the Shah was toppled because he tried to make too many changes in what still was fairly traditional society. The government isn't forcing all of those young people to serve as basiji, or work at the nuke plant, or at the asymmetrical warfare center.

Well rat’s spit LIEBER, think of it this way: Iran has a religious college that approves all candidates for president prior to them running for president. Conversely, our candidates start out running, but an electoral college approves one of them as the winner.

democratic by the regional mean is certainly true. it was the "most democratic country in the region" part that I took exception to. your comment on the rural/urban divide in Iran is well-taken....especially when it comes to rural males...(women, not so much)....my mother actually spent some years in Iran during the Pahlavi era...I really should have learned some Farsi :)

...of democracies have their quirks. Tyr raises a great point for what's democratic in the US. Israeli democracy is more and more about Jewish democracy, though there's a sizable Arab minority that struggles to remain politically relevant. Past versions of "democracy", like Athens, would be nearer to current-day oligarchies or dictatorships.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has a constitution and governamce that would never fly in the Gulf States, Saudi, Oman, Syria, Jordan, Egypt (at the moment), and Morocco. The Islamic qualifications test is sort of weird, but perhaps outside observers wonder about how US candidates are selected through a competition for $$$$ and influence.

is that the $$$ in the case of the US, comes from the people, and not an unelected body of relgious leaders of one particular faith.

As for Israel, its minority members freely serve in its Parliment (as opposed to Iran, where minorities receive a preselected number of seats, in the case of the Jews, they get one, out of over 500), and the minority citizens can freely vote for any party that they wish.

In addition, minority members serve in both Israel's judiciary and military at high levels. I don't know if you remember the case against Israel's then President Katsav. One of the three three supreme court judges that ruled on the case, sending Israel's Jewish president to prison, was an Arab.

...is the worst form of government, except for all of the others." -- Winston Chuchill (and others no doubt)

Worth noting that the SC justice is Salim Joubran, is a Christian Arab. The first Arab appointed (as a temp?) to the court was Abdel Rahman Zuabi, a secular Muslim. It also seems that several of the Israeli political parties have Arab MOK's. Not sure on their religions. I've always been interested in reading about the Druze and Bedouin members of the IDF and the police. The famous one is Amos Yarkon, though his Arab name is different. Reading up on the Druze suggests that they adapt to wherever they happen to be (Syria, Lebanon, Israel, USA, etc), which is a smart move for secretive and exclusive minorities.

Pretty clear Muslim citizens of Israel contribute to their apart-ness, though it would also seem that the Jewish nature of the Israeli state plays a role in keeping many of the Arabs at arm's length. I remember speaking with a Palestinian (with a Jordanian travel document) who expressed regret (sincerely I think) that he did not accept Israeli citizenship when offered.

Also interesting that disgraced President Moshe Katsev was born Musa Qasab in Yazd, Iran. Jewishness would seem to trump anything in Israel. Hard to imagine how Americans would feel about an American president who'd been born in the former Soviet Union or China or Iran, even if the law allowed for such a thing. I guess we sort of know how that would go over since so many people are willing to believe BO is not the president because he's a sleeper-agent sent by the Mau Mau or the Indonesians or al Qaeda.

I'd disagree, JB is underestimating the influence of religious bodies in this country. It is certainly true that the economic conservatives and Wall Street types within the GOP play the Evangelicals as chumps, but religious bodies both Left and Right feel free to weigh in and dictate how the tax dollars of this agnostic are spent: foreign aid, immigration, wars, and the Levant. I didn't elect these politically active clergymen. Religious bodies in this country should be taxed, the claim that they are apolitical is preposterous.

I would like to raise this thought. Most Israeli's serve in the IDF. It's a conscription army, with long-term reserve duties. Many who have served have fought on the front lines. Those that don't serve, or don't serve in combat roles know either immediate family members that do (think mother father, brother sister, son daughter, aunt, uncle, cousin, or barring that neighbors on the block). Their memorial days are not filled with shopping sprees and retail sales, but with the entire nation coming to a halt as air-raid sirens wail and the nation remembers those who have fallen.

In addition, Israel's wars have been in and around Israel. The soldiers are not travelling abroad, but know that if an enemy gets past them, their target lists will include family members and the above mentioned neighbors. Indeed, Israelis have faced bomb and rocket attacks on a regular basis during the past 12 years. Over the longer term, Israel has dealt with five wars against neighboring states.

These are people who live in homes built with specific 'safe rooms' to protect from rocket blasts. They are people who have built playgrounds that include such safe zones as well. Their communities have working bomb shelters, and gas masks have been a regular home accessory since Saddam threatened to gas Israel back in 1990 following his dustup with the world over his invasion of Kuwait.

Indeed, there have been recent civil-defense drills for many first-responders and civilians.

Israelis know, full well, that should an attack be launched by their country on Iran, there will be a hammer blow in return, both at military and civilian targets, whether or not there are any civilian casualties in Iran.

Yet, knowing all of this and building on the risks beyond the immediate threats of retaliatory violence, Israel's government believes that there is a serious risk to allow Iran a nuclear weapons program.

Omar Khayyam may be a great poet, but Iran's leaders are using somewhat different language here.

U.S. Bulks Up Iran Defenses

Two New York newspapers were published on Saturday. One shows no reason for war and another shows preparations for war. I have both newspapers.

I was the intel sergeant in A-245 Dak Seang, north of Kontum and 10 clicks from Laos in 1969 and 1970. A week before I left, at 4 am, the camp came under rocket, mortar, and artillery fire. At 10 am, hindquarters sent a message that the camp would be attacked.

Part of the US wants another war. I have studied foreign affairs, economics, and technology, and I use my best skills to warn about the dangers, but nobody listens. Some countries need to learn the hard way.