Rather than concern ourselves about what to "do about" Iran, lets concern ourselves about what to "do about" Turkey, or Azerbaijan, or Albania. Even better, much better in fact, lets concern ourselves about what to do about America.

We already "did about" Iraq and look where that got us. God forbid we "do about" any other nation in the Middle East.

Hoppy in Sacramento

J. McCutchen

Iran won the war in IraQ years ago. Now Bush seems to have realized this!

I said last December that the surge was more about a vain effort to regain some leverage against Iran. Arming the "dead enders", the nationalist Sunni insurgents in al-Anbar?

That's as much about Iran as Al-Qaeda if not more so.

Either we do it or Saudi will. Bush knows he cannot stay until Iraq is stabilized. Fer crissakes he's not retarded!

One more thing: the narratives absolutely must be decoupled. We need to get out of Iraq, and nothing going on in Iran should be allowed to change that.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

There are two problems with your post Mr Etzioni.

First, you assume that the nuclear issue is really the cause of conflict between Iran and the US. It isn't. Israel is. Any American rapprochement with Iran represents a danger to Israel's strategic position and value to the US, especially in the post-Cold war era. That's the real danger that IRan poses to Israel, not nukes. Dr. Trita Parsi's book covers this issue well in "Treacherous Triangle – The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States", Yale University Press 2007.
That is why repeated Iranian offers of compromise - including the 2003 offer - were scorned and ignored by the Bush administration, and why the pro-Israeli lobby has worked so hard to undermine all efforts at improved relations, as detailed in Walt-Mearsheimer's recently published book on the Israel Lobby. In fact, that's become a cottage industry among the pro-Israeli "think tanks" in Washington DC like WINEP.

Also, your second scenario takes it for granted that Iran has a nuclear arms program when there's no evidence of it. That's why Bush claims that Iran is seeking a "capability" to build nukes - the ambiguity and conflation of a nuclear energy program with a nuclear weapons program is intentional.

Furthermore, Iran has every right - as well as perfectly justifiable economic reason - to have a nuclear program, including enrichment - rather than to become reliant on foreign supplies of reactor fuel. Other countries such as Brazil and Argentina have developed the same technology recently.

However, Iran has offerred to place additional limits, well beyond what other countries have allowed, and beyong what Iran is legally obligated to do. These compromises suggested by Iran - such as renouncing plutonium processing and placing strict limits on uranium enrichment - would have addressed any legitimate concern about nuclear weapons "capabilities" but were scorned by the Bush administration.
(See for example: "We in Iran don't need this quarrel")

And previously, everytime Iran made concessions, the goalposts were simply moved and the demands increased (For example, they temporarily suspended enrichment under the term of the Paris Agreement, but the EU/US then demanded that Iran permanently give up enrichment)

Thus, the Iranians have probably rightly concluded that no amount of compromise offers by them will suffice, since the goal of the US is ultimately regime change and the nuclear issue is merely a pretext.

And who can blame them?

Here is where the pandemic, endemic and systemic pathological LYING in American politics defeats us. The issue is not about leaving Iraq, now or later after some unknown unkown heretofore unseen majikal leader or government that will allay the Bush governments wanton profiteering designs in Iraq. The real issue is that - America is never leaving Iraq. American tax payers are funding 14 enduring or permanent bases in Iraq, and a $600mn embassy in the emerald city. We are never leaving Iraq. The oil interests are far too entrenched and strategically sensitive, and America must be able to check Iran's growing dominance and empowerment in the region, and other naughty nasty evildoer jihadist states and militia's.

America is never leaving Iraq.

That does not justify the costly, bloody, and ghoulish policy of forcing our troops to roam the streets of Iraq like legionaires attempting to police a civil war, and erecting one or another puppet governments in amenable to, or satiating the Bush governments fascist imperialism and wanton profiteering in Iraq.

The factbasedreality that no socalled leader left or right has the courage to address or admit to the American people is that - America is never leaving Iraq, just as we are never leaving South Korea, Japan, or South and Central America, or various strategic positions in Europe. We are never leaving Iraq.

"Deliver us from evil!.

Who is the real "threat" to whom?
Who has the real basis for fear - Iran or Israel?

Which country is actually pointing the real, existing nuclear weapons at whom? (FYI incidentally, Iran has signed and ratified both the Chemical Weapons and the Biological Weapons conventions - Israel has not )

Which country has Bush explicitly threatened with a nuclear first strike?

Excuse me, but this alleged Israeli fear is simply more of the usual monopolization of victim status for political reasons. Israel is not the underdog.

Aside from the deliberately mistranslated words of Ahmadinejad regarding "wiping out" Israel, who is really in danger of being wiped out?

Lets remember that the religious zealots pushing the Apocalypse or "Clash of Civilizations" thesis are not in Iran - they're in Tel Aviv and Washington DC

Lets remember that the country which has the actual WMD programs and has ignored international law by attacking other countries is not Iran - its the US and Israel.

And despite all this talk about "fears" and "threats" lets remember which country in the Mideast was actully the victim of WMDs. (I am referring to the Iranian experience of chemical warfare by the Iraqis, who deployed chemical weapons with the full, knowing support of the USA in a war which cost Iran more than a half million lives.)

And whose officials and candidates and editorial writers go around claiming that attacking other countries is merely an "option on the table"?

SO again, who is the real "threat" to whom?

We are never leaving...until we bankrupt the country and go the way of the British Empire. Fortunately, the British had us to take their place. Unfortunately, we have China.

Hear, hear!

I'm all about "do about" America! Man we have some serious problems here at home and we're worried about fixing someone else?

Now of course this is ultimately about geopolitics. And those that have been shaping policy (I'm giving them more credit than they likely deserve) have probably weighed investing in infrastructure with securing energy resources (and getting filthy rich in the process) and chose the later. From a purely academic viewpoint I suppose there's a case to be made there. Unfortunately the people charged with executing the policy have a collective IQ of somewhere in the area of 23.

I think that what we've essentially done is light a stick of dynamite...only we lit the wrong damn end of it.

The militarism of the West? Nice to spare our feelings, but I think that needs to be amended to "the militarism of the United States". True, Britain and some few other Euroepan countries came along for the ride, but without George Bush and his merry Neocons starting the war, no Europeans country (nor Austrailia, Japan etc.) would have troubled Iraq at all.

That's a valid point. And lest we forget, we participated in an enormous amount of finagling and diplomatic arm-twisting to build support in the lead up to our invasion of Iraq. That Coalition of the Willing would have certainly stumped even the most geographically informed.

One can get to that range with fission, although it would have to be plutonium. So far, Iran is only enriching small amounts of uranium, and will have to fuel their own breeder reactors to cook up some plutonium.

If they were in a hurry for a deterrent, Iran might try for highly-enriched weapons grade (U235) and make a Hiroshima-type gun bomb. The advantage is it needs no testing; the disadvantage is it's really hard to come up with that much U235. The resulting design would not be deliverable except by heavy bomber.

the author ignores a central tenent of the Iranian regime -- proliferation. Ahmadenijad and other regime leaders have repeatedly stated their desire to "share nuclear technology" with other Muslim nations. One can only guess as to what this really means, but even a cursory review of Ahmadenijad's public comments reveals a man who believes the West is a paper tiger -- only Islam can bring real peace and justice to the world -- a strong Islamic world is the key to that vision.

Let's not forget this is a nation that repeatedly denied they were arming Hezbollah -- until the war with Israel. Then they suddenly do an about face and admit proudly that they were indeed arming Hezbollah. These are the same people speaking up for their "peaceful nuclear rights". Can they be believed? This is the question that has to be answered.

Y'know, there was a guy who thought just like Brook here. He figured that the Iranian people were crying out from oppression under the Mullahs, that the evil regime of the theocracy had no support, that their incompetence and mismanagement, their corruptions and purges had rendered their government a hollow shell. He too knew a lot of Iranians praying for the foreign liberation of their country.

His name was Saddam Hussein. He discovered in 1979 how very wrong he was. He spent the next eight years having how wrong he was rubbed painfully into his face as he fought for his life.

Maybe we shouldn't be recycling tired old thug's disproven talking points.

The First Gulf War was a joint effort with Britain, France and several other countries. While America has largely forgotten European colonialism ever existed,it is still a raw memory in most of the world. Look at the speech that the "moderate" Thabo Mbeki gave in Khartoum and get some idea of how to former colonial countries 1898 was just yesterday.
http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2005/05010315151001.htm

once again, Val reveals his shallow reading habits. The Islamic "revolution" is no longer a revolution, as might have been characterized in the 80's. When you've been in power for 30 years, you are the political elite the people want to get rid of.

Saddam Hussein had nothing to offer the Iranian people, if he could have conquered their cities, except brutality.

While there might be a "rally round the flag" moment on the part of some Iranians, there are plenty that wouldn't lift a finger to help sustain a dysfunctional, corrupt system.

Thanks for reading through it. This jumped off the page: 

[T]he United States will be viewed in the region and elsewhere as a paper tiger and as an unreliable ally.

Exactly the same wording as during Vietnam.

Hoppy, you are usually concise (more than me) and sometimes witty but your first post covers it all.

Right on!

I love the way these asses slide assumptions into their diatribe with no warning or condition.

Like: what nuclear armament program?

As someone who is perceived to believe in the rights of an individual within the strictures of a community he sure throws up a narrow range of choices and variables. Yes, about inline with this administration's level of thought, but it sure would have been helpful to hear from such a well regarded "Israeli-American" intellectual some more original and less self-serving "ideas".

The Islamic "revolution" is no longer a revolution, as might have been characterized in the 80's. When you've been in power for 30 years, you are the political elite the people want to get rid of.

Actually, the 'Islamic' revolution during this period was deemed to be fairly weak. It had been part of a general revolution, and had risen to the top by relentlessly purging and displacing its allies, persecuting minorities, and narrowing its base more and more. It seemed ripe for toppling.

As one example, the Mullahs had so thoroughly pursed the armed forces that Iran had almost no fighter pilots left. Fighter pilots were officers and the officer class was being ruthlessly purged. When Saddam struck, most of Iran's fighter pilots were in prison.

Saddam Hussein had nothing to offer the Iranian people, if he could have conquered their cities, except brutality.

Well, except that Saddam was secular, sunni, arab, was then seen as much more moderate and was then without all his modern baggage.

Saddam's appeal was to the large Arab, Sunni, secular minority on the border and in the oil producing areas who were really getting reamed up the ass by Persian Shia fanatics. His read was that these people were being brutally oppressed by a state which was emphasizing its alienness and lack of connection to them in every possible way. Shia theocrats ruling Sunni secularists, Persian nationalists oppressing Arab minorities.

He had every reason, or so he thought, to believe that giving the Iranian regime a severe shaking would be supported by the oppressed Arab Sunnis, who would rise up and help to overthrow their oppressors, or who would welcome Saddam's overthrow of their oppressors.

On the other hand, America has done such a bang up job in Iraq that I'm sure the Iranians have taken note: Civil war, 50% unemployment, economic collapse, one city destroyed after another, fuel shortages, malnutrition, looting of antiquities, runaway crime, etc. etc. Yeah, I'm sure that the Iranians are pining away for America to do that to them.

Iran's nuclear weapons development programs (which may or may not be advanced enough at this stage to field even one weapon in three to four years) are defensive or deterent in nature. The Iranians are well aware of the fact that any nuclear engagement involviing Iran would result in Irans certain and total destruction. The response to any Iranian nuclear exchange would be overwhelmingly devastating, rendering all of Irans populations centers to glass, and push the Iranian government to the point of nonrecovery.

Iran is seeking to deter perceived threats, (like some insane fascist in the Bush government, or some whacked out zionist in Israel) from attacking, and occupying Iran.

That said, Iran won Iraq, and has been empowered by the Bush governments' catastrophic failures and prolific abuses, and profound humiliations in the Iraq war. Iranian and shi'a influence in the region has significantly increased. This grim fact is more than unsettling to other muslim nations most particularly SA who just happens to be the funding and nurturing soucres for all the wahabist, salafist jihadist mass murder gangs.

Now America is "stuck between Iraq, and a hard place" with exceedingly few, very troubling options all of which will be longterm, costly, bloody and painful, and which will require outstanding leadership and management from the American government, (precluding any involvement by anyone in the fascist Bush government).

Iran must be checked now in the region. Iraq under Saddam formally provided that check, but now that Iran is no longer neutered by a sunni force next door, the Shi'a through-out the region are inspired, and empowered, and working like feverish shaitans to entrench their newfound power and influence. The entire region is thrust into upheaval. It is far to late to correct, or uninvent these realities. Leaders can only manage in the most intelligent ways very ticklish and exceedingly complex issues and relations.

Let's be honest. America is never leaving Iraq. Iran is a concern, but no legitimate threat beyond increasing influence in the ME, to America. America is wasting oceans of blood, treasure, and lost credibility in Iraq combatting the wrong muslims, and ignoring outright, or failing to adequately address the very real threats to America in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran.

These threats do not warrant massive wars, and occupations, but all Americans are required to recognize these realities and force leadership to intelligently manage these problems, and commit in earnest to the ruthless hunting, capturing, or killiing of every single jihadist mass murderer and all those who aid and abet them including those in Damascus, Islamabad, Nablus, Karachi, Damascus, Beirut, Ryad, Mecca, or Medina.

"Deliver us from evil!"

This scenario is close to what the conventional wisdom foresees these days among those who study the Middle East.

If that's the conventional wisdom among those who study the Middle East, then practitioners of Middle East studies need to start acquiring their wisdom at different conventions.

But I seriously doubt that the first alternative outlined by professor Etzioni is the conventional wisdom at all among serious scholars of the Middle East. Maybe it is conventional wisdom at the American Enterprise Institute. And with its substantial admixture of Michael Ledeen-style crackpottery about the Iranian "terror masters" seemingly directing the entire Global Islamic Jihad from their Dr. Evil Mad Mullah bunker in Tehran - with direction extending to even the Shia-loathing takfiris from the predominantly Sunni countries Etzioni lists - it is no doubt the conventional wisdom at the Middle East Studies labs located at the offices of the National Review.

And it might be the conventional wisdom at the soirées hosted by the Saudi, Egyptian and Israeli embassies, since hyping the great Shia expansionist threat is the best current con run by those countries for grifting hysterical American suckers out of yet more cash and weaponry.

Every so often, one runs into one of these comments that vividly illustrates the curious habit of some Americans of viewing the entire world through the very tiny lens of Israel, one of the world's smaller countries. If an Israeli town was buried under a mudslide, the US Congress and 80% of Washington would immediately declare that we face a profound crisis of Global Mudding and launch a new Manhattan project to dry up all of the world's remaining soggy dirt. If a single Israeli died from a tainted piece of falafel from a Palestinian street vendor, the 50 American states would be mobilized to fight the new War on Falafo-fascism.

Israel is smaller than Djibouti, smaller than Belize, smaller than the Solomon Islands. Because Israel exists in a permanent state of existential hysteria and has some problems with a few troublesome local neighbors does not mean that those neighbors represent a global threat of cosmic proportions to the rest of us. Because the Israelis failed in the effort to kick Hizbollah's ass in southern Lebanon does not mean Shia Muslims are taking over the world.

Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia; none came from Iran; none were from Hizbollah. Sunni Salafist terrorists are the ones who have blown up US embassies and blown holes in US warships in the relatively recent past. It's been over a quarter century since we in the US took any serious shit from the Shia branch of the Islamist movement. And yet I am supposed to believe the Saudis and the Israelis when they tell me my biggest problem is Iran and Shia Muslims? Bah!

Ah, but as you know the geniuses in leadership roles have determined that our failures in Iraq are due entirely to . . . the envelope please . . .IRAN!! It's all their fault. So what if the Saudis gave us OBL & 9/11, funded the madrassahs and account for most of the foreign fighters in Iraq -- it's Iran, the one country that the US doesn't control in the oil-rich area between Syria and India. Speaking of Syria . . .

Parody, right? I admit that you had me coming and going there for a little while. But the follow up post was just a sublime kicker. It was beautiful, man.

Why shuold their feelings of security supersede the feelings of Iranians or Palestinians or Lebanese? Who is making them insecure - Iran or their own government's policies? And I'm not Mr Abdul - that's just a screen name chosen as a joke

Arab, Sunni, secular minority on the border and in the oil producing areas who were really getting reamed up the ass by Persian Shia fanatics.

Utter Nonsense! You have absolutely no familiarity with Iran or the region quite obviously.First of all the Sunnis who live on the Iran-Iraq border can hardly be described as "secular". In the north, the only Sunnis on the border are Kurds - hardly big fans of Saddam.
In the south, they're marsh-arabs - again, hardly big fans of Saddam. Neither can be described as "secular".

Second, your entire characterization of the Iran-Iraq war as a Sunni-Shia fight is totally unfounded. Much of Saddam's military was Shia - and they fought Iranian shia forces. In fact, rather than appealing to a religious divide (which until recently was not an issue - thanks, Bush!) he attempted to appeal to Arab nationalism not Sunnism vs. Shia Its funny - a lot of you had never heard of Sunni or Shia until yesterday, and now you're trying to define everythign totally in the context of this new information.

Saddam Hussein made no pretense as to his Ambitions: he wanted to annex "Arabistan" (also known as the Iranian province of Khuzestan)

But you're absolutely right - the Iranian people WOULD rally in support of their government against foreign aggression, no matter how "corrupt" you may think they are (in fact, despite the US media claims, the average Iranian's lot has significantly improved since the revolution - take a look at literacy figures for women, access to healthcare, education, clean water, longer lifespans etc. and see yourself.)

Iranians are deeply, deeply nationalistic and they have a history of deeply resenting foreign aggression against their country particularly by western powers thanks to previous experiences. Saddam too thought that attacking Iran would result in the regime being toppled - instead Iranians launched human wave attacks against his forces, so much so that the US had to provide Saddam with chemical weapons and cluster munitions to fight them off.

Actually, the Iranians wuold be happy to recognize American hegemony in the ME since it serves their interests fine - better to protect the oil export routes, and do away with the likes of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and an out-of-control Saddam which all represented a danger to Iran. The Iranians are not expansionist, they have no claims on other territory, they have no ambitions outside their own border that would necessarily conflict with broader US interests.
30 years after the revolution, Iran is back to being a status-quo power and pursues the same interests in the region as in the Shah's time. The Iranians would like nothng better than the good old days of when they were the local policemen of the Persian Gulf, serving US interests (and their own) of keeping the oil flowing.

The fly in the soup is Israel, which does have ambitions, and their influence on the US ultimately harms not just Iranian but also American interests.

The Pakistan scenario scares me far more than Iran. Pakistan actually has nukes, and if a radical jihadist regime took over, I fear all hell would break loose, probably starting with India launching a pre-emptive war of their own. The world could turn very ugly very quickly.

I certainly appreciate the fact that you're committed to goring both my and Brook's oxen.

That being said, I'll provide some brief responses. Iran is 90% Shia, 9% Sunni. According to maps of the Shia/Sunni divide, it appears that the border areas of Iran are predominantly Sunni. According to this map, the Sunni area of Iran constitutes not just the Kurdish area, but also the Azeri and Arab (Khoramshar) area.

The map I relied upon is here:

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

If this map is inaccurate, then you have my apologies. On the other hand, I had no reason to consider it anything but accurate.

The population of Iran is just over 50% Persian. Arabs, Kurds, Azeri's, Baluchi's, etc., make up substantial minorities.

My impression of the Iranian revolution was that it began as a broad based movement to overthrow the Shah, incorporating socialists, liberals, democrats, conservatives, business, minorities as well as theocratic elements.

Over the initial period, the theocratic element triumphed over all others narrowing the political and social base of the Iranian revolution. My presumption was that this narrowed base was primarily Persian and excluded or minimized minorities. My presumption was also that this narrowed base, given that it was Shia theocracy, specifically excluded Sunni. I still feel that these are valid assumptions.

The notion that Khoramshar was a predominantly Arab province has been conceded by you.

Under the circumstance, the assumption that an ethnically distinct group of Arabs in Iran would tend towards the religious affiliation of most Arabs in Iran seems reasonable.

The assertion that they were more secular is gilding the lilly a bit, but at the same time, this was a group excluded by the theocracy, and it was a group which was at the centre of Iran's oilfields and oil industry, which suggests it was one of the most modernized regions, and most affected by outside contact. So I think that's a reasonable assumption.

Part of Saddam Hussein's underlying strategy was that he believed that the Arabs of Khoramshar owed no loyalty to, and quite a bit of hostility to an ethnically persian shia theocracy. He believed that they would rise up or at least remain quiet and accept the related Arabs of Iraq as liberators from Persian domination. He also counted on uprisings from other ethnic minorities, including particularly, those on borders.

For example, Iraq and Iran had both had long histories of trouble with the Kurds, he'd had his own troubles, he felt it was reasonable to assume an Iranian Kurdish uprising.

He may have assumed that he might be able to enlist the Azeri minority by offering a better deal, etc.

This was all contingent on Hussein's view of an Iranian revolution which had narrowed its base to the point of excluding, ostracising and punishing religious and ethnic minorities throughout Iran, and which even among Shia Persians might have been wobbly, given the purges of the army, socialists, liberals, democrats, etc.

As it turns out, he was wrong, and he was wrong in spectacular ways. The Arabs of Khoramshar rebuffed his advances and fought him savagely.

But mistakes run both ways. Khomeini, after the war had turned, believed that the Shia of Iraq would rise up to join with Iran in throwing off Saddam's Sunni tyranny. Khomeini was wrong too.

I fully accept your comments that in 30 years the Iranian revolution has had a long time to consolidate itself and to build a popular base of support. Iranian society is politically fractious, people do chafe under the Mullahs, and outrageous things happen there as here. But at the same time, there is a general freedom of expression, imperfect but free elections are held, and there is very little sign that public or social dissent has reached the stages of open revolt that we saw under the Shah. There are no mass rallies, no crowd, calling for overthrow. Rather, for better or worse, the Iranians seem prepared to tolerate their system of government. They may not like their politicians and their leaders decisions, but that's a far cry from seeking overthrow of the whole thing.

Even were this discontent there, the tendency of human nature is to close ranks against outsiders. An American invasion or war would unite Iranians against America, not be seen as an opportunity for Iranians to overthrow the Mullahs. Saddam and then Khomeini made identical mistakes in the Iran/Iraq war. The least we could do is pay attention to the obvious history.

And on that mistake, Saddam restricted himself to Khoramshar and a few ethnic or religious minorities. Brook here presumes a general Iranian uprising. So Saddam was fairly modest, but dead wrong. Brook is quite extravagant, and even more likely to be dead wrong.

And even if that sentiment were there, I think that the American record in Iraq, which has been relentlessly disastrous, would probably discourage it. No matter how unhappy Iranians are with their country, they don't want it turning into Iraq II. No matter how much they might want to be rescued (if indeed that's what they want) there's no evidence that the Iranians want or trust the Americans to do it.

Indeed, both recent and past history strongly suggests that the Americans are not wanted....

Iraq is not an island. It was a sandbar, long ago washed away. What to do about Iran is the same as what to do about the Saudis and many of the other countries in the region: put an end to our dependence on what they are selling.

And it's possible Iran will evolve, or have another revolution. What is less likely is that we can steer that process. What is certain is that our efforts would be reviled by many, who remember us overthrowing Mossadeq. Note that Ahmadinejad only won election after Bush began throwing the US' weight around.  Our bluster puts their back up. Only making nice would get anywhere now.

In principle, it is not possible for the current government to be more hated than the Shah, since the Shah depended on CIA support.

We don't have any choice but to deal with Iran as another sovereign state, and it deserves respect as such.

Brook, believing in the foundational precepts of American/Israeli exceptionalism takes more than some "summer reading". It takes years of indoctrination and propaganda.

abdul-hass,
In response to my comment on what the US won't accept, you respond with a comment on what Iran will accept. And you are usually so logical.

I don't deny that the Israeli lobby has a huge, destructive impact on the US. What I am saying is that this influence coincides with long-standing US policy to control the ME, US/British policy if you will, going at least as far back as the Carter Doctrine of January 1980.

And I don't deny that Iran would accept a benign hegemony in the ME, however this has not been the case since we took over the British ME interest in 1950 or so. The US has not been benign at all. The US overthrew the Iran democratic government in 1953 -- Was this done only at Israel's bidding? There was the US support of the bloody Iraq invasion. The shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner. How about the "Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996", passed unanimously by the U.S. Congress, signed into law by President Clinton and continuously updated and expanded since?

The United States has maintained various sanctions against Iran since 1979, following the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. Are you saying that Iran is "happy" with this and has accepted sanctions, which one could argue are an act of war? US nuclear threats against Iran? An organized regime change effort? Naval fleets off their coast? etc. The us been in a low-level war with Iran for some time.

Considering everything, we've gone way beyond your simplistic thesis that the US is merely doing Israel's bidding, that everything between the US and Iran would be fine if it weren't for pesky Israel, the "fly in the soup".

This diary deserves more careful discussion then some have given it.

The central point is that any discussion on Iraq should include consideration of Iran. That is obviously true. Iran has been the major benefactor of US actions in Iraq and Iran is the closest to the new Iraq "government". As a large, populous, developed country in the center of the ME it should be a key player, along with Syria, in any scenario, as the ISG suggested. Plus Afghanistan borders it on the east. So in this sense the road to the future of the region runs through Tehran.

Scenarios 1 and 2 I thought were unrealistic when I first read them, but this was presumptuous on my part. All possible outcomes deserve serious discussion. Scenario 3, where the US aggression against Iran becomes an all-out attack, would definitely eclipse even Iraq as the war would widen considerably.

Scenario 1 is not really a big problem, and I think it's wrong to use the Vietnam-era formulation "...the United States will be viewed in the region and elsewhere as a paper tiger and as an unreliable ally." We are already viewed as an unreliable ally, so no loss there, and experience has shown the bombed precisely what are the capabilities and limits of our technological military.  

Scenario 2 is appealing, but it may be too late to hope for it, until another White House weighs in.

Scenario 3 is sure to spell the end of our dominance.

Who in the region views the US as an unreliable ally?