One other point on Iran. A lot of neoconservatives think it would be "immoral" for the United States to offer some sort of grand bargain to Iransecurity guarantees, an agreement on our side not to attack, better economic and diplomatic relationsin exchange for nuclear disarmament. And yes, there would be something "icky" about appeasing the Iranian regime, which is hardly one of the world's most cuddly. But Ted Galen Carpenter and Justin Logan say just about all that needs to be said on this:
The Iranian regime is undoubtedly odious. But one of the requirements of an effective foreign policy is to engage with unpleasant regimes when America's national interest requires that step. This is one of those cases.
Moreover, do hawks genuinely believe that the alternative to a grand bargain -- preventive military strikes, perhaps involving up to 400 targets, some of them beneath densely populated urban centers -- is sensitive to the plight of Iranians?
Are we to believe that such a policy, which would involve thousands of civilian deaths, is the policy that best serves the interests of the Iranian people?The whole column is worth reading, but that part's well put.