The "nuclear question" is itself a construct of the Neo-Cons and the pro-Israeli lobby. Iran has a perfectly legal nuclear program that goes back to the days of the Shah, when it was set up with the assistance and encouragement of the United States. After 7 years of intensive scrutiny and hype, not an iota of evidence of a prohibited nuclear weapons program has emerged. That's why Iran's accusers have resorted to using vague, open-ended accusations against Iran, ie that Iran seeks a nuclear weapons "capability" (whatever that means) or has the "intent" to build nukes at some indefinite point in the future.

The fact is that Israel sees a rapprochement between the US and Iran as a threat to its strategic value and interests, and is working hard to prevent that.

Boy, it really pays to do some fact-checking on these posts.

Here's the Haaretz article he links to:

Asked by interviewer Charlie Rose of PBS television what would happen if Israel attacked Iran, Mullen, referring to the frequent statement that "all options are on the table," said such an "option generates a much higher level of risk in terms of outcomes in the region and it really concerns me."

From this, MJ derives the statement that "The United States is against Israeli military action. Period." as if the US had made an absolute, categorical statement to that effect.

Now to be clear, it is apparent that there is a lot of skepticism about a military response and a strong fear that an Israel action in Iran could cause widespread instability. But that has always been the case. That's the case in Israel too. In other words, nothing substantive seems to have changed.

What's more, the article even says Mullen explicitly left open the military option if diplomacy fails:

Mullen commented favorably on President Barack Obama's plan to begin a dialogue with Iran, but said that if this dialogue fails and Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the U.S. might take military action.

And here's another distortion: MJ cites the quote from Dennis Blair saying that the Iranians are not on the brink of going nuclear, clearly implying that the Obama Administration is more skeptical about this that are Israelis. But in the same Haaretz article, Mullen is quoted as saying that the US and Israel are in agreement about Iranian nuclear capability:

Mullen said that he and Ashkenazi are "by and large" in agreement on Iran's progress toward obtaining nuclear weapons - namely, that it will not happen before 2010 - and that any discrepancies between the Israeli and American estimates are insignificant. He said the two men have been in agreement on this issue for the "better part of the last six months or so. There was a time that we weren't, but we've actually worked pretty hard to understand where we both are and so I think generally, we're in agreement."

Now this of course says nothing about what the right course of action on Iran should be. But what is so annoying is that nothing MJ writes here can be taken at face value. It has to be fact-checked. Can't we agree that regardless of where you stand on this issue, we should expect posts with more integrity than this one?

Good punch letter in the Times! Straight, no chaser!

"What I worry about in terms of an attack on Iran is in addition to the immediate effect, the effect of the attack, it's the unintended consequences," Mullen said. "So I worry about the responses and I worry about it escalating in ways that we couldn't predict. So that kind of option generates a much higher level of risk in terms of outcomes in the region and it really concerns me."

Let me try to amplify on Adm. Mullen's comment:

The casino is closed - and we're stranded in the desert, wearing a barrel, without a pot to piss in, but still yapping about "all options on the table" until the cows come home, the sky falls and the balmy Mojave glaciates.

Obama wants to make a deal with the Russians. He wants to exchange a missile defense shield that does not work to stop nuclear weapons that don't exist. What a deal! The Russians are rightly saying 'net'. After all it was Bush who uni-laterally ended the ABM treaty which would have prevented the development of such missiles in the first place.

The Attack-Iran drones are living in fantasy. There are no military solutions.

A short while ago, I heard a "breaking" on MSNBC that it has been confirmed that the U.S. shot down an Iranian drone well within Iraqi airspace on February 25.

I just checked google news and the print reports on it started to come out an hour or so ago; here's Reuters for one example.

This should mix things up on topic somewhat, no?

That which you cite suggests to me that Obama has decided to continue with the Bush plan, as advised by Gates. See especially the bold paragraph:

U.S. Rejected Aid for Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuclear Site By DAVID E. SANGER Published: January 10, 2009

White House officials never conclusively determined whether Israel had decided to go ahead with the strike before the United States protested, or whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel was trying to goad the White House into more decisive action before Mr. Bush left office. But the Bush administration was particularly alarmed by an Israeli request to fly over Iraq to reach Iran’s major nuclear complex at Natanz, where the country’s only known uranium enrichment plant is located.

The White House denied that request outright, American officials said, and the Israelis backed off their plans, at least temporarily. But the tense exchanges also prompted the White House to step up intelligence-sharing with Israel and brief Israeli officials on new American efforts to subtly sabotage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a major covert program that Mr. Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Barack Obama.

This account of the expanded American covert program and the Bush administration’s efforts to dissuade Israel from an aerial attack on Iran emerged in interviews over the past 15 months....

Mr. Bush was extensively briefed on options for an overt American attack on Iran’s facilities, he never instructed the Pentagon to move beyond contingency planning, even during the final year of his presidency, contrary to what some critics have suggested.

The interviews also indicate that Mr. Bush was convinced by top administration officials, led by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, that any overt attack on Iran would probably prove ineffective, lead to the expulsion of international inspectors and drive Iran’s nuclear effort further out of view. Mr. Bush and his aides also discussed the possibility that an airstrike could ignite a broad Middle East war in which America’s 140,000 troops in Iraq would inevitably become involved.

Instead, Mr. Bush embraced more intensive covert operations actions aimed at Iran, the interviews show....

I find myself in the unfamiliar, somewhat uncomfortable position of agreeing with Brad: MJ is overhyping what Mullen said.
And why argue over the English vs. the Hebrew editions of Haaretz? As Jon Stewart would say: "Roll tape."
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/8981
What Brad and MJ both seem to miss is the extent to which Mullen is expressing personal opinions in the Charlie Rose interview, specifically where he and Ashkenazi agree on the timeline for a possible Iranian nuke of 2010-2015.
But, as Mullen concedes, that's only IF Iran moves to reprocess all its low-enriched uranium into highly enriched uranium.
It could not happen secretly, and so it is not going to happen. Period.
Mullen says he "believes" Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon. As Gates has made clear, the evidence does not back him up.

The neocons should not let their victory in the Chas Freeman matter go to their heads.

Neocons?! Bouncing a guy from a an intel job that has been on the payroll directly or indirectly of both the Saudis and the Chinese should be the obvious move to anyone.

If Israel attacks Iran, Iran can't help us in Afghanistan and we need their help there. The Iranians helped us when we initially invaded Afghanistan and their help was invaluable. Their assisstance dropped off after a certain 'boy-king' labeled them as part of the 'axis of evil'.

There is no such thing as neoconservatism. There is no such thing as neoconservatism. There is no such thing as neoconservatism.

Walt and Mearsheimer made it all up. Walt and Mearsheimer made it all up.Walt and Mearsheimer made it all up. Walt and Mearsheimer made it all up.

It was about China and not just Israel. It was about China, and not just Israel. It was about China, and not just Israel.

Oh My!

During a visit to Washington, D.C., Ashkenazi met with Dennis Ross, the designated U.S. envoy to the Persian Gulf, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss the Iranian issue. The IDF chief told Ross that Israel would not tolerate a nuclear Iran. He said that a diplomatic approach to Iran's contentious nuclear program must be taken first, but said Israel must also prepare for other possibilities. --- Haaretz

In other words, you can try diplomacy, but only for a short while. We know it's going to fail. So can we start a war after that, pretty please!

This is delusional. Israel is living in a fantasy world where they always win a war or replay the last one done better. The Israeli leadership thinsk they can attack Iran and, within a short time after that, go on as business as usual. The Israel leaderes are blinded by the lust for war. Its actions will unleash a catastrophe for the region, for itself, and for the US.

May sanity prevail!