Steve....could you ask Mr. Leverett some questions from "your audience"

1) Given the current situation, do you think its realiztic to suggest that Iran would trust any "security guarantees" provided by the Bush administration.

2) My understanding of your paper is that only a "Grand Bargain" with Iran can be negotiated, and that "piecemeal" efforts will be unsuccessful. Given the rabidly deteriorating security situation in Iraq, would it not be in the best interest of Iran and the US for Iran to take over responsibility for "security" in the Shia areas of Iraq, and could that not be separately negotiated?

3) On the subject of your censored Op-ed, it is my understanding that everything that appears in the op-ed can be found in your recent paper on Iran. Have you though of having someone like Steve write an op-ed for the Times, based on the information that is available publicly in your paper?

i have another question... what, if any, part does the israeli/palestinian conflict play in the "grand gargain"? i am thinking of this (below) from jonathan cook's recent essay "The Trap of Recognizing Israel":

"But in truth there is another reason why Israel is concerned about a nuclear-armed Iran that has nothing to do with conventional ideas about safety.

Last month, Ephraim Sneh, one of Israel's most distinguished generals and now Olmert's deputy defense minister, revealed that the government's primary concern was not the threat posed by Ahmadinejad firing nuclear missiles at Israel but the effect of Iran's possession of such weapons on Jews who expect Israel to have a monopoly on the nuclear threat.

If Iran got such weapons, "Most Israelis would prefer not to live here; most Jews would prefer not to come here with families, and Israelis who can live abroad will ... I am afraid Ahmadinejad will be able to kill the Zionist dream without pushing a button. That's why we must prevent this regime from obtaining nuclear capability at all costs."

In other words, the Israeli government is considering either its own preemptive strike on Iran or encouraging the United States to undertake such an attack – despite the terrible consequences for global security – simply because a nuclear-armed Iran might make Israel a less attractive place for Jews to live, lead to increased emigration and tip the demographic balance in the Palestinians' favor."

Huuumm...I asked in your previous post why the WH was doing this since he already wrote about Iran many times....but I bet the below is the money quote....can't have people knowing Iran cooperated and offered to bargin with us in return for help in Iraq...and we didn't take their offer.

"These matters include Iran's dialogue and cooperation with the United States concerning Afghanistan in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and Iran's offer to negotiate a comprehensive "grand bargain" with the United States in the spring of 2003"

Another pair of questions from the audience:

1) What is the likely end game of the Cheney approach? What would the US propose to do after a bombing campaign against Iran? Is there any military action short of wiping Iran off the map that could achieve US goals? Painting the futility of the Cheney approach is one way to strengthen and justify the grand bargain approach.

2) Why does the grand bargain ask Iran to end support for terrorist groups (Hezbollah, Hamas) with no reciprocal commitment from the US to reign in Israel? Given the strength of Iran's bargaining position, I don't see why they would agree to abandon Hezbollah without getting some security guarantees for Lebanese Shiites in return.

Anyone else sick of watching our soldiers die at the behest of these butchers in Israel?

Heres what the Likudian maniacs have to say about it.....

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3340745,00.html

Steinitz estimates: US will attack Iran

Likud MK states he is 'convinced United States will attack and save the world.' As for situation in Palestinian Authority, he clarifies that 'no elections will change nature of PA as a terrorist entity'

Anat Bereshkovsky Published: 12.16.06, 15:52

Knesset Member Yuval Steinitz (Likud) said Saturday that he believes the United States will not settle for sanctions and diplomatic moves, and will eventually attack Iran .

Condemnation

Speaking in a rally in the southern city of Be'er Sheva, Steinitz also referred to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' decision to move up the elections in the Palestinian Authority, saying that "no elections will be able to change the nature of the Palestinian Authority."

Steinitz, who serves as head of a joint committee of the Knesset and the US Congress, expressed his great hope that the US will attack Iran, saying he believes that "the US will attack Iran and hit it in order to thwart its nuclear ability, as the diplomatic activity has failed."

'Bush and Blair have a historical role'

Steinitz claims that the US is technically capable of bombing the nuclear reactor in Iran. He stressed that his estimation is based on his deep acquaintance with senior US Congress members and senators.

"I believe that the US will use a military operation to save the world," Steinitz added. "Bush and Blair have a historical role in dealing with the Iranian threat."

Referring to the Palestinian issue, MK Steinitz, who served in the past as chairman of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, called on the government to launch a wide-scale military offensive in the Gaza Strip.

He also addressed Abbas' speech , and warned of developing high expectations.

"No elections will change the nature of the Palestinian Authority as a terrorist entity and a systematic agreement violator. Israel must disband the PA, at least in Judea and Samaria, as a preliminary move ahead of the future need to deal with the Iranian threat."

Thank you both for an informative program!!

Be well....and safe!

Mike Dallos