US, Israel More Threatened By Peaceful Iran? ...So We Should... Bomb Them?

In case you missed it, this report by the American Enterprise Institute -- as much a barometer of Washington's opinions as influence over them -- states that IRAN IS MORE DANGEROUS IF IT TURNS OUT THEY HAVE NOT  BEEN AFTER NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND WAR ALL ALONG.  They are more of a threat to our interests if they are NOT hotheads.  Why?  

American Enterprise Institute Admits  The Problem With Iran  Is Not That It Would Use Nukes  by MJ Rosenberg Political Correction (do follow link; excellent article) The shift in the rationale for war was kicked off this week when Danielle Pletka, head of the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) foreign policy shop and one of the most prominent neoconservatives in Washington, explained what the current obsession with Iran's nuclear program is all about. The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately." ... And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem. [snip] Hold on. The "biggest problem" with Iran getting a nuclear weapon is not that Iranians will use it but that they won't use it and that they might behave like a "responsible power"? But what about the hysteria about a second Holocaust? What about Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion that this is 1938 and Hitler is on the march? What about all of these pronouncements that Iran must be prevented from developing a nuclear weapons because the apocalyptic mullahs would happily commit national suicide in order to destroy Israel? And what about AIPAC and its satellites, which produce one sanctions bill after another (all dutifully passed by Congress) because of the "existential threat" that Iran poses to Israel? Did Pletka lose her talking points? [snip] If you didn't know any better, you might ask why...  AEI is still hell-bent on war. If its determination to stop Iran is not about defending Israel from an "existential threat," what is it truly about? Fortunately, Pletka and Donnelly don't leave us guessing. It is about preserving the regional balance of power, which means ensuring that Israel remains the region's military powerhouse, with Saudi Arabia playing a supporting role. That requires overthrowing the Iranian regime and replacing it with one that will do our bidding (like the Shah) and will not, in any way, prevent Israel from operating with a free reign throughout the region. This goal can only be achieved through outside intervention (war) because virtually the entire Iranian population — from the hardliners in the reactionary regime to reformists in the Green Movement working for a more open society — are united in support of Iran's right to develop its nuclear potential and to be free of outside interference. What the neoconservatives want is a pliant government in Tehran, just like we used to have, and the only way to achieve this, they believe, is through war. At this point, it appears that they may get their wish. The only alternative to war is diplomacy, and diplomacy, unlike war, seems to be no longer on the table. Read more -- do; this ARTICLE IS EXCELLENT!!

That would make us look bad.  Like liars.  Indeed.

Would we go to war to prevent this?

Think about it: it would be a war where our motives would be extremely suspect.  From the get-go.  Ah, says the Perceptive Reader:  and how would it be different?

I pray that somehow it is.

Be seeing you.