Iran News: Condensed and Highlighted 011


Iran News: Condensed and Highlighted 011
by Mohammad Alireza

(The better informed everybody becomes the greater the chance that war can be prevented and propaganda can not distort reality. With a couple of clicks you can do your part by simply forwarding this to others.)


U.S. denies sending warning to Iran via Russia



"The United States denied on Thursday a Russian media report that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had asked Russia to warn Iran that it was facing its "last chance" to resolve the dispute over its nuclear program diplomatically."

(I was waiting for this denial….My guess is that Hillary "Obliterate Iran" Clinton DID give a warning but the Russians leaked it, Obama heard about it, got angry, and told her to clear up the mess she had made.

(Here is more on Hillary "Obliterate Iran" Clinton from an article of mine back when she was running for President, entitled: "Cowboys and Iranians": )

(Wow! I just noticed it had got 2895 reads. Probably because of the catchy title. But it's my favorite, so check it out. I also just noticed that JJ had to put a stop to the comments as they got a bit too heated.)



Israeli strike on Iran could raise gas prices to $6 per gallon, analysts say

The Hill


(And for 97% of Americans that would be the ONLY thing they would be concerned about if Iran was bombed.)


And now for a dose of reality on Iran

Cyrus Safdari


(Safdari is commenting on an article by Jason Rezaian, which is the next item on this blog. And don't forget to check out Safdari's blog:

"The folks in Iran know perfectly well that even if tomorrow they announced that Iran is totally giving up all nuclear technology, and that IAEA inspectors can go inspect everything everywhere, that would certainly not be the end of the matter."

"The US is fundamentally out for regime change. It doesn't want a compromise from the regime over the nuclear issue -- the nuclear issue is just a pretext. What it wants, is to kill the regime and make an example of it for other developing countries that dare not toe the line and decide to be independent. And the regime knows this full well too."

"The US officials of course do occasionally launch a hamfisted "Message to the Iranian People" and other such PR stunts, in a sad Vaudeville attempt to sound respectful of the nationalistic and patriotic sensitivies of the Iranians, but this no more than an occasional & minor ripple in the usual stream of drivel about Iran that permeates the US political scene -- including the rhetoric of "all options being on the table" and "starving them into submission" -- which can only serve to inflame the sense of national insult."

"Or perhaps the US officials know this and simply don't care. After all, the Iraq and Afghan fiascos aside, the US is still reaching for that goal of being the world's sole superpower, and where there are no peer competitors around, it has the luxury of doing stupid things stupidly."

(I love that last true.)


Misreading Tehran



(I won't highlight from this article as it should be read in full.)

(The article is blocked from Iran for some nonsensical reason even though it's saying positive things about Iran. I sometimes wonder if the filtering system they use here has software written by Americans…yes, that's how idiotic it is. One of these days I'll list all the sites that are essential reading for Iranian foreign ministry staff but which are blocked in Iran. It's a long, dumb, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot, list.)


Demanding Intrusive Inspections While Threatening

by Nader Bagherzadeh


Contrary to inaccurate and biased US media reports, Iran is in fact in full compliance of its obligations under the IAEA’s Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Even the latest IAEA report cannot deny this fact, but the US media, in a misleading effort, insists on reporting only those areas that the IAEA has put on its wish list for Iran to fulfill which is commonly referred to as Possible Military Dimensions or PMD. The wish-list is not a requirement under Iran’s current Comprehensive Safeguard Agreement (CSA). Iran’s existing CSA protects her inalienable right to carry out any and all research related to nuclear technology, as long as bomb grade nuclear material is not involved, and there is not a single evidence of this violation.

Notwithstanding Iran’s full compliance, the IAEA now wants more intrusive inspections beyond Iran's CSA. These intrusive inspections are commonly referred to as the Additional Protocols (AP) On the surface of it, the request for AP seems reasonable as it will allow inspectors to go anywhere they wish, to talk to anyone they deem appropriate, and have all the information about future plans for nuclear facilities even before construction has begun. But the request is highly suspect as this demand is not extended to all NPT member countries, once again, demonstrating double-standards.

Accepting AP is tantamount to providing information about non-nuclear military sensitive sites that will be added to the target list of those countries that are threatening Iran with military strikes. Also, this will jeopardize the lives of tens of scientists and engineers that the IAEA wants to talk to as part of their new demands. Iran’s relaxed and naïve approach to protecting the scientists has cost the lives of 5 nuclear experts so far, and the AP may exasperate this situation.

This fear mongering has served Israel very well. Not only it has resulted in US and her allies to put in place the toughest sanctions ever on a country, impacting millions of Iranians, but it has covered up the disastrous Palestinian settlement issue. The Prime Minister of Israel should be commended for his skills in steering global concern and discussions away from the plight of the Palestinians to the saber rattling on her arch enemy, Iran. Unfortunately, the Palestinian issue is a time bomb that will surface regardless of Israel’s intentions to strike Iran. One of the side effects of this immoral and illegal preemptive war is that the Middle East problems will get worse before getting better, with many unintended consequences.


Crucial payment hub severs ties with Tehran

Al Jazeera


Iran has been largely cut off from global commerce after the company that handles worldwide financial transactions said it was severing ties with many Iranian banks to back European Union sanctions against Tehran.

The action on Thursday by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) aims to enforce EU sanctions discouraging Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.

It will go a long way toward isolating Iran financially.

SWIFT is a banking hub crucial to oil, financial transactions and other trades and global financial transactions are impossible to conduct without using it.

Because of its reach, SWIFT's decision to cut off some 30 Iranian banks and subsidiaries could hinder not only banking but also the country's lucrative crude oil industry and possibly hurt Iranian households that depend on remittances from relatives living abroad.

The announcements coincided with news that major money exchange houses in the United Arab Emirates, an important trading hub for Iran, have stopped handling the Iranian currency over the last several weeks.

SWIFT, a member-owned cooperative, has been described as the "glue" of the global banking system, handling daily payments estimated at more than $6 trillion.

Expelling the sanctions hit Iranian banks from SWIFT will shut down a major avenue through which Tehran does business with the rest of the world.


Iran Drumbeat Watch: Really Getting Ready for War?

By James Fallows


"An academic argument that we may be examining the signs of war in the wrong way:

"Ido Oren, of the University of Florida, says we should be paying attention to bureaucratic politics in the United States, Israel, and presumably also Iran:

While I fully agree that attacking Iran's nuclear facilities is a bad idea for both the United States and Israel, I wonder if the analytical perspective implicit in your analysis--portraying the United States (or Israel) as what International Relations scholars dub a "unitary rational actor"--is adequate to the task of determining the likelihood of a US military action.

I would argue that it is more useful to analyze US policy toward Iran as the result of a struggle within the US political system and federal bureaucracy between actors pulling for an active consideration of military strikes against Iran and actors pushing back against such action...

Why hasn't the US attacked Iran yet even as, since at least 2006, American officials have repeatedly portrayed the Iranian threat in all but apocalyptic terms and even as a chorus of pundits ranging from neocon Norman Podhoretz, through centrist David Broder, to liberal Amitai Etzioni have been openly calling on the US government to bomb Iran? The answer is that the political forces pulling for an aggressive stance toward Iran--VP Cheney's camp in the Bush White House, Congress, and AIPAC--have been outmaneuvered by the bureaucratic forces who opposed attacking Iran: the Department of State, the intelligence community and, most important, the Pentagon and the military's top brass.

The person who probably deserves most credit for preventing a military strike against Iran is former defense secretary Robert Gates, who ably led the loose bureaucratic coalition that pushed back against the military option. I offer a more detailed analysis of the matter here and here....

Notwithstanding Gates' departure, the lineup of the political-bureaucratic forces remains more or less the same. Pressures for an aggressive posture toward Iran continue to be channeled primarily through Capitol Hill, with AIPAC playing a key role in keeping the issue on the front burner, and with no significant organized pressure groups counteracting AIPAC's efforts (it is not accidental that the war drumbeat reached such fever pitch precisely at the time of AIPAC's recent annual conference--spikes in "bomb Iran" rhetoric similarly occurred in past springs around the time of that conference). And, as far as I can tell, the military brass, the intelligence community, and the diplomats remain opposed to military action. So long as these bureaucratic groups, especially the defense establishment, continue to push back against military responses to the Iranian nuclear program, the probability of an overt military strike remains low, if by no means zero...

[In Israel] the most vocal, persistent hawks have clearly been PM Netanyahu and defense minister Ehud Barak.... It seems that the Israeli intelligence community and top brass, like their US counterparts, have hardly embraced the military option. Meir Dagan, who stepped down from the leadership of the Mossad more than a year ago, pushed back against military strikes while in office, and he has been repeatedly speaking out against bombing Iran since leaving his post (including a recent appearance on 60 Minutes). The former chief of staff, Lt. General Gaby Ashkenazi, too, is widely believed to have been dovish on the Iranian issue, and there are indications that his successor, Lt. General Benny Gantz, is equally dovish...."


Maariv Reports Cabinet Favors Iran Attack

By Richard Silverstien


"Political sources judge that the prime minister has a majority in the cabinet which favors a military strike against Iran, even without American approval. Yesterday, Netanyahu said he wouldn’t hesitate to attack Iran even without the approval of Pres. Obama…A senior official said Bibi believed it would be best not to wait for the November presidential elections because he didn’t trust the president to deal with the problem after the election."

(Note, "Political sources judge…", which means what? It means the title is based on a judgment of a source and not the result of any vote by the cabinet. Right?")


(In the interest of providing an antidote to the doom and gloom here is joke.....which somehow relates to what's going on, don't you think?)

"It's late fall and the Indians on a remote reservation in South Dakota asked their new chief if the coming winter was going to be cold or mild. Since he was a chief in a modern society, he had never been taught the old secrets. When he looked at the sky, he couldn't tell what the winter was going to be like. Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, he told his tribe that the winter was indeed going to be cold and that the members of the village should collect firewood to be prepared.

But, being a practical leader, after several days, he got an idea. He went to the phone booth, called the National Weather Service and asked "Is the coming winter going to be cold?" "It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold" the meteorologist at the weather service responded.

So the chief went back to his people and told them to collect even more firewood in order to be prepared. A week later, he called the National Weather Service again. "Does it still look like it is going to be a very cold winter?" "Yes" the man at National Weather Service again replied "it's going to be a very cold winter".

The chief again went back to his people and ordered them to collect every scrap of firewood they could find. Two weeks later, the chief called the National Weather Service again. "Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?" "Absolutely" the man replied. "It's looking more and more like it is going to be one of the coldest winters we've ever seen". "How can you be so sure?" the chief asked. The weatherman replied "The Indians are collecting loads and loads of firewood".


Recently by Mohammad AlirezaCommentsDate
"We are children!"
Nov 12, 2012
Did You Know You Are Not Anonymous on
Nov 04, 2012
Either you want war, or you want peace
Oct 26, 2012
more from Mohammad Alireza

AO: Keep digging in…

by Bavafa on

How do you reconcile your statement here (modified by me): "After all, what ought to be more important,  the content or the messenger [Fred's blog] [or] who may or may not be an [entity]?

What keeps going over your head is the fact that I simply don’t participate in any of his blogs.  Or do you see me going to his two-blog-a-day just to bash him without even mentioning the content?

So what is it for me to reconcile with?

I don’t simply participate in his or other’s blogs that I find just disingenuous, pointless, distasteful or out of my interest including but not limited to some submitted by you.  In rare occasion that I do criticize someone, that is if I have any regards for them,  I try to make it constructive (as best as I can) and using logic. 

Case in point, this very same blog here which obviously is a perfect example that shows how you are incapable of accepting or dealing with any constructive criticism.
Now,  since you keep missing to make any [logical] points, let’s come up with some even more catchy phrase such as “Zionist hunter”

Yeah, that is just going to make you look smarter!!!!!!

 And I just won't dignify your comments/questions in your PS since they are only a reflection of who you are and not worth a response. 'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 



Anonymous Observer

Dear Zionist hunter Bavfa

by Anonymous Observer on

You didn't answer the main question in your long diatribe.  How do you reconcile your statement here (modified by me):

"After all, what ought to be more important,  the content or the messenger [Fred's blog] [or] who may or may not be an [entity]?

with your boycott of "Fred?"  Let's say that Fred is an entity.  According to you, we shouldn't pay attention to that, and instead focus on the content of his blogs (most of which are about social and cultural issues anyway).  No?  Example: why would you have a problem with this blog by Fred, which talks about Saeed Mortazavi, the Butcheer of Tehran:


Is it because you believe Fred to be a Jew, and as Fesenjoon once said, you hate Israel like it's your "noon va aab?"

But please answer the original question posed though. 

By the way, according to your friend's logic below, I believe that "Mohammad Alireza" is also a group or an "entity" as you Zionist hunters have so cleverly discovered about Fred from the highly sophisticated anti-Zionist crime solving headquarters called your basements.  

Let's see, comments are made about him.  He deosn't respond, but then there's a group that shows up on his behalf and carry water for him.  Hmmmm...I think I'm up to something here.  Plus, this "entity" posts blogs on a regular basis, all of which are IR friendly propaganda.  And look at how "it" numbers its blogs, 008, 009, 010, etc..., like a computer does.  That's it.  He must be an entity. could I not have seen this before?!!!  I even wrote it in bold, so it must be true.  

PS- question for you: when you fly those planes, do you ever get the urge to slam them into buildings?  Just wondering, as that seems to be another common trait of your species.

PSS- this is the land of opportunity because of the GI Joes that you ridicule.  Unfortunately, you and other America hating parasites happen to be beneficiaries of their sacrifices.   

iraj khan

They are not happy these day

by iraj khan on

The pro war group led by Israel and her Lobby, that is.


Maybe because President Obama

".. refused to yield to the pressure of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and AIPAC on the Iranian nuclear issue. Israel, like the US during the George W. Bush administration, considers a nuclear capability in Iran to be a “red line.” Israel argues that the only acceptable guarantee that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon is for Iran to have no uranium enrichment program.

The Obama administration puts the red line not at enrichment, which is permitted under international law, but at actual nuclear weapons. This definition is clearer, more enforceable and  also has the force of international law behind it." Trita Parsi


Three out of four Americans are against an attack by Israel against Iran. We are tired of all the wars that have been going on, we don't need them any more, period.

The growing anti war attitude among regular folks here in U.S. has caught the Pro Israel Lobby off guard. They are very very angree, hence their reactions here on IC.

I'm just saying,



Dear Bavafa don't mind these folks!

by Disenchanted on

  •       It is an open secret on this site that Fred is NOT a real person. It is a group or inc. Now inerestingly we see Fred username is uttering no word with regard to the blog written about "it" last week. Instead we see a group of other users coming to its defence. Sooooo...Lets put these facts together. Fred is a group but it is silent. But there is a group carrying its water! hum...May be after all we could figure out who is in this Fred & Co! Not that we really give  ahoot!
  • Happy norouz


فسنجون: دروغ که حناق نیست که گلوتو بگیر، کنتور هم نداره


No wonder you are in such good company with AO.


First let me see if I understand you correctly here, are you trying to engage me to debate my position here?  Or is it just as your other attempt, in your provided link, just a way to dictate what I should concern myself with and what I shouldn't.  

  I guess old habits dies hard.

 Lastly, lets examine what “kha’en” means and find out who I have accused them of it. 

Here is a link from Farsi to English


1 treacherous , traitor , betrayer , turncoat , renegade خائن




Now the word “traitor”Someone who betrays his country by committing treason And 'treason'  ----    The crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.  

Now, if memory serves me right, I have used this adjective only in relation to MEK, specifically their siding with Saddam in Iran-Iraq war and those who wish and advocate a foreign military attack on Iran.


If that those are not an act of treason, then what is?

  Now, I challenge you to show any evidence that I have called my opponent a Kha’en that falls outside of this definition? 


'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 



AO: As I read your comment here, I can’t help but wonder….

by Bavafa on

If you are really that dumb or simply ignorant to know that:


1- When you use quotation marks, that would be a direct quote from someone. With that, where do you see "let's lynch Fred" or “Zionist” referenced in my comment that you are quoting me? Is it a case of outright lie with the hopes of no one would call you on that or simple minded cheap shot that so often comes to bite you back?

2- In a haste of wanting to threw some accusation at me, you forgot to check the content of that blog and to know that in fact my comment is very much to the content of the blog had you bothered to read it?!?! But then again this clearly highlights the difference between my kind of species and yours. I have evolved but can’t say that about you!

On the other hand what one can expect from someone that his ambition in life is GI-Joe want-a-be, mind you in the land of opportunity.


'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 



what's even funnier

by Fesenjoon2 on

is that "Bavafa" does EXACTLY the same things he accuses Fred of doing:


  • He doesnt engage with others to debate his position (dodging questions, ignoring challenges)
  • He resorts to namecalling when confronted
  • He changes the subject of the conversation to the messenger, instead of the message. Notice his last exchange with me. He dodges my challenges to him, and calls me an opprtunist instead: 
  • He talks of hambastegi and unity in all his posts, and yet calls his opponents "kha'en", "anti-Iran", "racists", and is the first person to use hate language against MEK, royalists, and anyone against IRI. Pathetic.


Anonymous Observer

That's funny Bavafa -

by Anonymous Observer on

Weren't you one of the pitchfork carrying hoodlums on the recent "let's lynch Fred" blog (and other blogs about Fred), calling him an organization, "Zionist," etc.?  Here, let's see a sample of one of your comments on the lynching blog:


"Your points raised here had not gone unnoticed by me….

by Bavafa on 

In regards to the points raised here, it is not the first time and I suspect it won’t be the last time.  I have for the last two years (if memory serves me right)  boycotted “Fred” blogs as I have come to believe the main goal of these two-blog-a-day is only to demonize Iran and Iranians for the greater good of Israel. 


As you may have noticed, “Fred” does not engage in any discussion to clarify his/her position with the except of name calling, target only a certain subjects (NIAC and/or Iran nuclear program) and vast majority of the time is first to comment on those articles often times moments after they have been published, again with no follow up on the discussion.

As a result, the subject of “Fred” not as a person but as an entity has certainly been a cloud over IC and its editorial practices,  fairness and thus far has been pushed under the rug.  I only wonder for how long JJ will be able to ignore this?"


I bolded and italicized the last paragraph to  point out your hypocricy, which BTW, is a common trait among your species. So, to quote you--again--: 

"After all, what ought to be more important,  the content or the messenger [Fred's blog] [or] who may or may not be an [entity]?

And yeah.... "CASMII" is a really "independent," "reliable" news source. PressTV has more integrity and independence than those Fifth Column, West residing clowns. 


Thanks for the good laugh mammad joon:)

by Roozbeh_Gilani on

Sorry, but it'll take a lot more than your "condensed news" on internet to save your khamenei joon and "doctor" joon's rear ends from the same fate as Gaddafi joon's :)

 "Personal business must yield to collective interest."


AO: Perhaps if you can work to harness …

by Bavafa on

Your nagging feelings and instead nurture your critical thinking, then we can all benefit from that.  After all, what ought to be more important,  the content or the messenger who may or may not be an ex-IC member?  


As for the content, I find them very informative and interesting to read.  This is particularly that they are reported in a reputable news organizations as oppose to Press TV or Faux news.


Noo-Roze hamegi mobark


'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 



The Stalinists, Third

by AMIR1973 on

The Stalinists, Third Worldists, "anti-imperialists", and Regime Groupies of various phony "progressive" and "super patriotic" stripes and their Fellow Travelers can bark as much as they like (their current shpiel being: lift the sanctions and "the Iranians in Iran" will somehow, sometime, somewhere "take care" of the IRI during the Second Coming of Emam Zaman), but the sanctions against the IRI must be strengthened and reinforced. Period.

Mohammad Alireza

To FG:

by Mohammad Alireza on

I am in favor of regime change but not through sanctions or military action.

My position on the regime can be found in past writings on and this is not the first time I am being accused of being a regime supporter.

And finally, the quote you have referred to is by Cyrus Safdari from his blog. My comments are in brackets and in italics.

My position if you must know is antiwar, democracry, and rule of law, the latter two bought about by Iranians in Iran.


A good collection..........

by پندارنیک on

Even if the nukes technology becomes a non-issue, they'll accuse Iran of some other stuff....................true, very true..............

Thanks for the blog.......................and the links....


Dear AO:  Wow, she  has

by vildemose on

Dear AO: 

Wow, she  has gone global. Inter-continental agent provocauteur!

A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.--Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Anonymous Observer

vildemose jaan - I've heard that too

by Anonymous Observer on

Wouldn't be surprised at all.  I also heard that 'she' was some kind of an IR embassy employee in Africa somewhere.  I believe that to be true as well, since she made fun of the Darfur atrocities once and praised the Janjaweed militia (just as the IR does).  And in doing so, she said 'as we used to say...' about the Janjaweed, which shows that she had some involvement there in Africa.


 AO: Good catch. Doesn't

by vildemose on

 AO: Good catch. Doesn't NP work for Press-TV?

A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.--Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Anonymous Observer

I have a nagging feeling that you're "Niloufar Parsi"

by Anonymous Observer on

"She" used to post packaged propaganda from IR & friends' propaganda outlets and call them "alternative news sources" as well.

You did promise that you will return under a new username...but one of different gender? Touche....


How you can tell Alireza is a regime propagandist?

by FG on

1. Alirereza takes a page from Putin's strategy in Russa--seeking to identify a hated government (the IRA) with Iran and thereby exploit Iranian nationalism. They aren't the same thing.   .

2. Alireza clearly opposes regime change but most Iranis want regime change. 

Can you blame them? What's to love about totalitarian rule, economic corruption and incompetent, ridded justice, rigged elections, no social or political freedoms and a brutal police state determined to isolate and Saudi-ize Iranians into backwardness at the same time. 

3. Best giveaway: Alireza combines a half truth with straw man argument when it comes to motivation for anti-IRI hostility, as if the regime were totally innocent.  Moreover, he suggests that hostility is limited to the USA alone, rather than much of the world.   In fact, a recent poll found the IRI (not Iran) to be the world's most unpopular regime--a reflection on its foreign and domestic policy. Check out this quote:

 "The US is fundamentally out for regime change. ...the nuclear issue is just a pretext. What it wants, is to kill the regime and make an example of it for other developing countries that dare not toe the line and decide to be independent."

I agree with Alireza on the the first part (regime change) EXCEPT for limiting that desire to the USA alone.  There's a huge crowd wants it gone, starting with the Iranian people themselves.   As for motives, note his suggesting that's the hostility rests merely on differences of opinion on major issues.  The USA has differences of opinon with other countries that are just as big bu rattles no sabres.  What makes the IRI different?  Maybe its what Alireza left out--Iran's history of outlaw behavior and not just against the USA.  

To leave something out to induce readers to a false conclusion is known as a "half-truth."  Alireza suggests that the IRI  is a normal state, led by normal people, behaving normally, rather than what it really is--an outlaw state that constantly engages in over attacks, especially on the USA and its forces and on  neighbors but also on many countries outside the reason.  

If the IRI were a normal state there would be far less concern about nukes.   This regime with nukes is like Jack the Ripper with a dagger.  It's like Milosevic or Hitler with nukes.  Yes, there is legitimate reason for worry though you'd never guess when reading Alireza.


A history of past terror attacks and schemes for such.  Throw in outlaw behavior like the recent planned attack on the British embassy.  To kill Israeli CIVILIANS  or Saudi ambassadors abroad, the IRI would also kill Thais, Indians, Filipinos, and slews of tourists from all over the world.


In the eighties Iran destroyed a prosperous Lebanon.  Since then it has engages in covert destabilzation schemes in Yemen, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, the Sudan, etc.    Such a regime can't complain when it gets a dose of its own.


See all of the abov first.

See humanitarian motives (re: Iran's oppressed people).

Above all, see endless covert aggression againt the USA, its civilians or its forces.  Start with the American Embassy seizure and hostage holding.  Toss in the Lebanon marine barracks attack, the Khobar towers attack in Syria, the Washington Plot involving the Saudi Ambassador, Quds assistance in targeting American troops in Afghanistan and Irag which even extended to kidnapping four US soldiers, taking them into Iran and executing them there.

Yes, the US, neighbors and the world do have plenty of LEGITIMATE reasons for wanting the IRI gone.  You left all the above out.  Hence the half truth. Who but an IRI propagandist would do that?  

No, Iran can't complain about "interference in our internal affairs" if the USA were to return such "favors" in kind.


1. To prevent the IRI (not Iran) from getting nukes.

Unlike the neo-cons, I lean to the "against" position here but agree with Obama that it can't be ruled out totally.  The reason is that the IRI's known propensity for outlaw behavior and loose cannot aggression makes it unlike a normal state. Otherwise, people would worry a lot less about Iran with nukes.

2. In response to any direct attack by the IRI on American forces.  

It'll be a case of "You asked for it so you get it." 

3. In the event the regime engages in an Assad-style slaughter and Iranians plead for help.

Why Iran and not Syria?  Humanitarian motives are part of it but will not suffice alone.  Given the costs in blood and money, we need more, especially when you consider we can't intervene everywhere such crimes occur.

Superb motives: a) returning "favors"; 2) encouraging regional stability by removing a regime that is a threat to all neighbors, the West and the USA. 

Final considerations: a) Feasibility: the IRI is far more vulneranble to no fly zones. b) No concern about Al Queda-style extreme Islamists benefitting.   Unlike the Syrians and most Arabs, Iranians have been effective "immunized" against Islamist tyranny, having experienced thirty years of it.