United for Peace of Pierce County, WA - We nonviolently oppose the reliance on unilateral military actions rather than cooperative diplomacy.

Iran test-fired "at least seven medium- and long-range missiles, including a Shahab-3 . . . in a desert area at 8:00 a.m. local time," the Financial Times of London reported Wednesday.[1] -- The Los Angeles Times said Tehran put at nine the number of missiles fired, and said the exercise, "staged by Iran's Revolutionary Guards near the strategic oil shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz," included "at least one [missile] capable of striking Israel and other American interests in the Middle East."[2] -- Bloomberg News said the U.S. claimed the test "violates United Nations Security Council resolutions and further isolates it from the rest of the world."[3] -- Ladane Nasseri noted that on Jul. 7 "the U.S. Fifth Fleet ran a maneuver of warships to practice protecting oil rigs in the Persian Gulf." -- "The U.S. and its allies say Iran is using its atomic program to develop nuclear weapons," Nasseri said (although a U.S. national intelligence estimate made public on Dec. 3, 2007 said the oppposite). -- An Israeli academic said the missiles were "based on old North Korean technology." -- The Washington Post noted that the range of the Shahab-3 "has been known for several years," and that "Top leaders from all three countries play down the chance of a military confrontation and say they are committed to a diplomatic solution to their disagreements, particularly the nuclear issue."[4] -- In a discussion posted on the web site of the Washington Post, Jon Wolfsthal of CSIS said that "[Iran] has signed onto the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and promised to put all nuclear activities under inspection. It has now been determined that for over 20 years, Iran lied about its activities and violated its obligations to put activities under inspection."[5] -- In fact, as Vladimir Putin told Le Monde (Paris) about a month ago, "[F]ormally Iran hasn’t violated any rules. It even has the right to carry out enrichment. It only takes a quick glance at the relevant documents to confirm this. There were some claims that Iran hadn’t revealed all its programs to the IAEA. This is what we need to clear up. But to a large extent Iran has revealed its nuclear programs. I repeat there is no official basis for legal claims against Iran" — an easily verifiable fact that is systematically excluded from U.S. mainstream media. -- Wolfsthal made a number of other false assertions in the course of his online chat that are corrected below....

TEHRAN -- Iran test-fired ballistic missiles on Wednesday in an exercise officials said was designed to show how the country could retaliate against a U.S. or Israeli attack, state television reported.

The test -- by Iran’s élite Revolutionary Guard -- came amid escalating international tensions over the country’s nuclear program. There has been speculation in recent weeks that Israel could mount an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Suspicions were fuelled by recent Israeli military maneuvers in the Mediterranean, which some U.S. officials described as target practice for an Iran strike.

The aim of the test was to prepare “for a quick and crushing response and retaliatory blows in the event of an enemy attack,” said Mohammad-Ali Jafari, chief commander of the Revolutionary Guard, before the missiles were fired.

Iran’s state TV showed footage of the test in which at least seven medium and long-range missiles, including a Shahab-3 were fired in a desert area at 8:00 a.m. local time. The domestic media reported that the Shahab-3 was an upgraded missile.

The U.S. urged Iran to halt development of ballistic missiles and stop tests if it wanted “to gain the trust of the world.” Gordon Johndroe, White House spokesman, said in Japan, where President George W. Bush was at the Group of Eight leading industrial nations summit, that Iran “should stop the development of ballistic missiles, which could be used as a delivery vehicle for a potential nuclear weapon, immediately.”

The launch also drew a swift response from both the presidential hopefuls. Republican John McCain called for the establishment of a missile defense shield in Europe -- opposed by Russia -- to counter Iranian ambitions. The tests “demonstrate the need for effective missile defence now and in the future, and this includes missile defense in Europe as is planned with the Czech Republic and Poland,” he said.

His Democratic rival, Barack Obama, called for harsher measures after the tests. “Iran is a great threat. We have to make sure we are working with our allies to apply tightened pressure on Iran,” he declared.

News of Iran’s missile test came as the G8 expressed “serious concern” over Iran’s failure to comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for Tehran to suspend all enrichment-related activities. Last month, six global powers offered a package of economic incentives to Iran if it halted nuclear activities. A formal response has not been made public, but Javier Solana, European Union foreign policy chief, is due to travel to Tehran -- perhaps as early as next week -- to discuss the offer.

“President Bush and our partners in the United Nations Security Council, as well as Germany, are committed to a diplomatic path, and have offered Iran a generous package of incentives if they will suspend their uranium-enrichment activities,” said Mr. Johndroe.

A London-based subsidiary of Iran’s largest commercial bank, Bank Melli, failed on Wednesday in a High Court bid for the right to continue trading despite E.U. anti-nuclear sanctions. Lawyers for Melli Bank PLC had argued that, because it was strictly regulated by the Financial Services Authority and legally and functionally distinct from Bank Melli, it should not be prevented from carrying on business by the “catastrophic’’ effects of the restrictions imposed on its parent. But two judges ruled that, because the issue was to be considered by Europe’s Court of First Instance within the next few days, the English court should not take “pre-emptive’’ action.

IRAN STAGES PERSIAN GULF MISSILE TESTS AMID WARNINGS TO ITS 'ENEMIES'
By Jeffrey Fleishman

** Nine missiles are fired near the Strait of Hormuz, including at least one capable of striking Israel and other U.S. interests in the Mideast. 'Our missiles are ready for launch,' Iranian general says. **

CAIRO -- With U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf and the rhetoric between Iran and Israel growing heated, Tehran announced today that it had test-fired nine missiles, including at least one capable of striking Israel and other American interests in the Middle East.

The missiles were fired during military exercises staged by Iran's Revolutionary Guards near the strategic oil shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz. State television quoted one of Iran's top military leaders, Gen. Hossein Salami, as saying the war games in the Persian Gulf would "demonstrate our resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language."

The launches were the latest drama in the standoff over Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran says will produce power for civilian use. The West and Israel, however, allege that Iran is intent on building a bomb.

The missiles streaked into the desert sky as U.S. and British ships were on military maneuvers in the gulf, and just days after disclosures that Israel had conducted long-range military exercises last month as a rehearsal for a possible strike on Iran.

Iranian TV showed three simultaneous launches, including a new version of the Shahab-3 missile, which Tehran claims carries a 1-ton conventional warhead and can travel 1,250 miles, well within the range of U.S. troops in Iraq, the Navy's 5th Fleet in Bahrain, and American allies such as Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Iran said earlier this week that it would retaliate against U.S. and Israeli interests in the region if its nuclear facilities were attacked.

"Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch," the official IRNA news agency quoted Salami as saying today.

The launches came a day after seemingly contradictory statements from top Iranian officials. A spokesman for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme leader, said Tel Aviv and the U.S. fleet in the Gulf would "burst into flames" if Tehran were attacked. But President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, usually the official leading the bellicose rhetoric, appeared to soften the atmosphere by saying that the prospect of Israel and the U.S. striking Iran was a "funny joke" and that there "won't be any war" in the future.

"The Iranian regime only furthers the isolation of the Iranian people from the international community when it engages in this sort of activity," said Gordon Johndroe, deputy White House press secretary, speaking from Japan where President Bush is attending the Group of Eight summit. "They should also refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek to gain the trust of the world."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was traveling in Bulgaria, said the test launches were "evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one."

Israel's reaction to the test was low-key. Government spokesman Mark Regev said the Jewish state "does not desire hostility and conflict with Iran. But it is clear that the Iranian nuclear program and the Iranian ballistic missile program is a matter of grave concern."

Tehran and the West are expected to resume talks on Iran's nuclear program later this month. But there appears to [be] little progress. On Saturday, Iranian government spokesman Gholamhossein Elham, an Ahmadinejad loyalist, reiterated Iran's long-standing position that it won't stop producing nuclear material, a highly technical process that involves running uranium gas through spinning centrifuges. The uranium enriched to a lower quality can be used as fuel for civilian power plants; highly enriched material can be made into nuclear weapons.

--Times staff writer Richard Boudreaux in Jerusalem and special correspondent Ramin Mostaghim in Tehran contributed to this report.

ISRAEL AND U.S. CONDEMN IRANIAN MISSILE TEST, CALL FOR HALT
By Ladane Nasseri

TEHRAN -- Iran's test-firing of a long-range missile capable of reaching Israel violates United Nations Security Council resolutions and further isolates it from the rest of the world, U.S. officials said.

Iran should "refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek to gain the trust of the world," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters at the Group of Eight Summit in Toyako, Japan, where President George W. Bush is meeting with other world leaders.

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said Israel viewed the test with "grave concern" and sought no conflict or hostilities with Iran.

Iran's Arabic state television Al-Alam announced the test today on its web site. It said the missile, a Shahab-3 model with a 2,000-kilometer (1,240-mile) range and a one-ton weight, was fired successfully at 8:00 a.m. local time. Jerusalem, Israel's capital, is about 660 miles from Iranian territory.

The test is the latest display of military firepower in the region that has escalated tension with Iran and roiled financial markets. On July 7, the U.S. Fifth Fleet ran a maneuver of warships to practice protecting oil rigs in the Persian Gulf, while a June 2 drill by Israeli warplanes was interpreted by military analysts as a rehearsal for a strike on Iran.

About a fifth of the world's daily oil supply travels through the strait between Iran and Oman at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. Iran has said it may as a last resort blockade the chokepoint, known as the Strait of Hormuz, if its nuclear sites are attacked.

Today's test follows comments by Ali Shirazi, an aide to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who said yesterday that Iran would strike Israel and the U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf as a first response to any American attack on its nuclear program.

The test is part of war games being held by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps in the Persian Gulf, state television said. Nine missiles "with improved accuracy" were tested during the exercises, including the Zelzal and the Fateh with a range of 400 kilometers and 170 kilometers respectively, Iran's English-language Press TV reported on its Web site.

"The aim of this maneuver is to show the determination of armed forces in protecting Iran," Hossein Salami, a Revolutionary Guard commander, was quoted as saying by Iran's state television. "These missiles are test-fired in honor of Iran and to show that this is only a small part of Iran's capability and defensive power."

Political tension has escalated since the New York Times reported June 20 that Israel rehearsed a possible attack on Iran's nuclear sites in military exercises held in the eastern Mediterranean. Bush said on July 2 "all options" remain on the table even though he is committed to pursuing a diplomatic route to solve the nuclear conflict with Iran.

In 2006, Iran announced the test-firing of a Shahab-3 ballistic missile, which it said was able to travel 2,000 kilometers. During a subsequent military parade, though, an announcer said the Shahab-3 had a 1,300-kilometer range, Agence France-Presse reported at the time. In Nov. 2007, the nation said it had constructed the Ashura missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the Iranian test underscores the need for an anti-missile defense it is seeking to install in Czechoslovakia and Poland over Russian objections.

"The missile threat is not an imaginary one," she told reporters in Sofia, Bulgaria, today. "Those who say that there is no Iranian missile threat against which we should be building this defense system, perhaps ought to talk to the Iranians about their planes, about the range of the missiles they just fired."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday dismissed the possibility of a war with the U.S. and Israel over the issue, saying his country seeks to avoid clashes.

"We're making the utmost effort for providing peace and security at the world level," he said in Kuala Lumpur, where he attended a summit of Islamic nations.

The U.S. and its allies say Iran is using its atomic program to develop nuclear weapons. Iran, which is under three sets of U.N. sanctions for refusing to halt uranium enrichment, denies the allegation and says its activities are aimed at generating electricity. Enriched uranium can fuel a nuclear reactor or arm a weapon.

Iran is responding "to a sense that they've gone too far with their illicit nuclear weapons program, they are under some threat," Gerald Steinberg, chair of the political studies department at Bar Ilan University in Israel, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. "This is a form of rhetoric," he said, adding that the Iranian government is using "a primitive capability" based on old North Korean technology.

Oil for August delivery rose as much as $2.24, or 1.7 percent, to $138.28 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It traded at $136.57 at 10:25 a.m. in New York.

--To contact the reporter on this story: Ladane Nasseri in Tehran at lnasseri@bloomberg.net. Last Updated: July 9, 2008 10:37 EDT

IRAN TEST-FIRES LONG-RANGE MISSILE
By Howard Schneider and Michael Abramowitz

Iran said today it had test-fired a long-range missile capable of reaching Israel and U.S. troops in the region, a step promptly condemned by the Bush administration as heightening tensions over the country's suspected nuclear weapons program.

The roughly 1,200-mile range of Iran's Shahab-3 rocket has been known for several years, but the test firing -- and pointed statements from Tehran about the country's "capability in hitting its enemies" -- added to a tense climate.

Iran "only furthers the isolation of the Iranian people from the international community when it engages in this sort of activity," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said at the meeting of the Group of Eight industrialized nations in Japan. He said Iran's missiles violate existing United Nations resolutions, and "[t]hey should . . . refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek to gain the trust of the world."

The Islamic Republic News Agency reported that the missile was test-fired as part of a larger military exercise by Iran's Revolutionary Guards. In Tehran, the Associated Press said that as many as nine missiles of different sizes were fired during the exercise, carried out partly near the Persian Gulf shipping lanes that Iran has threatened to close if it is attacked.

A top Iranian official said this week the country would also retaliate against Tel Aviv if any targets inside the country are struck.

"Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch," Revolutionary Guard Gen. Hossein Salami said today, according to the wire service.

The missile tests and statements from Iranian officials are part of a recent sharp back-and-forth between Iran, Israel, and the United States that have formed the backdrop to ongoing negotiations about Iran's nuclear program.

Top leaders from all three countries play down the chance of a military confrontation and say they are committed to a diplomatic solution to their disagreements, particularly the nuclear issue.

Iran insists it is only developing nuclear technology for civilian power needs, but the United States is pushing the country to shut down its processing of uranium out of concern that Tehran's ultimate aim is to produce a nuclear weapon. The combination of nuclear technology with long-range missiles, the Bush administration says, would pose a threat to Israel and be broadly destabilizing in the Middle East.

Last month, Israel staged a large military exercise that involved more than 100 warplanes operating over distances they would need to cover to strike Iran. The maneuvers deep over the Mediterranean were interpreted both as a warning to Tehran, and a prod to the United States and other western nations to increase pressure on Iran over its nuclear program.

During its meetings in Japan this week, the G-8 issued a statement reiterating western demands that Iran abandon uranium enrichment.

The Iranian news agency said the military exercise "was aimed at improving combat readiness."

But the firing of the Shahab-3, capable of carrying a one-ton warhead, was "to demonstrate Iran's capability in hitting its enemies accurately at the early stages of their probable attacks against the Islamic Republic," the news agency said. The Shahab-3, it said "is able to reach targets in the occupied lands," a reference to Israel.

IRAN TEST-FIRES LONG-RANGE MISSILE
By Jon Wolfsthal, Senior Fellow, International Security Program, CSIS

The roughly 1,200 mile range of Iran's Shahab-3 rocket has been known for several years, but the test firing -- and pointed statements from Tehran about the country's "capability in hitting its enemies" -- added to a tense climate.

Jon Wolfsthal, senior fellow in the International Security Program at the CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies), said in an interview with washingtonpost.com that while the test is likely a response to recent war games by Israel, reportedly to simulate an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, the test is also likely meant to remind states in the region and the United States that Iran has the ability to respond to any perceive military threat. How the United States, European countries and Russia respond to the continued tensions in the region will determine whether the situation improves or deteriorates further.

Wolfsthal was online Wednesday, July 9, at 1 p.m. ET to discuss the situation and world reaction.

Jon Wolfsthal: Good afternoon. Thanks for joining the discussion on Iran. I am looking forward to a good discussion. Of course, there are a lot of things to talk about, including the recent missile test by Iran, Tehran's continued pursuit of nuclear technology, and the broader issue of how to best ensure America's security in the region and that of its allies. I'll try to get to as many questions as I can.

Miami, Fla.: If we were to place the Shahab-3 alongside four other missiles, such as the Iraqi Scud, the Israeli missile fired last month, a typical Minuteman, and the missile used in our Star Wars tests, which of these would it resemble?

Jon Wolfsthal: The Shahab-3 is, in fact, based on Scud missile technology. Iran acquired the missile systems and the means to produce them from North Korea. So both in origin and in capabilities, it would be most similar to the Scud missiles originally deployed by the Soviet Union in the 1950s. North Korea has been able to extend the range of the system to 1300km or so, but it is not clear how much further the missile system may be able to travel.

Los Angeles, Calif.: I find it hypocritical to condemn Iran's missile tests while supporting Israel's aerial war games in the Mediterranean. I find it hypocritical to condemn Iran's bellicose language, while echoing Israel's equally bellicose language. I find it hypocritical to criticize IAEA-member Iran's uranium enrichment program, while supporting in arms and cash and moral standing the country that introduced nuclear weapons to the Middle East and refuses to join the IAEA.

Jon Wolfsthal: There are a lot of people who are concerns that Iran is being singled out and that Israel's action are not viewed in the same light. From my perspective, each case has to be dealt with on its own merits. In the case of Iran, it has signed onto the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and promised to put all nuclear activities under inspection. It has now been determined that for over 20 years, Iran lied about its activities and violated its obligations to put activities under inspection. Therefore, in the case of Iran, there is reason to be concerned. [NOTE: In fact, as Vladimir Putin told Le Monde (Paris) about a month ago, "[F]ormally Iran hasn’t violated any rules. It even has the right to carry out enrichment. It only takes a quick glance at the relevant documents to confirm this. There were some claims that Iran hadn’t revealed all its programs to the IAEA. This is what we need to clear up. But to a large extent Iran has revealed its nuclear programs. I repeat there is no official basis for legal claims against Iran." --R.T.]

Personally, I don't think that Israel's war games were helpful just as I don't think the missile test by Iran will help lead to a peaceful resolution of the current crisis.

New York, N.Y.: Big stupid context question. Why is Iran so obsessed with Israel anyway? Iran doesn't have a border with Israel, they don't have a big Palestinian population, they're not even ARAB, they've never had any territorial conflict with Israel, they have non-overlapping spheres of influence . . . basically, why care? Being Arab and Muslim doesn't automatically turn you into a crazed anti-Israeli mouth-breather; look at Morocco and Jordan.

Jon Wolfsthal: I think, in fact, it is an important question. I am always careful when trying to interpret what Iran's leadership is thinking since we don't have a very good set of insights into Iran's government or leaders, but we can guess at a few basics.

Israel is a rallying cry in the region for a number of reasons. The long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict is seen as a continuation, by some, as outside suppression of the region - including both Arabs and Persians. This conflict is very real for people of the region. At the same time, governments -- including in Iran -- can use this conflict as a way of distracting its own people from domestic problems or as a way to create patriotism/nationalism.

Washington, D.C.: Any significance to the fact oil dropped $9 this week before Iran fired 9 test shots?

Jon Wolfsthal: It is hard to link any one action to changes in the price of oil and vice versa, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that Iran is benefiting from the high price of oil and that it is in Tehran's interest to maintain tensions, in part, to ensure that the price of oil remains high. This can be said of some other countries as well.

Anonymous: How MRBM many Shahab-3 do the Iranians have and how many are they building?

Jon Wolfsthal: I have not seen reliable information on how many Shahab-3 missiles Iran might possess, but the systems likely number in the dozens. We don't have very good information about how reliable these systems might be, but they are based on very old technology and Iran has suffered for many years from poor quality control in their military systems. While they might prove effective, they should not be confused with some of the modern, advanced, highly accurate missiles in the arsenal of the United States or other more advanced countries.

Detroit, Mich.: It seems as if the Iranians, with their nuclear program, missile firings, rhetoric, etc., actually are trying to provoke Israel into delivering a military strike on Iran. Do you think this is true and if so what are the benefits to Iran from the possibility of such a strike? (e.g., possibly driving a wedge between the U.S. and the Muslim world?)

Jon Wolfsthal: Part of the challenge in developing a sound policy toward Iran is that it is not clear who is in control of all of the government's operations. In fact, we know that their system of government was designed specifically to prevent any one person or office from accumulating too much power. So it is hard to say that a particular action is designed to do one thing.

However, some people believe that the President of Iran or more conservative elements from the government might think they would benefit politically from an attack. The thinking goes that an attack from the U.S. or Israel would unite the people around the government. If the government is unpopular, the thinking goes, an external threat might lead people to rally around the flag despite their concerns about domestic politics.

I don't necessarily believe in this thinking, but it is not possible to discount the idea that some in Iran might think this way. The vast majority of Iranians and a good portion of their government would like to improve relations with the United States, in my opinion.

Canada: I am worried that we are getting closer to a U.S. or Israeli attack. What are your thoughts?

Jon Wolfsthal: It is impossible to discount the possibility that the United States or Israel might take action against Iran's nuclear program. Personally, I do not think such a strike is likely in the near future, and I do not think it would be likely to achieve a successful result because Iran would be able to reconstitute a nuclear program even after a strike.

I am much more concerned about a crisis being sparked and getting out of hand by unexpected developments. Last year's capture by Iran of British sailors, the direct linking of an American death in Iraq to Iranian agents, and several other scenarios could quickly become a major crisis and lead to a larger conflict that neither state wants or would benefit from. This is one of the reasons I believe we need to pursue more direct engagement with Iran.

Washington, D.C.: What was Sen. Lieberman's reaction to the latest development? Will this make him feel more urgent to get us into the war with Iran?

Colorado Springs, Colo.: McCain proposes a missile defense system to defend Europe from these missiles. What missile defense system (Patriot, THAAD, or ballistic) would be used to counter these Shahab 3 missiles?

Jon Wolfsthal: The United States is pushing to deploy a missile defense radar in the Czech Republic and a small number of long-range missile interceptors in Poland. These are longer-range than either the PAC-3 or THAAD and have not yet been proven to work. The Shahab-3 missile cannot reach Europe and these systems are being built to counter an Iranian threat that has not yet materialized. It may in the future, but it is not here yet.

It is not clear to me why the Bush administration is pushing to build missile defense that has yet to be proven effective in Europe. I would prefer that we wait until we have a system that we know works before deploying it in Europe.

Baltimore, Md.: How do you think the worst case scenario plays out? Israel bombs enrichment facility and then what? How will regional neighbors respond/react?

Jon Wolfsthal: I think it is hard to predict how such a scenario plays out, and there are so many variables that it suggests we should take great care to avoid the worst case from coming about. Iran has the ability to strike targets in Israel, Iraq, and throughout the Middle East. It also has proven it is willing to use proxies to carry out military attacks in the past.

At the same time, we have to be worried about what might happen if Iran acquires the ability to produce a nuclear weapon. This is a terrible scenario that must be avoided.

It is one of the reasons I have been concerned that we do not have a very effective policy toward Iran right now and that we need to explore other, more innovative options to head of a nuclear Iran or a war with Iran.

San Francisco, Calif.: Iran used to get along better with Israel; Iran was the second country to recognize Israel, after the United States. Then the U.S. overthrew Iran's democratically-elected government in 1953 and installed the Shah's repressive regime. Iran's current hostility toward the U.S. and Israel is a consequence of our past actions.

Jon Wolfsthal: There is, indeed, a long history between the United States, Israel and Iran. There are a few excellent books on this history that have come out recently, including one by Barbara Slavin called *Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies*. Trita Parsi has also recently come out with an excellent book on the three countries called "The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States." [NOTE: This the book's subtitle. The full title of Parsi's book is Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S. (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2007). --R.T.]

Iran often cites the 1953 coup as a major offense, just as the U.S. cites the 1979 hostage crisis. The question is will we be forever bound by our history or can we create a new kind of relationship with Iran?

Colorado Springs, Colo.: Is the longer range Iranian missile a serious threat to the U.S.?

Jon Wolfsthal: Iran has no missile in its arsenal or in development that can reach the United States.

Fairfax, Va.: Isn't it possible that the Shabab-3 missiles could be targeted at American bases in Iraq, as a response to George Bush's rhetoric against Iran?

Jon Wolfsthal: Iran has missile systems that can reach targets in Iraq. The accuracy of these systems is not very good, so it is not clear if they could hit their intended targets.

It is very unlikely, however, that Iran would commit an act of war against Iraq. It is improving its relations with the Maliki government and is winning favor with the Iraqi people. Any such strike would undermine Iran's ambitions in Iraq.

Richmond, Va.: I noticed that the U.S. intelligence report said that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003, the same time its arch enemy Saddam Hussein was ousted. They may have kept it in secret since they assumed Saddam was building his own so it was just the prudent thing to do since they had a long war with him previously. It isn't always about the U.S.

And what's to stop Iran from just dropping out of the non-proliferation treaty since apparently there is not much in the way of consequences if you don't belong (India, Pakistan, Israel)?

Jon Wolfsthal: You make a good point. We don't know exactly why Iran suspended its nuclear weapon design efforts in 2003. It could be because Saddam was deposed, or because the US position was very strong. At the same time, it is possible that Iran had already reached a level of technology that allowed it to stop development of a warhead in 2003. We don't know, just as we don't know for sure that this work has not restarted. [NOTE: The claim that the U.S. NIE shows Iran had a nuclear weapons program is misleading, because the report defines "nuclear weapons program" as including permitted uranium enrichment activity. See a Congressional Research Service report dated Jun. 23, 2008, which concludes that Iran probably does not have a nuclear weapons program. --R.T.]

Boston, Mass.: Iran has threatened destruction to U.S. military personnel in the area if Israel attacks, along with forcibly closing the Strait of Hormuz. Is there any real chance that Iran could legitimately threaten U.S. warships, or do enough damage to close the Strait of Hormuz?

Jon Wolfsthal: Iran has a number of ways that it could respond to a military attack. These include a variety of ways it could target U.S. forces or interests in the Middle East. Iran's small ships present a threat to shipping in the [Persian] Gulf and could present a threat to U.S. warships in the region. Iran also deployed surface to ship cruise missiles deployed near the Straits of Hormuz.

Leeds, U.K.: Israel has been threatened on numerous occasions by the president of Iran and other officials. The threat that is being made is existential. Does the Israeli government not have a responsibility to protect its citizens and could one not argue that a preemptive attack would be justified, possibly even by international law. Is Israel being singled out for being concerned about a nuclear attack by a totalitarian regime?

Jon Wolfsthal: All states have the right to self-defense. This is enshrined in the U.N. Charter. I am not a legal expert, and it is not for me to say if a state has a right to take pre-emptive steps against a potential threat. My personal perception is that Israel does not want to provoke a war with Iran and that Iran is not yet able to strike at Israel. In addition, it is not clear to me that the people who have real power in Iran -- a list of people that does not include President Ahmadinejad -- want to attack Israel. [NOTE: In fact, Iranian leaders have not made an "existential" threat against Israel. Hillary Clinton did make an existential threat against Iran on Apr. 21, 2008, during the Democratic primary compaign, however. --R.T.]

Washington, D.C.: We often hear about a split between "hardliners" and "reformers" in Iran. Were the "reformers" to gain power in Iran, should we expect to see a radically different policy toward Israel, the U.S., and the development of nuclear weapons? By the way, I hear you're a Yankees fan. The Yanks are up 1- 0 in the bottom of the 2nd.

Jon Wolfsthal: People who know a lot more than I do about the internal workings of Iran tend not to use the term "reformer." According to Iran experts, the battle is between arch-conservatives (i.e., Ahmadinejad) and pragmatic conservatives (Larijani and Rafsanjani).

That being said, I don't know that we can predict that Iran would radically change its policies toward Israel or the U.S. should the pragmatic conservatives gain power. I would prefer to deal with a more moderate Iran, but as Secretary Perry once said about North Korea, we have to deal with it as it is, not as we might wish it to be. Since we can't predict the future, we should deal with the situation we have now.

Richmond, Va.: Just playing devil's advocate here but if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, so what? It's not like they could use it without ceasing to exist? You could argue they'd pass it along to terrorists but they have to know it would probably get traced back to them with the same outcome. Ahmadinejad is a bit loopy but he doesn't control the military, Khamenei does.

Jon Wolfsthal: The idea that we could live with a nuclear Iran is not one I am prepared to accept. Some used to make the same argument with regards to Pakistan. Their development of nuclear weapons has been a major security challenge, despite the fact that the U.S. and Pakistan have been at time close allies.

Any country that gains nuclear weapon capabilities is one more country we have to be concerned about. It could use these weapons, transfer them, or might not be capable or willing to effectively secure these weapons. It is a scenario we should seek to avoid.

Chicago, Ill.: While the Iranian missile may not be capable to carry the Iranian nuclear bomb, they are certainly capable of delivering a dirty bomb. For country as small as Israel, this is not much better than real nuclear attack. Do you think this will be a realistic scenario? And what is the implication?

Jon Wolfsthal: A dirty bomb is one that does not produce an atomic explosion, but that disperses radioactive nuclear material. The severity of such a bomb depends greatly on the kind of materials used. Any attack against Israel would create a regional crisis and should be avoided. A radiological attack would be a major escalation by Iran. But without knowing the exact kinds of materials that would be used, it is hard to predict the precise consequences.

Reston, Va.: Sir, you and Obama, who you no doubt support, say we should be talking to Iran. But you never offer specifics. What should we offer them? Israel? And how long do these talks continue, even while Iran continues to build its bombs? Europe has been talking to them for years, and it has accomplished nothing!

Jon Wolfsthal: I do support the idea of engaging with Iran directly. I am not sure why, however, you should assume that this means the U.S. will offer anything more or less than we are already offering them through the European-led negotiating effort. The Bush administration has signed onto a serious set of proposals that has been presented to Iran.

I would maintain that the reason the European effort has not produced major results is because the U.S. is not fully on board. Iran knows that the Bush administration has not been fully supportive of their efforts, as as such is holding out to see what the U.S. might do in the future. The U.S. is the world's only superpower and Iran is holding out for us to compromise.

That being said, I am not sure why the onus is on those who propose a change in policy. The current policy with the U.S. not engaging is clearly not working. Not engaging has brought Iran to its current and growing nuclear capability. It is possible that by engaging directly, we can get more traction on sanctions and encourage more moderate powers in Iran to push for a compromise. More of the same policy, however, is likely to bring more of the same results.

Oslo, Norway: If Israel attacks Iran, wouldn't it have the right to retaliate? Wouldn't any country do the same? Who do you think would ultimately win an all-out non-nuclear war between Israel and Iran as long as the U.S. didn't intervene?

Jon Wolfsthal: If Iran were to attack Israel, they would clearly have the legal right to respond.

I think both countries and the region would suffer as a result. The United States would also suffer and, as a result, we should be doing all we can to make sure that such a conflict never materializes.

Jon Wolfsthal: Wow, one hour went by really fast. Thanks for some very interesting questions. I hope the Washingtonpost.com asks me back again soon.