If Israel carries through with its illegal threat of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities using the bunker busters America has sold it there is a strong possibility of radioactive contamination of millions of Iranians and fallout reaching Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan. (See “Nuking Iran“).

Iran’s most likely response will be to fire GPS guided missiles aimed at Israel’s nuclear facilities causing a similar outcome. (See “Behind the Deepening Crisis with Iran: The Real Story Versus the Cover Story“)

In other words conventional weaponry will cause the same results as a nuclear bomb. Therefore the argument could be made that if this is true then the principles of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) should apply.

Given the above context it is astonishing that the recent talks in Moscow between Iran and P5+1 failed to arrive at an acceptable agreement.

For an excellent analysis of the Moscow talks and why they failed Prof. Muhammad Sahimi’s article at Tehran Bureau is a must read and which I’ve excerpted below.

“By mixing regional problems with the standoff over its nuclear program, the Islamic Republic only muddied the water and contributed to the failure of the talks.”

“A better strategy would have been to pursue more modest goals. Not only would they have been more plausible to achieve, but such a strategy would also have demonstrated to the world the intransigence of the United States and its allies and the fact that they want negotiations only for appearances’ sake.”

“One such modest goal could have been to ask the E.U. to suspend its sanctions against Iran’s Central Bank and its ban on insuring oil tankers that carry Iranian oil to South and East Asia, scheduled to go into effect on July 1. Iran may lose from 400,000 to 500,000 barrels per day in exports due to the insurance ban. In return, could have offered to allow the IAEA to visit the Parchin munitions site, and temporarily suspend its uranium enrichment at 19.75 percent for a fixed period, to which it has already agreed in principle.”

But the following comments by Prof. Sahimi are so devastating and so on target that the incompetence and extent of how much the regime in Iran is out of touch with reality dispels any hope of preventing a nuclear war between Iran and Israel:

“Weak diplomacy, coupled with the Iranian hardliners’ typical arrogance and self-righteousness, also contributed to the failure. What else could have been expected from a negotiation team that suddenly included Mehdi Mohammadi, until a short time ago the political editor for the hardline newspaper Kayhan? His presence was “justified” because he now works for the Supreme National Security Council, but what about any expertise in nuclear issues or experience in diplomacy?”

“In addition, on the Moscow talks’ second day, Jalili, true to form, lectured the P5+1 and lamented about what the West has done to Iran over the past several decades. He has done this practically every time that he has met with the P5+1 collectively or Ashton one on one. Should this issue — as valid as it is — not be set aside? Should Jalili not concentrate on the current issues facing the nation in the nuclear negotiations? But, similar to other Iranian hardliners, Jalili is first and foremost an ideologue, and it is difficult, if not impossible, for an ideologue to set aside such thinking.”

“Most absurdly, Iran’s negotiation team insisted that Khamenei’s fatwa banning the production of weapons of mass destruction is all that the West needs for peace of mind regarding the nature of Iran’s nuclear program. Apparently, the negotiation team had the illusion that the Western leaders are Khamenei’s moghalled (those who follow his religious instructions), when he has hardly any moghalled in Iran itself.”

At the end of his article Prof. Sahimi presents a framework under which an agreement can be reached, and which should be carefully studied by all parties if they are to head off a nuclear war.

A couple of other very good articles have been written after the Moscow talks and which I’ve provided links to below. “Don’t Underestimate an Iranian Response to a U.S. Attack” is a must read, especially by warmongers that are frothing at the mouth.

Here is an excerpt:

“Following a strike the U.S. will find itself in a prolonged conflict that will include conventional forces that are geared towards asymmetric warfare, an economic downturn and high oil prices stemming from instability in the Strait of Hormuz and non-state actors conducting operations across the region.”

“In short, if the U.S desires another long term engagement that will lead to further destabilization, a huge military and financial commitment and what will likely be Iranian commitment to nuclear weaponization, then it should start down the long road of ‘limited strikes against Iran’s nuclear facility’.”

As far as the problem of regime decision makers getting in touch with reality the first thing they need to do is greatly improve their English language skills as it seems they are only reading material that is in Farsi. If that is the case then they are trying to thread a needle with one eye closed.

Here is an excellent article by Ray McGovern presenting the hard facts to the regime in Iran by pretending he is an IRI intelligence agent reporting back to the regime. Below is an excerpt showing the first nine issues that he identifies as being critically important.

1-The Islamic Republic is viewed by most Americans as Enemy #1. How best to defeat our “nuclear ambitions” has become the main foreign policy issue in the election campaign for president. This is BIG.

2-In dealing with Iran, U.S. corporate media are behaving just as they did before the attack on Iraq. It is as though the disasters of Afghanistan and Iraq never happened. This time the Islamic Republic is in the crosshairs and some influential figures seem eager to pull the trigger. For instance, Jackson Diehl, deputy chief of the Washington Post‘s editorial page, asked pointedly if it “would still be feasible to carry out an air attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities” if the U.S. gets involved militarily in Syria.

3-Within the “bubble” of Official Washington, the war in Iraq is often portrayed as a success and the pro-Israel neo-conservatives largely responsible for that catastrophe remain in very influential positions. The macho cry of the neocons — “Real men go to Tehran” — is again very much in vogue.

4-Cowardly politicians, especially in Congress, march “in lockstep” to Likud Lobby cadences. President Barack Obama privately may not wish to go along but he lacks the courage to break ranks.

5-Unlike the lead-up to Iraq, when Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were lusting for war, this time neither the White House nor the Pentagon wants hostilities. Yet, prevalent is an awkward, helpless kind of fear that, one way or another, Israel with succeed in provoking hostilities — with little or no prior notice to its superpower “ally.”

6-As we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the top U.S. generals are virtually all careerists, and none have forgotten what happened to Admiral “no-war-on-Iran-on-my-watch” William Fallon. He was soon a retired admiral. So, they will follow orders — legal or not — as reflexively as the Prussians of old, letting the troops and the “indigenous” people of the target countries bear the consequences. In the U.S., it is almost unheard of for a general to resign on principle, no matter how foolish the errand.

7-It is conventional wisdom here that the pro-Israel vote is sine qua non for election to the White House. Thus, Obama is acutely sensitive to the perceived need to appear no less supportive of Israel than Mitt Romney, who told an Israeli newspaper last fall: “The actions that I will take will be actions recommended and supported by Israeli leaders.”

8-Some attention has been given to public warnings by prominent Israeli political, military and intelligence officials not to attack Iran. Their outspokenness betrays how seriously they view the danger that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may embark upon an adventure that could eventually result in the destruction of the state of Israel. But Netanyahu believes he still has the initiative and holds the high cards, which is certainly true with the U.S. political system.

9-As for Israel’s generals, they will obey — like their American counterparts.

Is anybody at regime headquarters listening? Reading? Trying to prevent the war that is on Iran’s doorstep? Or are they all at Namaz or taking a tea break?

And please don’t say, “It’s all in God’s hands.” No, it is not. Preventing war is in the regime’s hands just as much as it is in the hands of the regime in Israel and the regime in Washington.

Anybody advocating a precision surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities is in actual fact talking about nuclear war between Iran and Israel. Within this context all the issues that are being discussed change and therefore need urgent peaceful resolution. All the options on the table is not an option.