Today, both the Wall Street Journal and Fox news posted an article under the heading, “US softens sanctions plan against Iran” where it claimed that the United States, after deliberation with members of the Security Council, including China, was willing to abandon its initial position to isolate Iran from international financial markets, air restrictions and cargo shipping via land and sea ports.

While it is easy to make the argument that America has lost its backbone or influence on the world stage, or to think that a watered down sanctions regime will mean leniency towards Iran, one thing that cannot be misconstrued from a US move to build consensus is a setback or retreat on the issue of a nuclear free Middle East.

And so I would argue that this move on the part of the United States is more tactical in nature to demonstrate that America’s interests are global interests and that America is willing to listen to its partners that also have an important role to play on the issue of global security.

Let’s also be clear in that the real lever of power lies in Americas influence on the multinationals. Already we have seen various oil companies pulling out of Iran or freezing their business activities in the country which in itself is indicative of Americas influence and seriousness to change Iran’s behavior in adhering with the international community’s concerns.

Therefore, a unanimous vote against Iran gives America greater clout and stronger maneuverability to push Iran into a corner by making sure that the country does not cross the threshold of turning low enriched uranium into weapons grade nuclear capability.

This diplomatic chess game now means that for Iran to avoid greater hardship, beyond the upcoming sanctions, it will need to play by the International community’s rules or face crushing consequences in the event that Tehran still wanted to continue its defiant behavior.

Eight months after a rigged presidential election that infuriated millions of Iranians by having their vote stolen, followed by a series of street protests that lead to violence and the death of hundreds, the imprisonment of thousands, and the execution of many protesters, the calendar date approaches yet another occasion for Iranians to demonstrate their discontent with the regime, February 11th, the day the Islamic revolution was won back in 1979.

The social media networks are already in full communiqué, twitter and facebook are blistering with messages, posters and fliers in preparation for yet another showdown between the people and the junta. This time however the tone and nature of the demands are very different. It’s no longer about the election or votes, but rather, the legitimacy of the theocracy and its incompetent rulers are in question.

But while an historic movement is going on in Iran, America has sent warships to the Persian Gulf and additionally has announced the installation of surface to air antimissile systems in neighboring Persian Gulf states such as the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Why is military build-up, this option of last resort as President Obama had stated, all of a sudden become an imminent option?

The answer can come from three different assumptions with three possible scenarios.

The first, as reported by various Middle East analysts is the assumption that in response to international sanctions namely the blockade of oil and gas into and from Iran, the Islamic regime may consider this an act of war and retaliate by launching missiles into Israel and other US interests in the region. With this assumption it is necessary for the United States to protect its allies and to prevent such strikes from hitting hard targets. Thus to build assurance in the event of an escalation of tension between the United States and Iran, America has prepared itself to defend its allies, including Israel.

The second assumption is that Israel may engage in adventurism of its own by attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. In anticipation of such a scenario, an American presence will in fact reduce the likelihood of such a devastating move that can enflame the entire region into war by curbing Israeli interest in an airstrike.

And the third assumption is, that once sanctions start to create an impact on the Iranian economy the regime, as part of its defense strategy, may attempt to retaliate by blocking the straits of hormoz thus crippling the global economy by preventing oil flow from the Persian Gulf. In such a case the American warships will be well positioned to deter such destabilizing maneuvers, or in a worst-case situation, be able to unblock the water way expeditiously and protect it from Iranian influence.

However, what really concerns me is the thought that America and the free world have somehow given up on the democracy movement in Iran ahead of February 11th and the subsequent days and months thereafter. In my opinion any thought of war with Iran at this stage is a grave mistake now that Iranians have found the courage to stand up to this brutal and anti-Iranian regime. A movement that is rapidly uniting workers unions, teachers, diplomats, clerics, students, professors, women’s groups and other sectors of society who no longer want to live a life under the Islamic regime.

It would be a grave mistake if America would once again give in to outside pressures and foreign influence on matters of foreign policy with respect to Iran by marginalizing or dismissing the green movement as a serious and viable option that can bring about peace and stability not only within Iran but to the greater Middle East. I hope this does not happen while democracy is on the march in that country.

With the fall of the Shah on February 11th 1979 and the return of Ayatollah Khomeini to Iran, a group of clerics masterfully orchestrated a coup d’état within a peoples revolution. In a power grab supported by Islamists and lead by clerics to the likes of Rafsanjani and Khamenei a referendum vote was cunningly drafted that combined two ideologically distinct political systems together. This deceiving move meant that only one option was to be presented on the ballot, the Islamic Republic of Iran – YES or NO.

With momentum and an iconic Islamic figure on their side, a fractured and disillusioned opposition group, and a people in state of disbelief that they had managed to oust a King, the plot was complete and 99% of votes was cast in favor of a new regime that was by nature elitist, fundamentalist, and anything but democratic.

To solidify the rein of power and to prevent the cohorts of the revolution from regrouping upon realizing what had just taken place, the new theocracy wasted no time in systematically eliminating opposition political activists either through mass execution or by forcing them into exile. It was fate accompli and a zero – sum game had been won by the Islamists, but at what cost?

The Social Contract is Broken

30 years later and with the coming of age of a new generation of Iranians that have lived under the theocracy and have experienced all that it represents it has become clear first and foremost to the Iranian people and second to the world, that this political system is unable to meet the needs and wants of its people. People in Iran are frustrated with all the inadequacies, depravity and moral depravation of those in power and are fed up with the false promises and missed opportunities that should have made life easier for Iranians.

The turn of events since the June 12th 2009 election are indicative of this sentiment, while the regime on the other hand, has shown no intention of respecting the will of its people, and to maintain its grip on power, much like 1979 has embarked on a series of violent tactics and ruthlessness to silence its opposition, acts of which the world has now witnessed firsthand via YouTube.

However, what the Islamic regime fails to realize is that unlike 1979 where it played the role of opposition to the Shah and riding on the good faith and beliefs of the people, today it is undermining its own legitimacy as a political system by depriving its citizens the right to determine their political future.

This failing has lead to the expansion of a protest movement that no longer wants a recount of votes but has turned into a national unity campaign to change the entire Islamic system of governance and the way to go about it as agreed to by political thinkers, activists and protesters both inside the country and overseas is through a national referendum with more than just one option on the ballot as was the case in 1979.

Regime Change

History at times has a habit of repeating itself so one has to wonder, will the Islamic regime bow its head and abdicate power much like the Shah did back in 1979 or will it resist. Now I’m not a betting man but if I was to put up money down I would have to consider the odds in favor of the 40 million Iranian youth under the age of 35 who today are ready to risk their life and limb for freedom, human rights and a secular democracy. A system that in its totality would guarantee Iran and Iranians long term political stability, opportunity for divers political groups to form parties and compete within a representative form of government and an openness for Iranians to engage with the free world.

Most Iranian political analysts would agree that what makes this national movement so unique unlike its predecessor in 1979 is that the political movement back then knew what it didn’t want, an appointed strongman with absolute power. This generation on the other hand knows exactly what it does want and from a young protester in Iran by the name of Vahid who wants you the read to know, “this February 11th 2010 will be an history day in Iran and a turning point that will put us one final step closer towards our goal of freedom and democracy, something our parents started in 1979 but we get to finish.”

When people like Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis try to influence political decision makers in America by painting a false picture of Iran it worries me. Today, men of such nature hold the belief that Israel’s existence is in imminent danger of a nuclear Iran and therefore this threat must be eliminated through what has been coined as a “strategic surgical strike” on the country’s nuclear facilities in Natanz (near Isfahan) and near Qom (holy city of Iran) . General David Petraeus a week ago on CNN’s Amanpour echoed this belief that America still reserves such an option in case dialogue between the P5+1 countries and the government in Tehran failed to achieve its objectives.

Evidently the talks have broken down and so my question is why is the option of dragging America into yet another war in the Middle East is still on the table when there is a low cost alternative plan available that will meet regional stability goals more effectively? Why are the so called experts trying to push for military confrontation based on false assumptions much like those presented to support the war against Iraq? The facts are clear but let’s recap for a second.

Fact - Many in the nuclear science community including the IAEA have come out on record stating that Iran’s capabilities for acquiring nuclear bomb grade enrichment is far from reach and while president un-elect Ahmadinejad likes to make outlandish statements against Israel, the reality on the ground is that his rhetoric’s are more for domestic consumption and political posturing in the region than anything else. Today Mr. Ahmadinejad has lost all credibility both in Iran and abroad.

Fact – With the current turn of events in Iran since the June 12th 2009 election and the emergence of a movement that now demands democracy, human rights and peaceful engagement with the world, any talk of a military confrontation will derail this revolt and unite the nation behind the Islamic regime against a foreign enemy.

Fact – Any form of military strike on Iran under international law is an act of aggression and an act of war, and Iran has the right to use any and all means to defend herself. This will not only mean direct military confrontation through traditional warfare but what is of grave concern is the launch of unconventional warfare with the awakening of sleeper cells across the Middle East and in Europe.

Fact – One of Iran’s strategic retaliatory moves will be to destabilize world markets by cutting oil flow through the straits of Hormouz in the Persian Gulf. This will have catastrophic impact on the global economy.

Fact – A war on Iran will unite Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Islamist groups in Iraq and Afghanistan against America. Once this conflict escalates the Arab countries in the region, unlike their position during the US - Iraq war will also be pulled into the conflict against Israel. We are already hearing the murmurs from some of the rulers of the Arab countries. Furthermore Russia and China will take sides once America backs Israel and we could potentially be looking at world war 3. And last but not least,

Fact – Israel, without the United States will have no chance in a war against Iran and for this reason it needs to think long and hard before it draws up battle plans.

So, in light of the evidence why are some people in Washington still pushing for war?

Well the answer in my view is three fold. A) They sense that once Iran and America rekindle old ties Israel may potentially lose its most favorite nation status and therefore become less important as an ally of the United States in Middle East regional affairs. It will also put a lot of lobbyists in Washington who raised millions of dollars in the name of Israel out of work but I digress. B) In the absence of any regional distraction, Israel will have to focus on dealing with the Palestine issue and addressing the final status agreement for a two state solution. In doing so it is certain that Israel will be encouraged by the Obama administration to make hard concessions on key issues such as stopping settlement building on occupied land, the border disputes and the status of Jerusalem. And C) To avoid A and B Israel needs a war to eliminate Iran’s hopes of bettering ties with America while at the same time by taking out Iran's involvement win a decisive victory on the two state solution with more favorable terms.

In my view those who take a hard-line stance benefit from conflict because they believe in a doctrine that gives them the moral authority to wage war even if it is contrary to the will of most Israeli’s today who after 60 years of conflict want nothing more than peace, first and foremost with the Palestinians and second with the Middle East community of nations.

And so I strongly believe that war between Israel and Iran is not the right answer when we have a much better option before us, supporting the people of Iran to achieve their rights to a free and democratic regime. I hope America will understand what's at stake.