The law of diminishing returns has well and truly devalued so-called 'think tanks'. Perhaps privately-funded communities of scholars could make a modest contribution in the past but now we have a plethora of institutions that are just front organisations for various interest groups.

Think tanks have beome a refuge for wannabe academics who are not prepared to accept the endless peer review and criticism that is an essential part of true scholarship. Instead, they go to places like the Heritage Foundation or the Hoover Institute or our very own IPA, where they can give each other pretentious titles like 'senior research fellow' while churning out shoddy pieces informed by ideology.

This piece is typical. First, it claims to be 'realist', implying that anyone who disagrees is not. Nevertheless, the author doesn't cite any evidence for his tendentious assertions, he just states them as if they were incontrovertible.

Having staked his claim to be a realist, what is Phillips' policy presciption? More sanctions on Iran. An actual realist might point out that short of military action it would be hard for the USA to impose any sanctions more severe than the ones it already has, and they haven't had any appreciable impact.

Philips' other suggestion is that other countries should crank up their sanctions. Once again, the empirical evidence suggests that this is extremely unlikely to occur.

In other words, Mr Realist's measures have a slim to zero chance of ever being adopted or of having the desired effect even if they were. And what's his 'realistic' solution if his proposals don't work? A missile shield while 'mobilising an international coalition'. Nothing but hard realism there then.

The piece of course is not intended as a serious contribution to policy discussion. It's just one more bit of noise in the continuing campaign to present Obama as some sort of traitor to American values who secretly supports the Islamofascists. Fortunately, the evidence that us true realists tend to rely on suggests the campaign is gaining zero traction with Americans apart from those already convinced, or indeed with anyone else.

"The US should lead an international coalition to pressure Tehran to unclench its fist from around the throats of its own people."

A horse-laugh to that. "Physician heal thyself." Perhaps the US should unclench its fist from around the throats of its own people first. They could start by abolishing the the IRS, the FRB and FDIC, the EPA, FDA, SEC, CFTC, NLRB, FTC, FCC, FERC, NRC, FAA, CAA, INS, OHSA, CPSC, NHTSA, EEOC, BATF, DEA, NIH, NASA, CIA, and the FBI.

Some people never learn from history.
The Iranian people must write their own history without another "coalition of the willing" to lay their country to waste like another Iraq.

James Phillips, agree with you slightly, but am fed up with the way America before Obama has stuffed up too many similar situations, exampled by having Condy Rice push her way in front of the UN.

Surely Obama is now able to use the UN as it should be used, which was set up following the Kantian philosophy that not one top nation should be in charge of any Enlightenment Agenda, but a Federation of Nations.

That was what the formation of the UN was originally all about, and has primarily been both the UK and the US one after the other which has ruined the Agenda.

As Obama with his academic qualities has learnt all about the above, for Godsake let him steer America the proper way and let the UN do the job it should be doing, not declaring war, but fully out to preserve the peace.

Regards, BB, WA.

James Phillips
Give us little time sir! Now we are searching for the nuclear, biological and chemical weapons etc in Iraq!
Give us little time sir! I know our god is in war with muslims, that he is ready to support us to invade to Iran. I read his messege!
When do you think is the best time to invade to Iran?
Yesterday? Ahha!
You are Bush's dog!

ah, the heritage foundation. fine dispenser of hairy-chested lunacy.