Before being able to move on to truly damaging sanctions against Iran, there are the difficulties Washington will encounter (and must address) in convincing other governments--especially beyond the allies with whom it shares sensitive intelligence--that this bizarre alleged plot is truly the real thing.

Most informed observers without political or ideological axes to grind with respect to habitual hostility toward Iran or rushing to Iran's defence practically whatever is charged are at least scratching their heads as to how much weight to assign to the recent allegations. If there is more sensitive intelligence of the smoking gun sort in the possession of the USG, most all observers like me will not get to see it and will remain at the very least a bit skeptical. This will be the same story with key parties like the Russians and Chinese who must be talked out of a veto if anything is to get past the UN Security Council. If these allegations become widely accepted, however, among close US allies with access to what perhaps might be a richer hoard of information, there is one especially devastating option in the realm of economic sanctions.

Although talked about from time to time, the option on the part of participating governments to sanction all entities doing business with Iran's Bank Markazi or CBI (Central Bank of Iran) has never been exercised. If even just the US and a decent number of its European allies and Japan blacklisted Bank Markazi, Iran's ability to do business internationally--even the export of crude oil--would be seriously affected. Indeed, it is possible that such a measure, sternly enforced, could even undermine Iran's currency. For these reasons, some Iranian officials once again have declared in the context of the current controversy that actually doing this would be considered by Tehran as an act of war.

Other measures, such as blacklisting a few alleged Iranian collaborators in this murky affair, are typically far less effective. And the so-called military option would be a fool's errand that is bound to come to grief one way or another. Nonetheless, before moving in the direction of such a dramatic uptick in the realm of Iran sanctions, the US had better be sure its case with respect to this alleged plot is airtight. Even the closest American allies will likely be hesitant to advance to such a profoundly serious level on the staircase of sanctions unless they are absolutely certain Washington knows what it's talking about this time around.

Let’s see. What would that eminent philosopher and policy wonk, W. C. Fields say in answer to this question?

“Well, little chickadees,” he might begin.

“Let us first stipulate that Iran is the worst threat to the US since Hitler or Saddam Hussein, or the USSR, whichever one prefers. No matter that our spooks refuse to accept the idea, what do they know?

Our greatest non-NATO ally, perhaps the greatest ally we have ever had, assures us that Iran is Nazi Germany and Ahmadinajad is the apotheosis of evil, or at least a major tribal enemy.

This blessed people, to be protected and cherished above all others, demands our help in destroying their enemies. What duty could be more sacred and just?

A good start has been made in the discovery of an Iranian plot, deviously, fiendishly clever in its disguise as an enterprise that on the surface seems designed by the Three Stooges. Curse them! There are those who doubt the unseen and unreleased proof of this plot, but this is not a problem. We will simply ignore them and they will be ignored. After all, they are like insurance salesmen. Ignore them and they will be gone.

There are suckers born every minute. In the US, suckers are born by the thousands every day. A few sips of the magic ‘Koolaid’ every now and then and soon the box office for the show will build to a satisfactory opening night.

The show’s backers in the big building on the hill will accept anything. Their devotion is without bounds. All this can be arranged.

‘Come here, Mr. Insurance Man’”

The question makes two presumptions. One is that the facts of this case are so well established as to sharpen the question of “what is to be done” re Iran. The second is that any meaningful action points toward confrontation.

As to the former, there are grounds to doubt the story being propagated by the White House. The media, in what has become their standard lazy passivity, have confused what various spokesmen say and what is in the documents – especially the Justice Department documents. The latter provide zero evidence of the Corpus Christi (Body of Christ – a calculated provocation? By whom?)car salesman or his mysterious interlocutor making any reference to violent action - much less an assassination. It is introduced by the FBI plant out of the blue. My own view is that this is another one of those fabricated FBI sting operations that keeps them busy and their budgets hefty. Moreover, David Petreaus’ CIA evidently had a major hand in this, pushing hard undisclosed ‘evidence’ that there was something real behind this opera buffa.

The second issue is why Mr. Omaba bit – and with what implications. What we know for sure is that Barack Obama is an extraordinarily weak person, easily pushed around by tough guys, who has his mind on only one thing – extending his lease on the White House. The first two traits explain his credulity. The dilemma for him is that he is boxing himself further into a corner by pointing with such alarm at Tehran that it gets harder and harder for him to kick the can down the road. Yet a confrontation with the prospect of violent combat is an electoral loser (as well as a foreign policy disaster – if that happens to concern him). Moreover, it strengthens forces in Washington, Jerusalem and now seemingly in Riyadh who do want war. So while Mr. Obama lacks the intestinal fortitude to launch strikes against Iran, he is being maneuvered into a position where his hand may be forced. This is incompetence of the highest degree. But after all this is the Obama White House.

In the interest of both candor and advancing our collective deliberations, I suggest that each contributor declare honestly where they stand on two key questions:

1. How you read the Justice Department material?

2. Are you prepared for war with Iran for reasons other than a direct attack on the United States or American forces in the Gulf?

We cannot afford to be coy.

My answers: YES; NO

It is worth reviewing what kind of a regime Obama confronted when he came into office:1) listed as state-sponsor of terrorism since 1985, 2) covert nuclear program revealed in 2002), 3) abysmal human rights record, 4) manufactured IEDs to kill Americans in Iraq. It is worth recalling the president’s strategy to deal with this odious regime (a key component of the Obama Doctrine)—engagement. Considering the nature of the regime Obama faced, big shocker his strategy didn’t work.

The right answer for the president going forward is to pretty much do the opposite of everything he did the last two years: Don’t just pile up sanctions---really enforce them; don’t talk about withdrawing from Middle East affairs—permanently station a full carrier battle group there; don’t run away from the alliance with Israel—reinforce it; don’t ignore Iran’s human rights record—elevate to the top of the President’s agenda (just give a 10th of the time the president gives to talking about jobs, jobs, jobs).

The administration is right to consider additional steps against Iran, but they need to continue to be out front on the issues or else Congress, which is already posturing, will take the lead. When that happens, nuance and the ability to target sanctions is generally lost, as is the flexibility that all administrations require in order to conduct foreign affairs effectively. It seems that further restrictions on financial flows to Iran, particularly with the Central Bank, could impact the regime’s ability to finance its provocative activities, but a determined regime, sitting on a pile of oil, will inevitably find ways to make mischief. Whatever we end up doing should be closely coordinated with our allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, whose representative in Washington appears to have been the intended target of the foiled attack. That, of course, goes to the strength of the US-Saudi relationship, which has had to weather perceptions among some in the Middle East that US support for popular transitions during the Arab Spring could serve as a precedent for the popular overthrow of Saudi Arabia’s own leaders. Nonetheless, this is an issue that is clearly of mutual interest to address, as it is for other surrounding nations and Europe, as well.

One other point that is gaining Congressional interest: the connection with Mexico’s Zetas drug thugs should not be overblown. Involvement of a supposed Zeta member to be the hit man in the plot was a colossal misjudgment that backfired. It’s difficult to imagine that a group as practiced as the al Quds Force would make the same mistake twice. The Zetas are essentially guns for hire in Mexico and, increasingly, Central America. They are brutal, but they have no particular political agenda. Their loyalty is to illicit gains from drugs and racketeering, not the promotion of jihad. As a result, using this episode to suggest that Iranian terrorist agents are running wild in Latin America would be unwise. There is an Iranian presence in the region, midwifed by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, but at this point the links to the drug cartels and political insurgents are tenuous at best, requiring a different response than might otherwise be advised.