...., a shrewd one it seems to me, is that a kind of regime change is already happening in Iran. The Islamic Republic is gradually turning into the Revolutionary Guard Republic.

The end of that road could be something like Pakistan, in which the security services dominate the state and stake permanent claim to a large share of the state's resources to support themselves. The analogy is not exact for many reasons, but Pakistan, too, began as a state defined by the Islamic faith of the majority of its people.

Exploiting unease within Iran, including among Iran's Shiite clergy, about the clergy's loss of influence relative to the Revolutionary Guard seems a prudent step for the United States to take. I'm not clear, though, whether it is part of an Obama administration strategy or merely something that someone stuck into Sec. Clinton's talking points for one televised interview. Certainly Gen. Jones's airy remarks about "tough sanctions" that could "trigger regime chance" make it sound as if some people on Obama's team are still looking for an easy way out of an Iran problem that honest analysis suggests will be with us for years.

I think you'll see a different approach back-channel than the usual up front rhetoric this time around.

You are aware that Iran's oil production has been declining about 10% per year for some time? The major reason is due mostly to the government's diverting money from exploration and development - spending even vaster amounts on weapons programs, both conventional and nuclear.

Many have always believed that with those declining revenues, directing our sanctions in that direction would increase internal political unrest due to the rampant poverty in a country with the second largest oil reserves on the globe, and would thereby bring about regime change if left alone. That unfortunately doesn't seem to be the case - nor does it?

Possibly if left alone it might - the problem being the time it would take as opposed to Tehran coming on line with a nuclear weapon.

In addition to freezing assets of the Revolutionary Guards, I would also expect us to put pressure on international energy companies from investing in Iranian energy infrastructure, capitalizing on the already uneasiness by many of them to do so, primarily due to their concern over any future Israeli military response.

I would expect scheme, as I describe, might bring Tehran to the bargaining table with a more conciliatory tone, but doubt any social upheaval would occur, something I further think Obama’s national security team finally recognizes.

If by now people don't realize that, a despotic regime which oppresses, kills, and limit the freedom of expression among its own people. is dengreous to society as a whole, and to Iran's own neighbors in particulary. Nothing else, except regime change will bring about stability and rational to that all important region to the economy of the world.

This regime is guided, NOT by contemporary and advance knowledge. Rather, by hope to return of an man (Mahdi), whom in the 12th century, went out to get some Hashish, and lost his way back.

The Islamic revolution of Khomeini had failed right from its inception. Time for it to go - never come back.

It is time to set free the poor and brave Iranian people, whom are the real victim here. We will have peace and stability in the regime only after the region goes, and the transformation from feudalistic, fundamentalist and military dictatorship to representative governments, elected by the people, for the people takes place.

There is ZERO evidence of sanctions EVER contributing to regime change.

It's like beating a dead horse over and over again. And both Republicans and Democrats have to do it.

Sanctions are political tools largely for domestic audiences, used so as to appear as if you're doing something, without having to commit military resources to achieve your outcome.

Are we really STILL

...so backward as to think that starving the civilian population, thus making them even less resourceful, of an enemy will force them to rise up against their regime?

It's hockus pokus.

Does anyone else see a connection between moves towards an isolationist, militaristic government that gains power by standing up in opposition to foreign aggressors, and years of belligerent antagonistic rhetoric from one foreign power in particular?

Nope? Nobody? Completely unrelated?