"Why is Iran the target of so much rage," former CIA officer Philip Giraldi asks, "even though [Iran] has not threatened the United States or any vital American interest?"

Israel and its friends' influence over Congress and the media is surely a large part of the answer. How else can one explain the different treatment afforded Iran and North Korea given Pyongyang's open development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles?

• Unlike North Korea, Iran continues to be a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its nuclear sites are inspected by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.
• Iran is a developing country with a small economy and tiny defense budget and it has not invaded a neighbor since the eighteenth century.
• Iran does not even have the resources to refine its own oil for home consumption and must import the gasoline it uses.

Wider consequences - If proposed Congressional sanctions are fully implemented Iran's economy will grind to a halt but the damage does not stop there. Iran deals with many European and Asian companies in its energy industry, all of which would be sanctioned by the United States if they do not break off relations. They might not like that and might well take commensurate steps against the United States. Ultimately, the United States Navy might have to enforce the sanctions. What would happen when a Chinese or Russian ship is stopped on the high seas? Did the U.S. Congress really think about what it was doing and what the consequences of sanctions might be?

The irony is that the United States has an Iran problem largely manufactured in Washington and in Tel Aviv.

• Tehran does not actually threaten the United States yet Washington has been supporting terrorists and separatists who have killed hundreds of people inside Iran.
• Israel, which has its own secret nuclear arsenal, claims to be threatened if Iran develops even the ability to concentrate its uranium referred to as ‘mastering the enrichment cycle,' a point of view that has also been adopted by Washington.
• The White House has made repeated threats that the military option for dealing with Tehran is ‘on the table' while Israel has been even more explicit in its threats to attack.
• The U.S. mainstream media are united in their desire to come to grips with the Mullahs.

No wonder Iran feels threatened - because it is. To be sure, Iran is no role model for good governance but a desire to deal with the country fairly and realistically is not an endorsement of the regime in power. Iran is engaged diplomatically and through surrogates in the entire Persian Gulf region and central Asia, supporting its friends and seeking to undermine its enemies; but that does not make it different than any of its neighbors and the United States, all of which play the same game.

The bottom line is that the United States has been interfering in Iran since 1978 and even before if one goes back to the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq by the CIA in 1953. The interference has accomplished nothing and has only created a poisonous relationship that Barack Obama has done little to improve. Indeed, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's harsh rhetoric suggests that when it comes to Iran the Democrats are more hard line than was George W. Bush.

The drive to punish Iran supported in Congress and the media is perhaps no coincidence suggesting that those who want war are coordinating the effort. In an overwhelming voice vote at the end of January, the U.S. Senate joined the House of Representatives in passing a resolution demanding sanctions on Iran's energy imports. A joint resolution being crafted could well give Obama the political cover he needs to advocate even more draconian measures against Iran and its rulers. From the Iranian viewpoint, it is pretty much a declaration of war.

Far better course of action - Imagine for a moment what might happen if Washington were to adopt a serious foreign policy based on the U.S. national interest.

That would mean strict non-interventionism in troubled regions like the Middle East where the United States has everything to lose and little to gain.

• It would be the real change promised by Obama if Washington were to admit that it is not threatened by Tehran and were to declare that it will not interfere in Iran's politics.
• It could further announce that it no longer has a military option on the table, and that it will not permit Israeli overflight of Iraq to attack Iran.
• Iran's leaders just might decide that they don't really need their own ‘option on the table' which has been the threat that they might seek to develop a nuclear weapon.
• An Iran that feels more secure might well be willing to take some risks itself to defuse tension with its neighbors and Washington. In 2003, Iran offered to negotiate all outstanding differences with the United States - an offer the Bush White House turned down.

The big question about Iran is not whether or not it has the knowledge and resources to build an atom bomb. It does or soon will. The real issue is whether the United States is actually threatened by that knowledge and what should be done in terms of positive policies to discourage an expanded nuclear program.

The United States should first of all recognize that, as the world's only superpower, it controls the playing field. It is up to Washington to take the first steps to defuse the crisis that is building by offering Tehran the security guarantees that might undercut the influence of those in its government who seek a nuclear weapon deterrent.

Punishing Iran is no solution. It will not work, closes the door to diplomacy, and will only make the worst case scenario that much more likely. Opening the door to a rapprochement by eliminating the threatening language coming out of Washington and creating incentives for cooperation is a far better course of action.

Today's Insight