I won’t bother going over her recommendations and rebutting them, because so many have already done it for me:

Matt Duss at the Wonk Room, whose entire post is a definite must-read:

What’s Farsi for ‘Cakewalk’?

…Maybe there are Iranian democrats who support the U.S. bombing their country, I’d love to hear from them. But I think we’ve gotten far too casual about proposing these sorts of attacks. If we’re going to talk about it, let’s at least talk about it seriously, recognizing that very many people will very likely die. They deserve a lot better than than you know, if everything goes just right, it just might work!

Justin Elliott at Salon:

Rubin wants the United States to make human rights a central theme in its Iran policy — and to indiscriminately assassinate civilian scientists.

…The “car accident” line in her post is a clear reference to the bombing of two scientists’ cars last month in Tehran. Here is a BBC account of those attacks, carried out by unknown men on motorbikes. One of the scientists was killed and one was wounded. Both of their wives were also reportedly wounded. Another nuclear scientist was killed in a similar bombing earlier this year.

No one has argued that any of these men could be considered combatants. It’s also still unclear who was behind the attacks, though Iran has accused the United States and Israel of having a role. But even the U.S. State Department referred to these attacks as acts of terrorism, which would make them antithetical to any serious concept of human rights.

At Mondoweiss, Philip Weiss picks up on this same inconsistency, but has a broader point about the Post:

The Washington Post has replaced the American Enterprise Institute as the primary hub of neoconservative arguments for U.S. aggression in the Middle East. AEI served  a Republican administration, and cannot perform that role for Democrats. So the Post is now doing the job, percolating militarist ideas for the Obama administration. Old wine in a new bottle. Jennifer Rubin is the latest hire, fresh from Commentary magazine, arguing for an attack on Iran…

Later on Weiss comes back to the issue, and points us to a Huffington Post piece by David Bromwich, who calls it “barbarous dialect”:

There was nothing like this in our popular commentary before 2003; but the callousness has grown more marked in the past year, and especially in the past six months. Why?

Bromwich focuses on President Barack Obama’s decision to assassinate a U.S. citizen who preaches violent extremism against the U.S., and the fact that even the president can joke about “drone strikes” — that is, shooting missiles down on villages from on high. Bromwich:

A joke (it has been said) is an epigram on the death of a feeling. By turning the killings he orders into an occasion for stand-up comedy, the new president marked the death of a feeling that had seemed to differentiate him from George W. Bush. A change in the mood of a people may occur like a slip of the tongue. A word becomes a phrase, the phrase a sentence, and when enough speakers fall into the barbarous dialect, we forget that we ever talked differently.

• The Wall Street Journal: Ronen Bergman, a military analyst for the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, opines that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has barely been able to contain his satisfaction over WikiLeaks cables showing Arab leaders so afraid of Iran that “they even appear to be doing their best to persuade the United States to attack Iran’s nuclear installations.” Bergman acknowledge that Arab leaders are not prepared to join forces with Israel against Iran because “the Palestinian problem has not been solved,” but comes up short of fully endorsing a “linkage” argument. “Unless the concerned states of the Middle East drastically change the way they collaborate (with the U.S. acting as mediator), the campaign to stop Iran from getting the bomb will be lost,” he concludes.

• The Washington Post: Jennifer Rubin, the neoconservative Post blogger, writes that it’s “time to reset Iran policy.” Rubin says the current dual-track policy of pressure and engagement is failing on both fronts and dismisses the need to build international consensus on any matter related to Iran. She suggests robust support for the Green Movement, to ”continue and enhance espionage and sabotage of the Iranian nuclear program” (including assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists — the “ultimate targeted sanction”), making “human rights a central theme in our bilateral and multilateral diplomacy,” and “begin[ning] to make the case and agree on a feasible plan for the use of force.” She contends that an attack on Iran will not allow the current regime to consolidate power. In conclusion, Rubin writes: “The goal should be to do what we can to accelerate the regime’s collapse while we work to retard or force surrender of its nuclear program.”

• The Washington Post: Jennifer Rubin, writing on the Post’s Right Turn blog, interviews Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). Lieberman tells her that statements from EU and Russian officials indicating support for limited Iranian enrichment”‘is the wrong message’ to send to a regime that has ‘such a pattern of deceit.’” He argues that should Iran get a nuclear weapon, “the consequences are so disastrous for us and our allies” that “it’s time to get tough.”