Reasonable reportage and an editorial by the LA Times on US-Iran issues. The New York Times ran a similar article this morning, but made sure to include Israeli criticisms of the US intelligence community perhaps being "overly cautious." No mention in the piece, however, of Tel Aviv being overly reckless.
The LA Times editorial (second link) addresses the important point of the GOP candidates (minus Ron Paul) and their belligerent pronouncements regarding Iran. Obama, who is operationally a Republican, has taken the already aggressive route of threats and sanctions against Iran, while allowing Israel much latitude to steer the discussion. As concerning most points, the GOP attempts to paint a functionally Republican president as being damagingly liberal, thus necessitating their further movement to the right. But forced to substantiate and defend their positions on Iran, Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum have nothing.
The LA Times editorial still includes the boilerplate of Israeli security and the threat of Hamas and Hizballah, but shows that the media can keep to orthodoxy while at the same time supporting diplomatic solutions.
Incidentally, had diplomatic options been exhausted in the Middle East over the last number of decades: (1) Israel would have few if any security concerns; (2) it is doubtful Hamas and Hizballah would even exist; and (3) Iran would likely have developed along lines similar to Turkey (or better), because the shah would not have been reinstalled by the United States, in which case the 1979 revolution would not have occurred, ushering in Tehran's current theocracy. Belligerence and aggression is what got us here. Obama is handling it poorly enough; it doesn't need to be made worse - a reality applying generally to the 2012 elections.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-intel-20120224,0,5827032.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-iran-20120224,0,6780170.story
