In the WaPo, a piece by Michael Singh, "managing director" of Israel's premier US think-tank - WINEP, the Washington Institute for Never Ending Prattle Near East Policy - asserting that oil sanctions just aren't going to be enough to get Iran to move in ongoing negotiations about its nuclear program. (Singh, of course, never entertains the possibility that a fair solution might be in reach if Israel could only move its own position - which, as it happens, offers absolutely no room for compromise. Either Iran surrenders completely and unconditionally, or else . . . .)
The "or else" is plain to see:
Washington should bolster the credibility of its military threat. Recent steps to strengthen its force posture in the Persian Gulf are a good start. They should be accompanied by more serious statements about U.S. willingness to employ force and an end to statements exaggerating the downsides of military action. This is likely to garner attention in both Tehran and Beijing. If the alternative is military conflict in the Persian Gulf, China may see further reductions in its Iranian oil imports — which would be the most significant way to strengthen the current sanctions — as prudent.
As I posted last night (commenting on Reza Marashi's infinitely more fair-minded essay in The National Interest), continuing to push Iran to the wall - which is what Singh is advocating - can very possibly push Iran over the limit in terms of how much of the crap that US-Israel is throwing at it Iran's willing to swallow.