Taking the Iran case to the Security Council, [special projects director for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Shoshana] Bryen said, holds little possibility of success because Russia and China wield veto power; both have been reluctant to jeopardize their lucrative business with Teheran in the interests of slowing proliferation. And even if the Security Council takes it up, the result Jewish groups hope for — international sanctions — may not be enough to dissuade the Iranians. “Show me a single case in which international sanctions have produced the desired result; I don’t think you can,” she said. “Sanctions on Iraq didn’t work; sanctions on Iran haven’t worked so far.”

Despite persistent rumors about military action to disrupt the Iranian program, Bryen said she thinks U.S. or Israeli military action against Iran is unlikely. The United States, she said, has the military capability to deal Iran a severe blow — but it is far from clear whether Washington is willing to live with the unintended consequences, including severe retaliation against Israel with thousands of missiles in southern Lebanon, but under Iranian control. “When the U.S. tries to war-game it, Israel always pays the price,” she said. “None of the people calling for U.S. military action deal with this in a good way.”

A disbursed and hardened Iranian nuclear program would be even harder for Israel to destroy, she said. And a U.S. attack that was less than fully successful would be a tactical defeat as Iran continued its weapons development program — but this time with the image of being the victim of an unwarranted attack. Israel faces the same constraints, and it’s much smaller military means it has fewer military options. “There’s no Osirak option,” she said, referring to the 1981 Israeli attack that devastated Saddam Hussein’s much more concentrated nuclear program. “There are probably six or seven or twelve sites that could be the right sites; we don’t know what’s in what site.”

The AJC’s David Harris does see one potential route for diplomacy: an all-out U.S. effort to convince the “EU 3” — Britain, France and Germany — to move beyond gentle diplomacy.

That prospect seems dim, given Europe's post-WWII aversion to military solutions and Britain's domestic controversy about its participation in the Iraq war. Iran expert Michael Ledeen isn't optimistic about anyone's will to fight or probable success.

Will Israel prepare a military response now that Sharon is gone? And how effective can it be?

The other option that might have a chance at success is arming and supporting the Iranian anti-cleric groups. The mullahs do not enjoy widespread support, and an attempt to assassinate Ahmadinejad has been reported but not confirmed. But such efforts are only rumors at this point and we can only hope they are ongoing and effective.

UPDATE: This article argues that much more can be done to support Iran's disgruntled citizenry in overturning the mullahs' regime. The authors argue:

Governments should increase pressure on Tehran to stop human rights abuses and release political prisoners. Nongovernmental organizations around the world should expand their efforts to assist Iranian civil society, women's groups, unions and journalists. And the global news media should finally begin to cover the steady stream of strikes, protests and other acts of opposition. A regime like the one in Tehran always wants to pretend that it is popular and legitimate, whether it is or not.

There is a historical legacy of such help being effective. Catholics in Europe and the United States aided the trade union Solidarity in Poland and the "people power" movement in the Philippines. African-American organizations gave crucial support to South African civic groups fighting apartheid. American labor unions backed the anti-Pinochet campaign in Chile. In each instance, the objective was assistance, not interference. That can also be the model in Iran.

Don;t expect this support from the Left. The article mentions imprisoned dissident Akbar Ganji, who was marginalized by the Left both for being supported by President Bush and for refusing to disassociate himself from Bush.