In an interview with PBS’s Charlie Rose, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former George H.W. Bush Secretary of State James Baker discussed a potential strike on Iran’s nuclear program. Both told Rose that they think the U.S. should keep all options on the table to deal with a potential Iranian nuclear weapon — a policy adopted by the Obama administration.

But Clinton and Baker had no illusions about the possible consequences of an attack by Israel or the U.S. against Iran’s nuclear program. After Baker highlighted a growing consensus of former top Israeli security officials against an attack and his view that Israeli capabilities could only cause a delay — not put an end to — Iran’s nuclear progress, he said that sanctions against Iran are “having an effect” and “you don’t want to lose all of that.” (Former top Israeli officials also share this view.)

Baker also discussed how an attack could serve hard-liners in Iran. “There are a lot of unanticipated consequences that could follow from [an attack], not least of which is — well, not least of which is strengthening the hand of the hard-liners in Iran.”

Clinton then said Baker’s assertion was “an important point,” adding what she sees as two schools of thought among Iran’s leaders:

CLINTON: There are those [among Iran's leadership] who say, “Look, you know, these sanctions are really biting. We’re not making the kind of economic progress we should be making. We don’t give up that much by saying we’re not going to do a nuclear weapon and having a verifiable regime to demonstrate that.”

And then, frankly, there are those who are saying, “The best thing that could happen to us is be attacked by somebody. Just bring it on because that would unify us. It would legitimize the regime.”

[The regime] doesn’t represent the will of the people. It’s kind of morphed into kind of a military theocracy. And, therefore, an argument is made constantly on the hard-line side of the Iranian government that, you know, “We’re not going to give anything up. And in fact we’re going to provoke an attack because then we will be in power for as long as anyone can imagine.”

Watch a clip of the exchange between the current and former Secretaries of State:

A potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, as well as the nuclear non-proliferation regime. U.S., U.N. and Israeli intelligence estimates give the West time to pursue a dual-track approach of pressure and diplomacy to resolve the crisis. Questions about the efficacy and potential consequences of a strike have led U.S. officials to declare that diplomacy is the “best and most permanent way” to resolve the crisis.

The latest round of talks between the West and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program ended with no breakthroughs and no collapse of the process. But the continuing process doesn’t mean Iran escapes scott free from the failure to negotiate a deal.

Sanctions imposed on Iran well before the latest round of talks began are set to kick in, and they’re already having an effect even before they do. The Wall Street Journal reported today:

Iran’s rial lost value against the dollar and gold on Wednesday on the news of the failed talks and anticipation of U.S. sanctions on firms doing business with Iran’s central bank beginning June 28 and a European embargo on Iran’s oil exports set to take effect July 1. Iran, struggling with a growing budget deficit, is offering price reductions for its oil to retain customers.

On a recent road trip through Iran, New York Times columnist Nick Kristof also noted that sanctions are taking a bite out of the U.S. economy. “To be blunt,” he wrote on Sunday, “sanctions are succeeding as intended: They are inflicting prodigious economic pain on Iranians and are generating discontent.” Kristof talked with factory owners who can’t get mechanical equipment because of the sanctions, and shoe sellers whose sales fell by two-thirds. Noting that “sanctions are hurting ordinary Iranians more than senior officials” yet not seeing other paths for pressure, Kristof also added:

Western sanctions have succeeded in another way: Most blame for economic distress is directed at Iran’s own leaders, and discontent appears to be growing with the entire political system.

In another story reported from Iran, the New Yorker’s Laura Secor observed, despite her assignment to cover the elections, how sanctions are compounding pre-existing economic problems there. She noted the economic distress and the great pains the Iranian government goes to in order to paper over the problems because either they take the blame for mismanaging the economy, or they have to admit that Western powers’ pressure campaign is having an effect. Secor summed up the economic situation:

In the twelve months preceding my visit, Iran’s currency had lost half its value. … The day before the election, Tehran residents were complaining about the price of chicken, which had just leaped to forty-five thousand rials, or four dollars, per kilo—triple the 2008 price. In the past year, the cost of rice had jumped twenty-eight per cent, and vegetables a staggering hundred and forty-six per cent. Even when you wanted to talk to Iranians about politics, they turned the topic back to inflation.

In perhaps the best sign that sanctions are compounding Iran’s economic woes, the Iranian authorities, who interrogated Secor before she left, were very nervous about her reporting about the economy.

The U.S. military is taking concrete action against an instructor, Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley, who taught U.S. military officers at the Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC) to wage “total war” on Islam.

The JFSC has been plagued by reports that course presentations delivered by visiting instructors as well as active duty U.S. military personnel cited numerous prominent American Islamophobes and promoted taking a war on Islam “to the civilian population wherever necessary.” Dooley’s suspension, as reported by Wired’s Danger Zone, marks a step forward in removing blatantly anti-Muslim teaching materials from the JFSC.

ThinkProgress has obtained one of Dooley’s PowerPoint presentations. The presentation (which can be downloaded here) offers a stark example of the Islamophobic curriculum taught to U.S. military officers.

The presentation, dated from July, 2011, offers a “counter-jihad op design model.” Dooley’s “model”:

“[Calls] for a direct ideological and philosophical confrontation with Islam (as it is self-defined, in Islam’s own words). This confrontation will likely make anyone who sees the world in morally equivalent and/or religiously equivalent terms very uncomfortable.”

“Presumes that Islam (as it currently defines itself) is an ideology rather than solely a religion, with the normally associated protections we afford such beliefs.”

“Asserts Islam has already declared war on the West, and the United States specifically, as is demonstrable with over 30 years of violent history.  It is, therefore, illogical to continue along our current global strategy models that presume there are always possible options for common ground and detent with the Muslim Umma without waging near ‘total war.’”

Dooley acknowledges that some of the examples provided in his class “will be seen as not ‘politically correct.” These include disregarding the Geneva Convention as “no longer relevant” and “taking war to a civilian population wherever necessary.”

Read more