NBC News reports that users on websites affiliated with al-Qaeda have posted the name and photo of an American Navy SEAL who led the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. The New York Times reported this week that the SEAL, writing under the pseudonym Mark Owen, wrote a book documenting the events of the raid — news that came as a surprise to the industry and even the U.S. government.

Fox News yesterday revealed Owen’s true identity and Business Insider published photos. Now it appears al-Qaeda affiliates and/or sympathizers are looking for revenge:

Users on several militant Islamic websites affiliated with al-Qaida have posted the name and photo of a former Navy SEAL identified as the author of an upcoming book on the commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden. The posts called for his “destruction” in revenge for the al-Qaida founder’s killing.

Among the website publishing the death threats was the “Al-Fidaa” web forum, which al-Qaida uses to distribute its media and public communications, said Evan Kohlmann, an NBC News consultant and a terrorism analyst at Flashpoint Partners, a global security firm.

Even in the aftermath of the raid last year, top U.S. officials have warned against revealing the names of those who participated in it our of concern for their safety. Pentagon officials and even the book’s publisher are continuing to urge reporters against reporting Owen’s true identity.

In a new Jerusalem Post column, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz declares that the progressive pro-Israel group J Street, by highlighting statements by Israeli defense officials regarding the potential consequences of a strike on Iran, “is now making it more likely that Israel and/or the United States will have no choice but to take military action against Iran’s nuclear weapons program”:

In its most recent mass emailing, Jeremy Ben- Ami, J Street’s leader, urges his followers to undercut the Obama policy by demanding that the president stop threatening military action against Iran and that “the drums of war” must be silenced.

Without distinguishing between an Israeli and an American military attack, J Street mendaciously claims that “top Israeli security experts and former officials warned about the inefficacy and disastrous consequences of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities” and that “many in the American and Israeli intelligence and security establishments believe that a strike on Iran would fail to end Iran’s nuclear program and may even accelerate it….”

While this may be true of a unilateral Israeli strike, it is totally untrue of an American or joint attack, which many of these experts acknowledge would wreck havoc on the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Many of these same experts have explicitly called for the United States to maintain its military option as a last resort.

While it’s true that most experts agree that the United States should maintain its military option as a last resort — this is J Street’s position too, by the way, despite Dershowitz’s contention — Dershowitz is quite wrong about what U.S. officials have actually said about the possible consequences of an American attack. In April 2010, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen suggested that a U.S. strike on Iran could be just as destabilizing to the region as an Iranian nuclear weapon. “Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. Attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome,” Mullen said. “In an area that’s so unstable right now, we just don’t need more of that.”

In November 2011, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that a U.S. strike might delay Iran’s nuclear work by only up to three years, and warned of “unintended consequences.” A military option should be kept available, he said, but might not result in “really deterring Iran from what they want to do.”

In January, Bush administration CIA director Michael Hayden recalled, “When we talked about this in the government, the consensus was that [the U.S. attacking Iran] would guarantee that which we are trying to prevent — an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon and that would build it in secret.”

In June, Michèle Flournoy, former U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy, said the U.S. security community estimates that “any military strike in its most wildly successful incarnation” would only result in a one- to three-year setback for Iran’s nuclear weapon program. “It would put time back on the clock, but it wouldn’t solve the problem in any meaningful way,” she said.

In March, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, “If you think the war in Iraq was hard, an attack on Iran would, in my opinion, be a catastrophe.”

Dershowitz’s attempt to portray J Street’s efforts to tamp down the war talk as somehow out of step with President Obama’s policy also fails. Addressing the Iran issue in a press conference in March, the president pushed back hard against just the sort of belligerent punditry that Dershowitz now endorses. “Already, there is too much loose talk of war,” President Obama said. “Over the last few weeks such talk has only benefited the Iranian government by driving up the price of oil, which they depend on to fund their nuclear program… For the sake of Israel’s security, America’s security and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster.”

Fox News already published the name of the Navy SEAL who has written a book documenting his experience leading the special ops team that ending up killing Osama bin Laden. Other media outlets have even published pictures of the SEAL, who wrote the book under the pseudonym “Mark Owen.”

Penguin, the book’s publisher, had previously asked reporters not to divulge Owen’s real name, saying that he faced “risks to his personal security.” And CNN’s Barbara Starr said the network will not report Owen’s real name. “CNN is not doing so at this time at the request of the Pentagon,” she said yesterday, “which is citing its concern about the security of the other SEAL team members.”

Meanwhile, military officials, many of whom have criticized Owen for writing the book, are reminding soldiers of their commitment to keep quiet about their missions. The Daily Beast reports that current special operations commander Adm. William McCraven sent a letter to his forces warning them against going public with classified and sensitive information:

In the letter, McRaven said that while it was within the rights of former special-operations soldiers to “write books about their adventures, it is disappointing when these actions either attempt to represent the broader [special-operations forces] community, or expose sensitive information that could threaten the lives of their fellow warriors.”

McRaven also issued a veiled warning to the author: “Every member of the special-operations community with a security clearance signed a non-disclosure agreement that was binding during and after service in the military. If the U.S. Special Operations Command finds that an active-duty, retired or former service member violated that agreement and that exposure of information was detrimental to the safety of U.S. forces, then we will pursue every option available to hold members accountable, including criminal prosecution where appropriate.”

Many current and former SEALs are also troubled by Owen’s decision to write the book in the first place, even if under a pseudonym. Some told Fox News that they consider Owen a “traitor.”

The book’s publisher says Owen “was one of the first men through the door on the third floor of the terrorist leader’s hideout and was present at his death.” The CIA and other relevant government agencies said they were not notified that the book was being written or that it would be published.