For years, Middle East hawks in the Bush administration have advocated a bellicose foreign policy position toward Iran. Now, the incoming Obama administration is appointing to national security positions a number of people with similarly aggressive records. Here are a few talking points to counter the most prevalent myths about the wisdom of a confrontational policy toward Iran:

1. THE FALSE RATIONALES FOR ATTACK:

* The most recent US government National Intelligence Estimate of 16 different government agencies, based on the testimony of high-ranking Iranian defectors, is that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and has not restarted it.

* Even if it does restart such a program, Iran is five to ten years away from having usable nuclear weapons.

* Iran is cooperating with the IAEA. So far its nuclear program is legal.

* The three countries known to have nuclear weapons in defiance of international law -- Israel, India, and Pakistan -- all now receive military aid from the U.S.

* The U.S. claims Iran arms Iraq insurgents, but the majority of attacks against U.S. forces are from Sunni militias that are also opposed to Shiite Iran.

* There has been no evidence the Iranian government is connected to the presence or use of Iranian weapons in Iraq.

* Any number of countries sponsor or "harbor" terror groups, including countless U.S. allies and almost every U.S. ally in the Middle East.

* Iran has never attacked the United States, and poses no threat to it. For that matter, it has been centuries since Iran attacked any country.

* The U.S. government has lost much of its credibility in issuing alarmist warnings about the malign intent of other nations.

2. POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS:

* The doctrine of "preemptive attack" against a country that is no threat to the U.S. is by definition illegal under international law as well as deeply immoral.

* Congress has never authorized war with Iran. Even if Congress did authorize it, such a war would be an illegal war of aggression under international law.

* An attack on Iran would be broadly unpopular in the U.S. and the entire world.

* As with Iraq, most of the casualties from an attack on Iran and the resulting regional war would be civilian. The loss of life would likely be massive.

* Attacking Iran without provocation would further damage U.S. moral, political, and economic standing around the world. The U.S. would become a pariah nation.

* In a time of huge budget deficits and economic hardship, an attack on Iran and the resulting war would be staggeringly expensive.

* If Iran's chief export were salt, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

* The threat to the Middle East's oil supply could make oil and gas much more expensive throughout the world, triggering a global economic crisis.

3. MILITARY AND NATIONAL SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS: An attack against Iran is likely to be militarily disastrous.

* Iran is a much larger and more populous country than Iraq, with a stronger economy and a large military.

* Iran can retaliate in numerous ways: directly against U.S. planes, directly or through sympathetic Iraqi militias against U.S. forces in Iraq; against U.S. tankers and warships in the Persian Gulf or by blocking oil traffic in the Strait of Hormuz; by launching strikes against Saudi or Gulf State oil facilities or Israel; or through terror attacks by allied groups such as Hezbollah.

* Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact. War with one means war with both.

* The U.S. military is already exhausted and stretched thin.

* Attacking Iran would put U.S. soldiers in Iraq in even greater danger.

* The possible use of nuclear weapons against Iran would end all pretense of nuclear disarmament in the world, and lead to a global nuclear arms race.

* Attacking Iran would enflame and embolden anti-American Islamism throughout the Islamic world, and threaten American-allied governments, including Pakistan. * An attack on Iran would be a boon to Islamic terrorist groups.

* Attacking Iran is a distraction from much more serious national security concerns: global warming, economic crises, and genuine nuclear proliferation, to name three.

4. ALTERNATIVES TO AN ATTACK:

* Iran has repeatedly stated its willingness to engage in direct talks with the United States. The United States has, thus far, insisted on preconditions designed to prevent talks. Negotiation should by definition involve talking about areas of conflict -- not demanding capitulation as a precondition for such talks.

* The U.S. is treating war as a first, rather than a last, resort.

* Iranians are eager for American culture and products. Citizen diplomacy, cultural exchanges, and trade can be used to help establish the trust and mutual respect now sorely lacking between governments.

* Negotiation, diplomacy, and goodwill work.