At any rate, the point was that this article didn't appear on Fox. It was on al-Jazeera.

Doesn't make his analysis any more correct. Or even that surprising - there are Iran "hawks" in a variety of places that one might not expect (Bret Stephens over at the NYT is one), and Iran is a horrible actor in the Middle East that many folks in al-Jazeera's target audience might want to read the argument in favor of hitting them.

The more important point is that his arguments that the strategy is working are pretty weak. Again, we don't know the final outcome. We might send a few thousand troops in to go and get the uranium; we might launch a full on ground war to overthrow the regime; the Iranian people might rise up on their own to overthrown the regime; etc. I personally don't think any of them are all that likely - but even if you disagree and think one of those scenarios is going to unfold, they are not happening right now. Right now, what we're doing is blowing up things that can be blown up with bombs and missiles. Which is a lot of stuff, to be sure - but most of that stuff is not directly related to the strategic goal of preventing Iran from restarting their nuclear program or rebuilding their missile program after the war. Obviously they can't do anything while the bombs are falling, but eventually the bombs will stop falling, and they'll have all the resources that come with a sizable economy and a ton of oil wealth to restart whatever it is they're going to do. So whatever the strategic goals are (and they shift a lot), this article doesn't provide a lot of support for the contention that the campaign is working to achieve them. At least, thus far.