"Israel clearly will not reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran," the meeting participant quoted Olmert as telling the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. "All options that prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capabilities are legitimate within the context of how to grapple with this matter."
The meeting participant spoke on condition of anonymity because the session was closed.
Olmert addressed the panel days after discussing Iran's nuclear ambitions in talks with President Bush in Jerusalem.
During that visit, Israeli officials disputed the recently released conclusions of a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that concluded Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Just because we won't strike in the bizarre misconception that the NIE cleared Iran doesn't mean that war won't happen.
Indeed, the article says Iran would counter-attack by hitting us:
Although Israel successfully knocked out Iraq's nuclear program with a single airstrike 26 years ago, any attack on Iran's nuclear program would be more complicated because its facilities are scattered, with some hidden underground.
Such an attack would also almost certainly unleash an Iranian reprisal against Israel, U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf or both.
So, Israel's strike, which probably won't be good enough to actually level Iran's nuclear facilities (without using nukes, of course), may lead Iran to hit us anyway. And even if Israel can knock out the nuclear facilities, their attack cannot possibly duplicate the level of attacks that would be needed to defang Iran's offensive capability. Which means we'd be in on the third round of attacks in response to that Iranian second strike.
We can pretend the problem of Iran doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean we won't have to deal with the problem.
