Another is this amazing bit of logic:
Rather, I think the real danger time for Iran is when, if ever, we get U.S. troops out of Iraq. Then the coast will be clear for those Israeli refueling tankers and F-15s. What's more, we no longer will have 130,000 U.S. hostages in Iraq susceptible to Iranian violence, so the U.S. could join Israel in stepping up the pressure.
It is the bizarre reporter on military affairs who sees 130,000 battle-tested American troops as hostages rather than a lethal threat to Iran's regime.
And it is weird that he thinks we might be out of Iraq any time before Iran goes nuclear. We'll be there for decades. Iran will have nukes long before we are out of the way. And the current administration won't consider military action until it is obvious that Iran has nuclear weapons--which may be too late.
I've long felt Israel couldn't do anywhere near the job we could. Not the least of our advantages is that we could wage a broader and lengthier campaign to stomp on Iran's retaliatory capabilities and general defenses as well as going after the nuke facilities. And we could go after all of these for weeks if necessary. Israel's strike would be limited to nuke facilities and would be over in hours.
But I also believe that if Israel thinks Iran is going to go nuclear and believes we won't stop them, Israel will try anyway. The stakes are too high for them.
Israel has also had several years to prepare, knowing what they need to do and knowing their deficiencies in weapons and geography. I should reexamine what Israel could do if they feel compelled to strike Iran.
