Ace--

The angle people are missing here is *why* Israel is saying this now. They're trying to stiffen America's resolve. They read the paper in Tel Aviv, and they see reports about possible deals and such, and they're getting freaked out that America won't do what needs to be done (at least in their eyes).

Because, from a military standpoint, Israel's options are even worse than America's-- even granting them the possibility that they have better intelligence on Iran's program than we do, they don't have the military capability to do a whole heckuva lot against Iran's distributed nuclear infrastructure. Unlike Osirak, not everything is in one neat place waiting for an Israeli strike.

And oh yeah, check the map: Iran is far from Israel. They don't have a lot of aerial refueling capacity, making any strike difficult (unless they've been sneaky, and made the basing deal with Turkey rumored to have been in the works for a while).

Then again, there is another Israeli option, which is the option I hope the United States is considering: ignore the nuclear program and go after the Iranian leadership. Why practice gun control when you can take out the criminals, before they get the guns?

That sort of op is just up their alley-- if their intel is decent, I'd expect Iranian nuke scientists won't be able to afford insurance at decent premiums.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

I'm actually surprised that we're not doing more to undermine a regime that's been effectively at war with us since '79.
The Mullahs are sending in terrorists to kill our troops in Iraq, turn-about is fair play.
Why don't we start arming some Iranian opposition groups? If giving them guns is too much, what about setting up Persian language broadcast stations in Iraq on the Iranian border. Have a 24-7 Baywatch channel. Have another of women's beach volleyball. We've got the most sophisticated means of reaching and influencing mass audiences. Let's use 'em.

Aw, hell -- we make nicey-nicey diplo-talk, the Israelis show 'em the phone book they're gonna hit them with. Old game, and a good time to play it. Well played, as well, if we've got the Euros pitching in with the Rogue Cowboys from Amerikkka.

And screw the Arab street, if they don't get the difference between bombing nuclear arms facilities and bombing, say, cities full of peacable Iranians who acknowledge the right of the Jews to exist on this earth.

Scott -

Don't forget that the Iranians are supposedly placing their nuke research facilities in and under civilian neighborhoods.

Dave,

I agree with you that going after the leaders makes the most sense.

I too believe the "Game is a foot my dear Watson." There's is a double reverse in play as we speak.

See here how the Blogos can help implode the regime of the Mad Mullahs of Iran.

RLS - Link Here

I think you should have a contest to pick the most obtuse way of saying "Israel" without actually saying "Israel" for the sake of clarity amongst the newspapers and sermons and rants of the worldwide nutters.

I dunno, "Zionist entity" is too on the nose, doncha think?

Don't forget that the Iranians are supposedly placing their nuke research facilities in and under civilian neighborhoods.

Personally, I've never bought this, just having a general inkling of an idea of how nuclear bomb manufacturing, nuclear facilities design, and nuclear research is carried out. It would be a civil engineering feat of enormous magnitude, and I don't believe Iran is capable of it with nutzo preachers running the country.

Now, if they have done so, they're screwed from the git-go, because it's simply unsustainable in any real way. It could be that they're making the push for One Real Bomb which would be Bad, certainly, but not a world-beater by any means. To be any kind of a threat, they need more than one (provided, of course, that we have the spine to punish them when that one goes off.)

Really, I suspect that Iran is rattling sabers "real hard, Ringo", as Jules put it. Not that I want to wait to find out, natch.

This is just another variation on the notions of strength-through-weakness and winning-by-not-fighting. The United States has a decades-long history of responding to threats with too little, too late; only the conquest of Afghanistan, not at all the conquest of Iraq, is a counterexample. Israel would be stupid just to wait indefinitely for the Unites States to act; they should act on the assumption--right or wrong--that the U.S. will eventually revert to type and start letting threats mature again instead of dealing with them promptly. Rather than have Israel dither in deference to the U.S., I would have them show Washington their resolve to act on their own behalf unless the U.S. shows continual progress toward some other solution. I'm still thoroughly disgusted at the way President Bush played pattycake with the U.N. before finally moving in Iraq. He ought not be given another chance to procrastinate, and if Israel can put Slowpoke on a timetable, they should just fucking do it without any respect.

"Then again, there is another Israeli option, which is the option I hope the United States is considering: ignore the nuclear program and go after the Iranian leadership. Why practice gun control when you can take out the criminals, before they get the guns?"

Let Israel show that there is at least one liberal regime still willing to use nuclear weapons. Decapitating Iran at a stroke would reiterate the lesson that one ought not merely fuck around with a liberal democracy. If Israel, rather than the U.S., executed Iran, it would augment that lesson with another: that one does not know which hand holds the poison blade.

"ignore the nuclear program and go after the Iranian leadership." Very elegant. I shall pray for it to work!