[MinorityRepublican]

I doubt that we'll let the Israelis do it. Maybe we hate Iran as much as they do, but I doubt that Pentagon would want to deal with the fallout resulting from an Israeli Airstrike.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Would Israel even need to send aircraft? I'd think it has enough missiles, and missile smarts, to do it that way.

[HAL9000]

There will likely be much more "fallout" if something isn't done about Iran - literally.

We've got Iran surrounded by our positions in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's one of the unspoken reasons why we're in Iraq in the first place. And Hillary/Obama are willing to let Iran become a terrorist nuclear state. We can't afford to let that happen.

[madconserv]

At the very least this is good Sabre ratteling on their part. If Israel does strike, the first response will be our ships out there. There is no way Israel does this alone.

[Bush gal in LA]

I love your tagline!

[robertpaulsen]

"but I doubt that Pentagon would want to deal with the fallout resulting from an Israeli Airstrike."

Nice choice of words.

[moose2004]

You are 100% correct. An Israeli airstrike at this particular time against a Muslim country, be it Sunni or Shia, would inflame the entire middle east and seriously damage any progress we are making in Iraq. In the end, if all diplomatic efforts fail to stop the Iranians, then yes, hit em' and hit em' hard. But not now.

[Anti-Bubba182]

If Israel needs to cross Iraq and requires US approval to do that, they need to strike before the end of the Bush administration. I think Bush will allow it. The Dems would not. It is also true that the situation in Iran is not going to get better with time. If Israel is going to strike the sooner the better.

If the Democrats try to interfere with Israel's actions they will pay a political price.

[LukeL]

Maybe we will forget to turn our radar on?

[JewishRighter]

You make a good point. Regardless of whether it might be more palatable to "let" Israel do the attack, any overflight of American controlled territory will still be regarded as hostile action by America and there will be blowback. Not that I mind, because I believe the Iranians must be confronted, the sooner the better. It just seems pointless to make a charade out of it: OH! we had no idea those crazy Israelis were gonna fly right over here and bomb you all! Not.

[ExSoldier]

doubt that Pentagon would want to deal with the fallout resulting from an Israeli Airstrike.

Fallout in the literal sense. The only way to do this correctly and make a serious dent in the program is to use nuclear bunker busters and go for a saturation of the sites identified by the intel. Iran learned from the 1980 strike by the IDF on Iraq. They dispersed their sites and put them underground in hardened shelters. The IDEAL method to fry 'em would be to use the NEUTRON Bomb, but we can thank Peanut Jimmy for taking that one off the table. Now it's got to be done the messy way. And it has GOT to be done.

[nocommies]

what fallout is that? who says we have to deal with these freaks on the ground? wipe the bums out from the air, its high time to make these weasels afraid again. you prefer a nuclear terrorist state to the "fallout" of spanking them into oblivion before they go nuclear? make this air assault the real shock and awe, and make terrorists afraid of the cowboy in the white house again.