[conservativecorner]

The poor Israelis will be called on to do this, and the world will condemn them while privately breathing a sigh of relief. It really is PATHETIC!

[Kelly_2000]

A preemptive strike would not necessarily mean a nuclear attack. It would be better for the region such as Israel to make a conventional attack from the air predominantly that flattened the Iranian nuclear facilities and left the environment intact. Let the Iranians know that a response can be at any time and not dependent on gaining support for a nuclear response. carpet bomb the facilities and flatten their airbases and military outposts until they either have no more capability or the capitulate and surrender. Whichever comes first

[familyop]

"The poor Israelis will be called on to do this, and the world will condemn them while privately breathing a sigh of relief. It really is PATHETIC!"

U.S. Army report: Israel can't stop Iran nukes
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1534403/posts

Israel has an anti-ballistic missile defense up and successfully tested and has a really mean nuclear offense. Another friendly country is building ABM defense.

Iran bellows about Israel. But I think Iran is looking more seriously at countries in western Europe, where some real gain in power is possible. IMO, Russia and China will threaten in really nasty ways when an action is taken against materiel in Iran.

[RightWhale]

Israel cannot do this without the cooperation of the US since Israel has no direct connection to Iran without going through US territory. Guaranteed Bush will not be re-elected if he moves on Iran, but it doesn't matter and won't change anything since the entire planet already assumes the US will take out the nuke facilities. The only question is when, and that seems to be coming into focus: March '06.