Replies

"Regardless of whether Israel acts or not.
Israel is too far away and doesn't have the capacity to block Iran from getting the bomb. Only America does, and America does not have the political will to do it.

Bush goes to Congress and asks for a use of force resolution. Democrats filibuster in the Senate. No use of force."

Well, I think the question of whether Israel can block Iran from getting the bomb may be problematical. On the one hand, getting the bomb is a complex process. On the other hand, Iran has dispersed their capabilities and has a certain amount of redundancies.

Israeli capabilities are also hard to assess.

In addition, one can look at two different possible outcomes: delaying the bomb and completely blocking the bomb. I have a feeling that Israel can probably delay the bomb if they make an all-out effort to do so, but maybe not ultimately block it. I am not sure that they will delay it, however. They may decide it is better to wait and see what happens. They have a good anti-missile system and massive retaliatory capabilities.

Of course, I'm not saying that doing nothing is a good option for Israel. It is just that if they take action, they might end up finding themselves even more politically isolated than they are now.

For example, I think there's a good chance Hillary will be the next President and I believe that if she gets into office, she will drop the façade of support for Israel. An Israeli attack on Iran could be used by Hillary as a pretext for severely weakening American support of Israel.

So it is not completely obvious that an attack on Iran will enhance Israeli security. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. It seems far from a sure thing that the government of Iran, as a functional body, wants suicide for the Iranian nation---whatever the beliefs of the president of Iran might be. Because launching a nuclear tipped missile at Israel that got through and hit a city would be national suicide. Israel reportedly has more than 500 nuclear weapons.

It may be a better strategy for Israel to wait---I'm not sure.

As far as the United States, I disagree with you on the process but agree on the outcome. I think that if Bush decided to act he would be able to do it. However, I doubt that he will decide to act.

Action would create many immediate political problems. Inaction would probably create worse problems---but they will likely occur further down the line, specifically, in someone else's administration. I think Bush is played out to an extent in terms of creating new initiatives in the war on terror. He may decide to act, but I think the odds are against it.

If he does decide to act, however, I do not believe the Democrats will form a decisive action to stop him. Rather, I believe the support will be weaker and end up being "symbolic opposition". The Democrats, of course, keep up a steady drumbeat of criticism of Bush's actions. But so far, it has been no "put up", all "shut up". The Iraqi war opposition, the renewal of the the Patriot Act, and this latest, the idea of censoring Bush because of the wire taps. All show and no dough.