First, Greenwald may want to inform his readers about all those “militaristic proposals” that are “too crazed or extremist” that have been “undertaken” by the Administration. Of course there are none. Greenwald, Mr. Hyperbole, is a serial exaggerator and unless I’ve missed a war or two in the past 6 years, he can safely be dismissed in this instance as a partisan hack.

With this…

If the neoconservatives had a track record of success, I might be more inclined to listen to Kristol, John Podhoretz, and Michael Ledeen who have all come out in the last 2 days advocating American military action in support of Isreal

Some would argue that the nightmare that is currently Iraq was certainly, in retrospect, “militaristic proposals” that have resulted in great losses to both our treasury, our youth, and our world standing.

As a matter of fact, many did prior to 2003. Weren’t you one of them?

Bill Kristol:What’s happening in the Middle East, then, isn’t just another chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict. What’s …

But dragging the United States into this conflict by taking the opportunity to bomb Iran is, frankly, a ridiculous notion. Why now? Is it because there’s a shooting war going on between Israel and its blood enemies and Kristol thinks no one will notice if we go a-bombing in Iran?

There is no strategic advantage to bombing now compared to a year or two years from now. It’s not like the facilities are going to get up and walk away. They will still be there unless we can convince the Iranians that they will never build a nuclear weapon as long as the United States has anything to say about it. And since I actually agree with Kristol that the likelihood of that happening are about as close to zero as you can get, it very well may be that some day, Iran’s turn will come. But why it should happen now except as an adjunct to what Israel is doing?

There exist threats that Israel will have to seriously get a grip on and the U.S. cannot be a silent partner. That is why behind the scenes we are trying with great exertion to contain this conflagration. First, like as in Iraq, Iranian Revolutionary Guards are in thick of the fighting. The C-802 missile strike on their Sa’ar-5 class corvette was a shock to the Israelis (who, if he were an American naval captain, would be crucified for dereliction of duty) both because of its presence in Lebanon and that the Iranians fielded that battery. Hezbollah under Iranian military command which also fields it own forces means the supposed checkmate of Iran through Afghanistan and Iraq have leveraged the U.S. with that combined force now presenting a threat through the entire Iraqi western front.

If Hezbollah or the Revolutionary Guards were to unleash a weapon in the WMD class or if Iran were to launch from their territory, who is in the flyover zone for the first or second strikes? Whether in a first strike or the retaliatory one, you can bet the casino that the barrage from Iran will be everything on the shelf from short to long range missiles, a few will not make it to Tel Aviv but perhaps the Green Zone and a few other concentration areas that would decapitate our forces in Iraq in a catastrophic way. Praying that Iran has no working WMDs is a risk I wouldn’t take.

The U.S. would have to decide now, not later what contingencies there are in the worst-case scenarios. For sure any exchange between Israel and Iran would have to fly over Iraqi airspace, with Israel having a small percentage possibly out of territory. With Iranian forces already in the conflict against the U.S. and now Israel, none of our options including timing are of our choosing but better be anticipated or we can pay a dear price for not doing so.

How can we “watch their backs” except doing what we are doing - providing diplomatic cover for them. But is that all? Iran desperately wants to jump into the middle of this fracas. They basically instigated it. And for them the next logical step in leading the pan-islamic jihad is to take the military lead in this confrontation with the Zionists. Transporting a few thousand troops across friendly borders to get at the Jews could be a likely scenario.

And Israel could not easily strike back. Yes, they have a great Air Force. But Iran is over 900 kilometers away - and that is measuring border to border. From IAF bases to potential taget areas in Iran is over 1,100 klicks - one way. And the Israelis do not have a strategic air refueling capability.

But they do have US forces on both sides of Iran (Iraq and Afghanistan) and the US Navy carrier task forces in the Med and other areas close by (Indian Ocean, etc.) And the fact that of our presence alone should keep the Iranian’s attention.

But on a more sober note what if Iran intends this to be the “Big One” and is looking for any excuse to start the fireworks?

On the one hand, its a liberal democracy fighting for its survival against authoritarian thugs hiding behind religion as well as being our best contact in the region. In that role it’s to some degree our fight. We have an interest.

But, on the other hand, it’s a state that’s fighting for an ethnic and cultural identity and that is emphatically not our fight.

With the aid we’ve given it over the years Israel is more than able to hold up its own end against its immediate neighbors (Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territory). It doesn’t need our help against its near foes.

That’s why I’ve argued for an explicit policy of negative reciprocity on our part in this conflict. If Iran holds itself out of the fray, we should as well.

There have been reports that Iran is already actively involved. I have no way of knowing whether this is true. It’s all the more reason to have an explicit policy of negative reciprocity.