>I don't think first strike strategic nukes are on the table even for the Israelis. Now there is a variety of bunker buster that is a limited tactical nuke. They would probably go that far.
>

I think they would be an option if they tried a conventional strike first and failed AND they assumed Iran had deliverable nukes. At that point I think Israel would have to assume a retaliatory strike would be nuclear and they would have to take action.

>Of course, a serious attack with the conventional stuff would bring in lots of folks who are standing on the sidelines now to try to mediate some solution. I am not sure there can be a good outcome, other than an internally generated regime-change in Tehran. Makes the 1954 model look pretty good, by comparison. I am always in favor of subversion over airpower.
>
>>>>>I think it is more to the point that whoever is elected may find that they are handed a fait accompli by Israel.
>>>>
>>>>There can be no incompatibility - all the final candidates were vetted by AIPAC, after pledging (hazing, if any, wasn't televised, I assume).
>>>>
>>>>>You'll notice he also says that if McCain were elected the Israeli's would still feel constrained as the new admin gets up and running therefore would probably go before January if they felt that a window were closing.
>>>>>
>>>>>That may be just hardcore analysis. As to why he would say it publicly ... may be more due to personality than politics <s>
>>>>
>>>>Which is why I actually like the author of the article. Knowing that the editor will slap an imprecise qualification in the subcaption ("John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations" - which is not exactly true), he strategically inserted a preemptive correction somewhere deep inside the text: "Mr Bush's ambassador to the UN".
>>>
>>>However much Bolton's credentials offend your politics, his analysis is pretty good. (of course this is because it pretty much matches what I've been saying here for 2 years or more <g>)
>>>
>>>Israel is very sensitive about people with nuclear ambitions talking about wiping them of the face of the earth. Even if the big talkers are bombastic Persian or Arab blowhards with delusions of empires past, they would do very well to put themselves through a reality check.
>>>
>>>There are some hard men in Tel Aviv. Sometimes American politicians whose idea of a "tough fight" is a nasty floor vote forget that "national security" isn't just a campaign issue to the Israelis. They had their 911 a long time ago.
>>
>>The US managed to come through 9/11 well, and because it actually only affected a small % of the population, the rest are free to smugly criticise needs for defense against maniacs around the world.
>>
>>Israel likely would not survive a single or multiple warhead nuclear assault from Iran. The idea of Iran getting nuclear weapons and having a delivery capability combined with their public stance on the destruction of Israel is the apocalypse, plain and simple. They have absolutely no choice but to stop this from happening, and if nobody else will do it, they will do it themselves. They can try to do it conventionally. If that doesn't work, rest assured they will do it with nuclear weapons.