The EU and the Obama White House have dithered for years while the religious fanatics who rule Iran have pursued their jihadist nuke. Israel is a densely populated tiny strip of land that could be obliterated by one or two nuclear bombs. The Israelis cannot permit Iran to develop a nuclear strike capacity. The clock is ticking and Obama/Panetta/Clinton had better find a way to stop Iran or else Israel will have no choice.

As with the war on Iraq, the fearmongering Israel-firster crowd would love to see a strike on Iran. It's cost-free to them - they're certainly not volunteering to lead the charge, expressing a willingness to pay higher taxes to offset the cost, or thinking about whether Iran's response to such an attack would harm American or Israeli interests (or even launch a broader regional conflict). They also pretend that Israel has no deterrent of its own when in fact it's well known that Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear weapons including submarine-based ones (http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=256494). Given Israel's military and economic strength, it may be time to cut US foreign aid to Israel, especially now that Israel is setting up its own sovereign fund and expects to take in $80 billion by 2040 from recently discovered natural gas fields (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2012/02/19/israel_outlines_plans_for_investment_fund/).

You assume that the ayatollahs and mullahs and revolutionary guardsmen are rational actors who can be deterred from attacking Israel if given a chance. Can a revolutionary movement that uses its own children as mine sweepers be rational?

By the way, "Israel firster" is a very nasty epithet that one could construe as anti-Jewish. I see lots of vehicles in the Boston area with IRL stickers. Are these drivers "Ireland firsters"? I wouldn't make that claim, would you?

For those who object to the term "Israel firster," I define it as Mairav Zonszein defines it in this Haaretz column ( http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-downside-of-unbridled-support-for-israel-1.409414 ): "Israel-firster" is admittedly a deliberately crude response, but use of the term should be understood within the context of decades of American Jewish right-wing rhetoric that has largely silenced dissent on Israeli policies by discrediting those who dare to criticize Israel. Calling rightists "Israel firsters" is not nearly as belligerent and certainly not as preposterous as labeling J Street "anti-Israel" and Thomas L. Friedman an anti-Semite. ... When progressive entities like the Center for American Progress and figures like M.J. Rosenberg use the term "Israel-firster," they are attempting to deconstruct and challenge the notion that being "pro-Israel" means demanding unchecked support for Israeli policies, even when they directly conflict with the U.S. administration's stated positions and its declared role as an arbiter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Such people are trying to dismantle the equation between opposition to Israel's current reckless agenda, and concern for Israel's long-term interests and impact on American geopolitics.

You are lying. Obama, like Bush before him, has actively sought and obtained international sanctions to contain Iran. If a military option were feasible it would have been exercised already.

mecn1, Forgive me for being simple-minded and not a complex thinker who "deconstructs" phrases, but the phrase "Israel firster" questions and is intended to question the loyalties of those Americans, Jews and Gentiles alike, who support the current efforts of the Israeli government to prevent suicide bombings within Israel, the creation of an armed and hostile Palestine with Hamas at the helm, and an Iranian theocracy with nuclear weapons and a desire to exterminate Jews. Let's not denigrate those who support current Israeli policy by questioning their loyalty to the United States. By the way, as a fiscal conservative, I would be happy to end foreign aid to both Israel and Egypt.

For a calm and clear-eyed analysis of the Iranian nuclear threat by an Israeli political scientist, please read this Bloomberg dispatch (with apologies to those who depend solely on Haaretz for their news about Israel): http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-20/how-the-u-s-iran-standoff-looks-from-israel-efraim-inbar.html

Does anyone believe that these depraved, sadistic barbarians will not use (or cause to be used) a nuclear weapon if they can build one? Obama said it unequivocally; Iran can not be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon. We'll see.

For a calm and clear-eyed analysis of the Iranian nuclear threat by American experts on Iran, please read this article (with apologies to those who depend solely on Israeli perspectives for their news/views on Iran). Note the statement that "[t]he United States possesses the overwhelming diplomatic, economic and military power to cope with an adversary vulnerable to the very same forces that have led to the toppling of regimes across the Middle East." The authors add, however, that "[t]hreats of American or Israeli military action only intensify the Iranian regime's desire to acquire a nuclear deterrent." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/opinion/irans-self-destructive-gamble.html )