Iran and Israel

Danielle Pletak writes in yesterday's WashPo on how Iran can't be contained. She argues that we should not assume Israel will take care of the situation if military action is required.

There is a fallacy in this argument. If our "national interest" in keeping Iran nuke free is the protection of Israel, then it is not at all unreasonable to expect Israeli action. Indeed, the rhetoric on mutually assured destruction does apply here - although not to the US. If Iran nukes Israel, there is no doubt that Israel would return the favor (or vice-versa). Of course, Iran doing so is unlikely, since both Iraq and Iran are downwind of Israel. Even if Israel could not get off a missile, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Iran would all get fall-out from a strike on Israeli soil. It would also kill many Arabs (both Israeli and Palestinian). Only the most doctrinaire neo-con would ever think that Israel is at risk from an Iranian nuke (including one provided to terrorists - since that nuke would still kill Arabs).

15 Seconds of Fame on Global Warming

Jack Cafferty asked last night on the Situation Room whether anything would really come out of the climate summit in Copenhagen.

As usual I commented. When I looked on this blog today, I found that he actually used my comments. Here is what he asked:

Here’s my question to you: What do you expect to come out of the global warming summit in Copenhagen?

Michael from Alexandria, Virginia writes:
Like you said, Jack, a binding treaty is never gonna happen. I doubt that we will get honest science on this (which would discount warming). I would much rather we give up on warming and instead target actual pollution of air and water in the developing world. Of course, the Chinese would block this too -as would the U.S., who benefits from both Chinese and Mexican pollution run amok.