Never mind the rhetoric on both sides, the current conflict with Iran is about a clash of interests, and should be addressed that way. If that wasn't so, Israel would have had the nuclear threat from the more fundementally Islamic Pikistan long time before Iran. Politics are about how to avoid reaching the ultimate limit of a military clash. While the proposed pre-emptive strike is a design to gain and protect vital interests as important as the destruction of the assumed threat of the nuclear project, what if that pre-emptive strike led to another 50 years of conventional war, what exactly is the bargain here? I hope the "another 50 years of conventional war" is not actually one of the main objectives.
UN: Gaza could be 'uninhabitable' by 2020 if trends continue (AP)
from the article: Let them have nukes