In his New York Times op-ed entitled "Bomb-Bomb-Bomb, Bomb-Bomb-Iran?" Bill Keller writes regarding the prospect of living with a nuclear Iran:

"In that case, the fear of most American experts is not that Iran would decide
to incinerate Israel. (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does a good impression of an evil madman, but Iran is not suicidal.) The more realistic dangers, plenty scary, are
that a conventional conflict in that conflict-prone neighborhood would spiral into Armageddon, or that Iran would extend its protective nuclear umbrella over
menacing proxies like Hezbollah, or that Arab neighbors would feel obliged to
join the nuclear arms race."

"Most American experts" and their families don't live in Israel, so perhaps we should ask Israeli experts what they fear?

As to Mr. Keller's statement that "Iran is not suicidal,"  we'd be very curious to know if Mr. Keller would be willing to stake the lives of his children on testing that theory?

Mr. Keller also neglects to mention in his list of "more realistic dangers," the danger of Iran's terroist proxies, like Hezbollah, getting their hand on a nuclear weapon. Are they and their suicide bombers not suicidal either?

In his closing statement Mr. Keller writes: "Bombing Iran is the best way to guarantee exactly what we are trying to prevent."

Well, news flash, Mr. Keller, NOT bombing Iran is an even better way to guarantee exactly what we are trying to prevent.

[Posted by R.S.]