Why Slate is probably wrong about Israel bombing Iran soon

While Tom Ricks is away from his blog, he has selected a few of his favorite
posts to re-run. We will be posting a few every day until he returns. This
originally ran on April 13, 2009.

I'd be very surprised if Israel bombed Iran's nuclear facilities anytime
soon, despite what a guy over at ForeignPolicy.com's cousin (or
step-parent?) Slate is saying.
He offers all sorts of complicated political analyses about why such an attack
would be in Israel's interests.

I just don't see how Israel could physically do it as long as the Americans
are in Iraq. Hitting Iran is a tough mission to begin with for Israeli aircraft.
It would probably be impossible for Israeli aircraft to hit Iran without passing
through Iraqi airspace -- and they could not do that without the Americans
knowing and being able to stop them. Thus the U.S. government would be seen by
Iraqis and others as an accomplice of the Israeli attack. The fallout of such a
bombing would make life in Iraq very difficult for more than 130,000 U.S.
troops, even before the Iranians embarked upon a course of retaliation that
probably would include stepping up roadside bombings of U.S. forces.

Rather, I think the real danger time for Iran is when, if ever, we get U.S.
troops out of Iraq. Then the coast will be clear for those Israeli refueling
tankers and F-15s. What's more, we no longer will have 130,000 U.S. hostages in
Iraq susceptible to Iranian violence, so the U.S. could join Israel in stepping
up the pressure.