That's point one.

Second, and more importantly, no Israeli offical has ever publicly threatened first use of nuclear weapons. Rafsanjani has.

During the cold war, there was never any doubt about the availability of warheads. Both the USA and USSR had nukes. The question was intentions.

We are now in a situation where one party has already stated an intention to use a nuclear weapon. The question is not one of intention, but of capability. This has lowered the bar. A 'wait and see' approach now yields zero benefits for Israel.

In cold war constructs, there were even scenarios were a limited nuclear exchange took place between the US and Soviet sides, but total annihilation was avoided. There can be no such rosy outcomes projected in the Middle East today because Israel does not have the strategic depth to absorb such an attack.

Also, Tehran may not choose an obvious mode of delivery, and opt for a proxy instead, like thier man Imad Mugniyah Hezbollah or one of the many al Qaeda leaders currently under "house arrest" on IRGC bases in Iran. In this case, unlike a cold war limited exchange scenario, there would be no red phone for the Israeli prime minister to pick up. No one to threaten, to negociate with or even to surrender to.

Bush may have lied about the Iraqi nukes. Israel may have lied about their own nukes. But that doesn't really change the facts that Israel has nukes, and Iran is trying like hell to get them. We can debate all day about who is in the wrong but it doesn't change reality, and it doesn't excuse inaction.

If the current Iranian government is not removed by the end of 2004, we will see nuclear hellfire in the Middle East. Considering the ineptitude of Tehran's response to the Bam earthquake, deaths will be in the millions, even if the initial strikes kill only thousands.

I, for one, am not willing to risk millions of Iranian lives on the continued good will of the current Iranian and Israeli goverments. One of those governments must go.