In terms of Israel negating Iran as an existential threat to it, Iran’s pillars of strength are:

- its oil business that fund its nuclear aspirations.

– its Islamic totalitarian theocracy including a president who is resolute about Israel’s annihilation and denial of the holocaust, and a supreme leader that is utterly and ruthlessly anti-Western and looks for those attributes in presidential candidate candidates.

– its nuclear strike capability to enact both Israel’s destruction, along with possible subjugation and blackmail of its unaligned Sunni neighbors.

So far all pillars have proven resilient in the face of sanctions, global recession and a low oil price. Furthermore, for Iran’s leaders, having the president of its sworn long-term enemy, Barack Obama of the USA, who would be viewed as a Muslim apostate, a capital offense in Iran offer an outreached hand can only fuel Iran’s desire for non-violent or violent supremacy over Israel, Sunnis and the World. The danger is that once with a nuclear weapons capability, a strike against Israel is possible even if that meant nuclear retaliation by Israel. This is because Iranian martyrdom is not a deterrent, in fact it is a high Muslim goal. Additionally, by using blackmail in the backdrop of such weapons against its Arab neighbors including Iraq, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, Iran could extract economic and militaristic benefits from such non-nuclear neighbors, and then furthermore beyond the middle east by way of terror-by-proxy or missile into Europe and the USA to further Islamic goals.

Hence, a partial regional hegemony would result with Iran’s attainment of a working nuclear attack system, with that likely being preferable to Iran’s leaders than striking Israel with a nuclear weapon from the outset of the attainment of such a weapon. This is because an attack against Israel would cause an Israeli counter-strike thus opening Iran up to the possibility of an internal revolution in the carnage thereafter if not being invaded by a neighbor, and in each case ending its Islamic conquest. However, with partial hegemony comes the possibility of full regional hegemony from a nuclear strike on Israel thereafter, with Iran’s leadership and forces in this situation better prepared for Israeli retaliation whereby Iran would’ve forewarned its ensnared proxy states and groups in the middle east to unite against Israel, and at the same time being better equipped for the ensuing war and having already proliferated WMD to groups within range of Europe and the USA to prevent them from siding with Israel. The message from Iran to the West in a regional war like this against Israel would be "if you retaliate for Israel, we will do so to you." Throughout this period and during its lead up, global terrorism and propaganda would have increased using "Palestine" and US "occupation" of Iraq as a justification, all the while claiming any such terrorism to be un-Muslim-like behavior.

Upon Iran’s first nuclear missile test, the geopolitical situation of the middle east and entire world would change drastically. Also, with an Iranian dirty bomb being able to reach anywhere through porous national borders in a portable device, the fear of such a weapon could subjugate a western country to either Iran or Islam’s direction as would have already occurred in the Sunni middle east. During this time, the Muslim world becomes increasingly galvanized, and even as Sunni and Shiite Islamic sects fight for power within it, Islam starts to dominate globally. With the USA in conjunction with Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu recently giving Iran another 6 months to develop its nuclear WMD program, and the Obama administration seemingly impervious to the dangers of a nuclear Iran, the clear possibility exist for these realities to come about. Furthermore, in some circles of US power, antisemitic influenced sentiment may be so strong as to curtail reason while blaming Israel for the US’s inability to deal with Iran successfully.

Currently, the issue for the USA in justifying an operation against Iran is that it would risk US soldiers’ lives in Iraq from waves of suicide bombers coming in from Iran, and unleash pre-planned Iranian attacks to US military bases, investments and infrastructure in the middle east, whilst also possibly jeopardizing world oil supplies if tankers are then targeted by Iran in the Persian Gulf. Also, Hizbullah is said to have cells around the world that could be prompted for revenge attacks. Muslims everywhere might feel threatened and act desperately, especially directing that desperation violently against Jews in the diaspora and generally rioting. Furthermore, and most crucially a US-sanctioned operation against Iran would make exiting Iraq impossible with Iran instead causing even more chaos in Iraq as revenge for such an operation and also present the US’s presence in Iraq as an occupation and launchpad into Muslim lands, and thus a pretext for global Muslim rage. Furthermore, a blanket license for Jihadist bombers to enter Iraq would occur in the Muslim world.

Such a situation in Iraq contrasts with the Obama administration’s idealized situation of an Iranian reprieve from Iranian sponsored anti-US attacks so there is a calm whereby US and multinational forces can leave without subsequent Iranian and Islamist-induced chaos. Ultimately however, for Iran, a US presence in Iraq is an insurance policy against a US attack. By this, Iran has the power via proxy violence to stop the US from leaving Iraq in the calm conditions that will encourage a Democrat reelection by making Obama look good. Also by murdering US forces in Iraq, Iran thereby makes US citizens feel even more uneasy about being both unable to safely leave or safely stay and with that presence also helping Iran justify its nuclear program to itself and the world, whilst also stimulating global Muslim grievances and dreams of supremacy. Thus, a continued US presence in Iraq acts to physically restrain the US and then indirectly Israel from attacking its nuclear development program all the while harming US morale and attempting to galvanize and boost the Muslim world: an anti-nuclear attack would prevent any US withdrawal. The US presence in Iraq also causes disharmony for Obama and the US’s Sunni allies in the region. Thus, for Iran, keeping US forces in Iraq for as long as possible, ideally not before nuclear weapons are fully operational is a situation that plays into Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei’s vision of developing a working nuclear weapon, for once the US leaves Iraq, Iran is much more open to attack, especially if that happens before the attainment of such a weapons system.

For the Obama administration at present, essentially "troops home with oil taps running" outcome seems to trump all other concerns in the middle east, also, it also seems irrelevant or unimportant to the administration regarding how poorly Israel and the USA’s Arab allies might fair if such an outcome means a nuclear equipped Iran. Furthermore, in the face of global terrorism that would be expected with a subsequent Iranian nuclear hegemony in place, not attacking Iran in the hope of withdrawing more forces sooner is not only misguided, but exceptionally dangerous. Ironically, perhaps action against Iran, especially in terms of regime change or instigating a coup in conjunction with an anti-WMD operation might in fact enable US forces to leave Iraq sooner as Iran’s will to meddle in Iraq would lessen. Finally, the Obama administration’s vision for a nuclear free middle-east is too dangerous for Israel to accept and a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia and general regional arms race in the region is at least as dangerous to the West as a nuclear armed Iran solely. What antisemites, leftists and Israel-bashers fail to recognize is that Israel does not have territorial ambitions beyond what has already been laid out in the Mandate for Palestine and a nuclear armed Israel is simply a defense response to already demonstrated regional Muslim aggression toward it.

Israel with or without other Sunni partners can still stop Iran’s nuclear development but if this is in conflict with the US’s "troops home and oil on" goal, then this operation may not be successful whereby presuming no substitute exists, the USA could cease its X-Band radar in southern Israel. Barack Obama believes that imposing a Two State "solution" and relieving sanctions on Iran will allow it to exit Iraq peacefully. And while this may be in discussion with Iran, it makes more sense for Iran to prolong a US stay in Iraq as already discussed, but without making that explicit, in order that the US pressure Israel into not attacking it while such discussions continue. Here, the real prize for Iran is neither sovereignty for the Palestinians nor the financial benefits resulting from lifted sanctions, but nuclear arms that can attain both and then more for Iran. Having the US pressure Israel into not attacking Iran or by providing the false hope that a peaceful exit can be obtained from Iraq if Israel or the US does not attack is a great way for Iran to bide for the time that it takes to make both those situations basically insignificant as a result of the attainment of such a weapon system. In view of this, the Iranian regime won’t give the US any reprieve in Iraq until they attain a working nuclear weapons system, if at all. For the west, the issue of a Two State Solution is best seen as a losing, distractive, deceptive, perennial and irrelevant card used by Iran for its own interests. Palestinians are neither overwhelmingly Shiite nor Persian, and a Palestinian state is of no interest except as a base for anti-Israel forces and a distraction for the West.

Given Iran’s strategic success and interest for keeping US forces in Iraq, the most realistic next phase of the present regional situation is thus "troops at lower levels but still in Iraq, oil taps running and a nuclear armed and dangerous Iran." As such, only when the Obama administration realizes the risk of an Iranian nuclear hegemony or nuclear armed Saudi Arabia to Europe and itself, with or without Israel intact, then not only will this administration act against Israeli and Western security, but the Democrats might lose the next election too. In this scenario, the Obama administration will be seen as neither able to fully exit from Iraq nor able to have stopped Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, or in an alternative scenario failed to help Israel do the best job possible at disarming and neutralizing it. In contrast, by realizing the Iranian danger, US success in any of these endeavors would assist Obama in the polls. While imposing a Two State situation and internationalizing Israel’s holy sites may work to Obama’s favor in foreign opinion polls, if only in the short term, it will ultimately seem meaningless in view of the violence and mood surrounding it and the fact the the US is largely pro-Israel.

The Obama administration would have to wake up to the dangers of a nuclear armed Iran for it to do anything about it. Moreover, limiting that to a pinpoint attack on its nuclear facilities would not be enough to make it wholly useful because Iran’s theocratic rulers could still cause deadly chaos in Iraq, instigate revenge attacks everywhere and attain WMD from other places. Instead, regime change would have to happen alongside an anti-nuclear operation to replace the current theocracy with one that is not as rabidly anti-Western and belligerent. In fact, a surgically instigated coup in Iran might work in order to avoid a prohibitively costly Iraqi-style mission, and that could occur just prior to an operation against Iran’s nuclear facilities. In such a war, ideally with Iran’s military jostling for power internally and over the country, and without a theocratic leadership, external revenge or retaliation would be unexpected. Additionally, Iran with its young and suppressed population already weakened by sanctions and a low oil price is internally ripe for an un-Islamist revolution. So, while Israel could hit Iran alone, and may be compelled to do so as an act of self-defense, the long-term implications of such an attack for Israel, USA and beyond would be determined by whether the USA helps to instrument such change alongside an Israeli effort. If and when Barack Obama realizes that he is looking into a situation where he will fail to fully or partially bring US forces home from Iraq, fail on a two state solution, fail on preventing a nuclear-armed Iran all the while earning respect only from antisemites, and then by this not be re-elected, the USA may end up cooperating with Israel.

Iran is a clear and present danger to Israel and while this may be a concern to many of the USA’s populace, it may not be a concern to the Obama administration, perhaps even justified as retribution against Israel’s supposed brutal and genocidal occupation. However, this should not divert attention from Iran as a source of terror-by-proxy or missile with the capacity to encompass the middle east, harm Israel and extend itself into the West. The idea of creating Palestine as propagated by Muslims, leftists and antisemites is diverting the West’s attention away from the dangers of Iran’s anti-Western and Islamist activites and intentions. Iran has already shown itself to meddle in the affairs of Iraq to murder US soldiers and that is unlikely to end before Iran attains a working nuclear capability. At best the US may be able to withdraw some troops after this attainment, but the cost would be staggering with President Obama unlikely to be reelected anyhow. Instead, it makes the most sense for a joint US and Israeli war operation into Iran. Iran’s current anti-Western theocratic regime has no interest in accepting President Obama’s or the US’s hand at all.