Iran is dangerous; an Iran that is bombed will be even more dangerous. The regime in Iran is stable; the regime after a bombing will be even more stable. Anyone who wants to strengthen it is invited to bomb. Anyone who wants to unite the Iranian people even more behind its leadership is invited to threaten and attack. Anyone who wants to spur on Iran even more to get a nuclear bomb is invited to intimidate it. Even the last of the ayatollahs knows the truth: If Afghanistan or Iraq had an atomic bomb, the United States would not have dared to invade them, and their regimes would have been spared.
The last of the ayatollahs also knows that lashing out at Israel the occupier is the best way to preserve the regime. And in Israel, the last of the experts knows that bombing Iran will merely delay the development of a bomb by a few years. Anyone who wants to prove that Israel knows how to bomb - to bomb once again - is invited to embark on that crazy adventure.
Although I disagree mightily with the writer's premise that "Iran is dangerous" (look at its history: it hasn't started a war in 200 years), everything else he says makes absolute sense about what would happen if Israel actually made peace with Syria and Palestine.
Unfortunately, those in the bowels of power in Tel Aviv appear to be absolutely tone-deaf to such an approach.
The US Federal Government absolutely needs the mother of all distractions from how horrendous the economy is, and because it needs that distraction, may well knuckle under soon to Israeli pressure to "neutralize" yet another one of its existential threats in the Middle East (and that includes almost all of its neighbors).