Writing in the Wall Street Journal, former UN Ambassador and unrepentant neoconservative John Bolton finds that while Israel's military option against Iran's nuclear program is "unattractive", but failing to act is even worse. In his piece, Ambassador Bolton argues that time is not on Israel's side and that one "major new element in Israel's calculus is the Obama administration's growing distance." Ambassador Bolton seems to believe that Israel should attack Iran and the sooner the better.

He outlines six possible Iranian responses to Israeli attack and dismisses each scenario as unlikely to occur. Ambassador Bolton's fantasies extend to the realm of the absurd. For example he argues that even if Iran close the Straits of Hormuz, that might be offset by prudent hedging to prevent any spike in oil prices. By process of elimination but also because of strategic logic, Bolton concludes Iran's most likely option is retaliating through Hamas and Hezbollah. But here this too can be minimized by "simultaneous, pre-emptive attacks on Hezbollah and Hamas in conjunction with a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities." Why is it that John Bolton's answer to every question more war?

There's more...