Unsurprisingly from Andrew Sullivan (Netanyahu On Iran):

Basically Sullivan goes through Natanyahu’s rationale for why preemptive action is necessary against Iran to prevent it from going nuclear and questions the logic of many of them. One of his key points is, “why is this America’s problem.”

This I don’t quite grasp. There’s no question that a nuclear capacity would have one major short-term advantage for Iran: it would indeed enable it to engage in more conventional mischief in the region. But I’m not sure why this makes it a global matter. I can see why Jordan and Egypt would be rattled, along with Israel. But that’s still a regional rather than a global threat? A useful test on this: would China worry? If China doesn’t worry, why should the US?

That will strike many as naive. And it is. But the point isn’t the implied answer — that if China does not care, then we shouldn’t either. The point is the question. We have to justify the imperative of American involve, not just assume it away.

The other thing to consider is that all the worst case scenarios that people spin out about Iran are conceived without considering any consequences. Yes, Iran could close off the Straits of Hormuz and perhaps deter a military response with a nuclear threat. Then what? How does it Iran sell its oil? How does it import goods? I mean, what is the next step?

For all the talk about Iran as a reckless and apocalyptic nation, there is really precious little evidence to support it. The regime is nowhere as radical as the Taliban. It clearly seems to have long-term strategic goals that it pursues with apparent sophistication. Yeah, yeah, yeah, some of its leaders are prone to crackpot statements. But in terms of action, we just don’t see policies one might expect from wild-eyed fanatics.