The US stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons would actually lessen the possibility of the situation you describe. If Iran didn’t have nuclear weapons, there would be less clear incentive for Israel to attack and thus Iran would be perceived to be more “in the right” if it defended itself.

However if Iran did get nuclear weapons, Israel could claim if it attacked that it was a pre-emptive strike to defend itself, and the US would have more basis for attacking Iran.

So by that logic - that it’s all a con-job so that Israel can attack Iran and then the US can join in - it would actually be better for the US if Iran got nuclear weapons so that it had some justification for attacking it.

Still, I think that’s all a bit of a conspiracy theory. Neither side is actually stupid enough to start a war, whatever they may both make out.

That way the initial attack is portrayed as Israel responding to an existential threat, so the Democrats won’t dare say one word of criticism, and Bush’s order to flatten their military will only come after the Iranian response to the Israeli attack has given him an excuse.

Yes, it may be a con-job, but it’s nothing to do with starting a war in Iran. The US military is far too thinly spread right now, and Bush wouldn’t dare anyway because Iraq has destroyed any chance he has of convincing the American public to go to war again any time soon. Rather, it’s about ensuring that Israel keeps the upper hand in the Middle East.

My guess is this is all another con-job like Saddam’s WMD, intended to provide a rationale for starting a war with Iran, so that the US military can smash up their air-force and navy to facilitate a Contra type programme aimed at regime change.