Well, George is in a cheery mood
To the Standard's suggestion that there's no reason to wait to attack Iranian nuclear facilites, Will writes:
Perhaps because the U.S. military has enough on its plate, in the deteriorating wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which both border Iran. And perhaps because containment, although of uncertain success, did work against Stalin and his successors, and might be preferable to a war against a nation much larger and more formidable than Iraq. And if Assad's regime does not fall after The Weekly Standard's hoped-for third war, with Iran, does the magazine hope for a fourth?
Containment? Can he seriously believe that Iran, armed with the nuclear weapons that containment would give them time to further develop, can be contained? Will containment lessen their (financial and material) support for Hamas, Hezbollah and others like them around the world? Does he think that if they had the ability today to fire a nuclear-tipped missle at Tel Aviv, they'd hesitate at all? Has he not listened to the rantings of Ahmadinejad?
As Kristol writes in his editorial, weakness is provocative, particularly in the Middle East. Iran has seen little from the US to disabuse them of the notion that we don't currently have the stomach for a confrontation. Our reliance on IAEA, UN and the feckless Europeans can only make them laugh as they play the lot of us for more time.
Yes, there would be serious repercussions (not the least of which, a probable doubling of the price of oil) in the wake of a US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. No, it probably isn't the ideal time for the US military to strike now. But world events seldom wait for the best time for us to react to them. Waiting will only allow Iran to further develop their nuclear capability. And if they succeed while we get ready, we'll have a much bigger problem on our hands.