New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman says that given the choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or a U.S. attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities, right now he would opt for a nuclear Iran. "As someone who believed – and still believes – in the importance of getting Iraq right, the level of incompetence that the Bush team has displayed in Iraq, and its refusal to acknowledge any mistakes or remove those who made them, make it impossible to support this administration in any offensive military action against Iran," Friedman writes.The liberal pundit says a better course of action than an attack would be to keep a nuclear Iran at bay through "deterrence” – making it clear that if Iran uses a nuclear weapon or gives one to terrorists, the United States will destroy all of its nuclear sites with nuclear weapons. "The main reason [Donald] Rumsfeld should leave now," Friedman concludes, "is because we can’t have a credible diplomatic or military option vis-à -vis Iran when so many people feel, as I do, that in a choice between another Rumsfeld-led confrontation or just letting Iran get nukes and living with it, we should opt for the latter."
Israel might question the use of the word "just," since the Iranian regime has said Israel should be "wiped off the map."