[spwa4]

And then we have the next moral fallacy. Another favorite: you cannot be blamed for doing nothing. And then course the choice you suggest is an attack on Israel and the middle east, in practice. Funny how attacks on Israel keep being defended with moral fallacies, and the real reason behind it being, let's generously call it "pride". That one side must win, no matter how much they cheat to do it, because you believe they're superior.

If you wish to claim this fallacy is true, perhaps look up how WW2 started, and how "the only thing needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" applied. For 10+ years, small actions that were good, moral ideas in themselves could have stopped everything. But nobody did anything.

There is a conflict here in the middle east, and sorry to state the obvious, but first, Israel is better than Iran. No question at all. Second, the practical necessity of protecting oil trade, and trade in general, in the middle east. Does anyone doubt that given the chance, Iran (and a dozen other actors) would sabotage world trade. That would be VERY bad, including for themselves, and yet everyone is 100% convinced they'll do it anyway, and so am I. Third, if US stops supporting its alliances in the middle east, a whole bunch of actors would immediately start massacring each other (I should say resume, because they haven't stopped, they're just pausing). That's yet another scary part of the whole situation: if US/Israel were to lose, or even suffer a significant defeat, the people, the countries, that will suffer and die most are ... middle eastern muslims. Is anybody really insane enough to claim that without Israel the middle east would be at peace? I mean, beside the Kremlin.