reducing Iranian influence on Israel's borders by drawing Hamas away from Iranian patronage and helping fuel the revolt against Assad in Syria. At this point, the US can accept the risk of Islamist-dominated governments in Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey or elsewhere if they counteract Iranian influence in those places. That's another reason why the US doesn't want to rush into war now -- an Israeli assault on Iran this summer practically guarantees renewed rocket assaults from Gaza and Lebanon and possibly full-scale reprises of Operation Cast Lead and the Second Lebanon War. On the other hand, a year or 18 months from now Assad's government in Syria may have collapsed, Hezbollah could be isolated without the Iranian lifeline and Hamas could be weaned from Iranian influence to Egyptian tutelage. All those development would make effective retaliation against Israel in the event of an attack on Iran less likely, or at least less effective. Something to think about for those whose daily regimen includes wondering aloud why Obama won't praise Israel and criticize Islamists more than he does. 03/02/2012 - 10:31am EDT | blackton ATleft is right, regardless of the rest of the content of the article. This is an American magazine devoted primarily to America's best interests. That title is inappropriate, at most I can see is asking how much each side can trust each other. ATleft is right, regardless of the rest of the content of the article. This is an American magazine devoted primarily to America's best interests. That