Those of you who have followed the War Bloviating from Israeli PM Netanyahu may have read a recent blog post by Jeffrey Goldberg (here), in which he sums up the case for an attack on Iran that is said to be being made by some Israeli officials. Goldberg concludes his column thus: "These were vertigo-inducing conversations, to say the least. Next week, Ill discuss why, from Netanyahus perspective, a strike on Iran, even if only marginally successful, might be worth the risk -- and may be historically inevitable."Pat Lang has posted a response to Goldberg's views by a Brit, David Habakkuk, who often posts at Sic Semper, and whose analytic powers are quite impressive. (My headline "In the weeds" is meant to signal that time and concentration may be required to follow the argument. IMHO it is worth the effort.)More: Nicholas Kristof has this: "The False Debate About Attacking Iran." Key point: "So as we hear talk about military action against Iran, lets be clear about one thing. Outside Netanyahus aides and a fringe of raptors, just about every expert thinks that a military strike at this time would be a catastrophically bad idea. Thats not a debate, but a consensus."