Ian wrote:
True. To a degree. If Israel goes overboard, the US won't automatically condone their actions. Hell, we stayed well clear when they tore southern Lebanon to pieces only a few years ago.
I agree with you on the nuclear angle, but not on Lebanon. Israel preplanned that invasion and hung it on the Shallit kidnapping purely as a matter of convenience. The US was notified about what would happen months in advance. The same is true (as recently came to light) of the then secret agreement between Bush & Israel over continuing construction of settlements. It matters very little what the US publicly states its opinion of Israels actions to be, when it is funding them, and providing arms for them:
The particular source I am quoting from may not be all that reliable, but I have read the same elsewhere, and am at googles mercy to supply the link:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/080806.html
"In this context, the Israeli-Lebanese war was a confrontation looking for a pretext, not an ad hoc response to Hezbollah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12. That so-called “kidnapping” has been sold to the American people and many world leaders as the precipitating event for the conflict, but it now appears only to have been a trigger for a prearranged scheme.
Israeli sources indicate that Bush gave Olmert a green light for the conflict at the May 23 summit. The sources said Bush has even encouraged Israel to expand the war by attacking Syria, although Israeli leaders balked at that recommendation because they lacked an immediate justification."
I remember some country or other claiming that their nuclear program was only for energy, not weapons. Could have been Iran. Or maybe Maldives. 
