You are paraphrasing in a very sloppy manner. In any case, I don't believe he said that. What he has said repeatedly, and again in a recent editorial is:

"If these are our only choices, which would you rather have: a nuclear-armed Iran or an attack on Iran's nuclear sites that is carried out and sold to the world by the Bush national security team, with Don Rumsfeld at the Pentagon's helm? I'd rather live with a nuclear Iran.

While I know the right thing is to keep all our options open, I have zero confidence in this administration's ability to manage a complex military strike against Iran, let alone the military and diplomatic aftershocks."


Friedman has also stated frequently that he believes gas prices need to rise to $4/gal in order to encourage conservation and curtail wasteful energy use. He feels that $60-70/bbl oil is funneling too much money to these fanatical regimes, allowing them to thumb their noses at the rest of the world.


So as much as I hate to think of a nuclear Iran, I tend to agree with him that our current administration is too incompetent to do the job - look what a mess they made of Iraq - which is 1/3rd the size of Iran, had a demoralized military, and lack of technology from years of sanctions. Iran is way bigger and meaner, not to mention they are still adding 4Mil bbl of oil per day to the world oil market, which we are loath to do without.

Probably best to leave it to the Israeli military.