>>510156009
>What would israel have done with their nukes?Nuke Iran to prove how dangerous Iranian nuclear project is?
I'm not defending the logic of using nukes but a temporary ceasefire is typically a preferable alternative to being nuked.

>israel didn't controlled Iranian airspace
You're the only one that thinks this
>They only had partial control in the west and they attacked Teheran

>They ran out of steam and needed active US involvement.
Yes retard, US involvement is further escalation on the side of Israel. This means that the side Israel won, since it has the US on its side, could escalate the conflict farther.
>Iran could have escalated.They could have mined the straights of Hormuz and blow up US bases in the gulf of Persia.
That doesn't run counter to what I said, just because Iran could escalate things on their end does not mean that Israel, with the US on its side, couldn't escalate things further. (By the way closing the Strait, not straight, of Hormuz would severely hurt Iran's own economy)