in that hit. kt do you think they are doing enough to shock hamas into backing down? see, martha i don t think it s really about israel and hamas. i don t think it s a typical, you know, hamas lobs a couple of missiles, israel comes back and takes them out. i think this is a bigger picture. why? it s all about iran. this israel six months down the roadie sides it has to dew a preemptive strike against iran s facilities, what should they be doing now, takeout iran s ability to retaliate. that s why there are 10,000 missiles that israel wants to takeout now. median range, long ra eupg, because they want that option six months down the road if they have no choice but to takeout iran s nuclear facilities that iran s ability to retaliate by unleashing hezbollah and 10,000 missiles and israel is reduced. martha: how much more tension is in this situation, captain nash,
hasn t struck already. in fact, sometime ago. because the risk here is that given our intelligence inside iran is to be polite far from perfect, that iran may actually have duplicate alternative facilities for uranium enrichment, uranium conversion than we know about. so that a successful strike even on the sites we now know may not be enough to cripple the program. and the risk of that grows every day. that military window is closing. gregg: what would be the blowback in the region were israel to engage in a tactical strike against iran s nuclear facilities? here s the most critical point. the arab states of the persian gulf region would welcome an israeli attack that destroyed iran s nuclear weapons program. they don t want iran to have nuclear weapons any more than israel does. now iran itself would respond, no doubt about it, i think most likely by unleashing hezbollah and hamas to rocket attack