Update: Infidel753 explicitly disclaims self-identification as a "conservative"; I can't change the title without breaking the links to this article, but I wish to acknowledge my mistake in applying the label.
Infidel753 responds to my recent article about the Iran war with his own justification.
I have a couple of quibbles. First, he titles his post "my case for the airstrike". But not even the most optimistic analyst believes that a single air strike would do anything effective. In war we must plan for the worst; once we were to start such an endeavor, it is certainly possible that pure inertia might forced us to invade and occupy Iran. It's not possible to pull off another Osirak.
Second, I'm curious as to how he might substantiate his attribution of any particular theological beliefs to the Iranian government. Since theology is entirely fact-free (not even dependent on the literal text of its scripture) it is impossible to discuss theology independently from its explicit description by religious authorities.
But these are just quibbles. I'm more interested in the moral principles which underlie his analysis. I have reason to believe that Infidel753 does in fact have moral principles, but I cannot clearly discern them from this post.
He says, "My overwhelming priority in this situation is the survival of Israel." What specifically does the survival of Israel actually overwhelm? One might read his absolutist first paragraph as saying that any threat, however remote, would override any abstract moral principle, however important. The moral prohibition against wars of aggression and the respect for territorial sovereignty seem like important principles, and making "statements which can reasonably be interpreted as threats" seems like a weak justification for abandoning those principles.
Are there any moral principles which his concern for the survival of Israel would not overwhelm? He's specifically looking for a guarantee (using the word twice, once in italics). But guarantees are hard to come by. Would he countenance genocide or slavery to achieve a guarantee?
Why specifically Israel? Does the survival of, say, India (the world's largest democracy) have the same status? Especially in the light of Pakistan, a Muslim country with actual nuclear weapons, and which has not only made "statements which can reasonably be interpreted as threats" but which has fought three actual wars with India.
Are his moral principles regarding nations comparable to those regarding individuals? If not, why not? Suppose Allen were to say, "Damn that Bob, I wish he were dead." Suppose it was rumored that Allen had applied for a permit to buy a gun. Would Bob then be morally justified in throwing a stick of dynamite into Allen's house, endangering his wife and children?
Is his moral vision symmetric? In other words, if the same criteria were to apply to another country, would he offer the same moral approval? The United States, just to pick an example at random, has made statements that could reasonably be interpreted as threats to Iran, has a President of questionable sanity, demonstrably poor judgment and considerable bellicosity, and has actual nuclear weapons. Would Iran thus be morally justified in abandoning moral principles to react to this threat?
How does he reconcile the absolutist language in this post with his self-description on his profile as "suspicious of ideology and absolutism of all kinds?"
Of course, it might be the case that Infidel753 has no moral principles at all in this regard, merely the recognition that we have the power to do pretty much whatever we please, and any "moral" principles serve only to weaken our resolve. I sincerely hope, however, that this is not the case.
 I have no idea of Infidel753's actual gender, but I have to choose a pronoun. My intuition supplies "male" so I'll go with that. If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to apologize and fix it. Or, if Infidel753 prefers gender-neutral pronouns, sie needs but ask.