Step 1 · 95% confidence

The US should provide military, intelligence, and diplomatic support for Israeli operations against Iranian nuclear facilities

Direct consequence of the stated position

Step 2 · 80% confidence

Endorsing preemptive self-defense as a principle establishes a precedent that any state may strike another based on perceived future threat

The preemptive defense doctrine, if universalized, would apply equally to other states claiming existential threats - this was the core controversy of the Bush doctrine

Step 3 · 85% confidence

Iranian retaliation would draw the US into a broader conflict, testing whether alliance obligations extend to absorbing retaliatory costs

Iran has demonstrated willingness to strike US assets in response to perceived aggression; US support for Israeli strikes makes US bases legitimate targets in Iranian strategic calculus

Step 4 · 70% confidence

The alliance obligation framing, taken to its conclusion, means the US must be prepared for sustained regional war - the cost of honoring the alliance without limit

Open-ended alliance commitments have historically escalated beyond initial scope (NATO Article 5 invocation after 9/11 led to 20-year Afghan engagement)