How Many Ways Can Putz Say "Bomb Iran" Without Actually Saying It?

Let us count the ways. First of all, look at the portion of Kurtz's post Putz doesn't quote:

An attack on Iran would be militarily tougher than the invasion of Iraq. Occupation of Iran seems out of the question. There are also questions about how far an attack would actually set back Iran’s nuclear program. Yet all of these difficulties and considerations notwithstanding, the fact is, we are under a threat of exactly the sort that everyone agreed would justify action in Iraq.

To translate: Imminent threat. Nuke 'em.

Why didn't Putz quote this? Maybe he feels a heretofore unfamiliar sensation: shame.

Ha ha. Just kidding! Anyway, here's what Putz had to say:

No, but it does suggest that we should be taking the problem more seriously. Everyone says that a nuclear-armed Iran is intolerable, but they mostly seem inclined to tolerate it rather than actually do anything, and even mild suggestions about doing anything are treated as beyond the pale. The likely consequence of this squeamishness and sloth, of course, is that when things come to a head more people will die than if we took effective action now. But that's likely to be beyond the next election cycle, which puts it beyond the time horizon of most politicians.

So...very...vague...

Help me out, InstaPutzen, what's Professor Reynolds -- a fellow who parses words closely when the spirit moves him -- trying to say?