What this article (U.S. Simulation Forecasts Perils of an Israeli Strike at Iran - NYTimes.com) says is that if Israel hits Iran and Iran hits Israel back but doesn't hit the US, the US will not hit Iran. In other words, if Israel attacks Iran, Israel will be at least partially on its own. However, one must keep in mind that US military minds have previously conceived at the highest levels the idea of attacking itself (the US attacking the US) under a false flag. Could Iran count on the US not doing that? Could powers within the US military adamantly opposed to such deception prevent Zionists within the US from pulling off that exact false flag anyway?
We have been informed that Israel has been warned (militarily warned in person) that there will not be another USS Liberty, meaning that the US would attack Israel were it to attack any US ship or base or whatever the way it attacked the USS Liberty. If you don't take that seriously, please note the absolute silence of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League after that warning was issued. The Pentagon and the President were not bluffing.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's lead geo-political strategist, has openly stated that the US should inform Israel that the US would shoot down Israeli planes headed to attack Iran (barring hard evidence of an Iranian nuclear-weapons program one would assume).
Frankly, if Israel were to attack Iran against the better judgment of cooler and saner (it doesn't take much) heads in the US, then the US should wash its hands of the Zionist Project. I wouldn't have been backing the Zionists in what they are doing or have done since day one; but regardless, the US really needs to detach Israel from the American hip.
What really needs to happen is for Israel to stop doing what everyone else who is decent hates.
Of course it doesn't help matters when the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, wields his power as a battle ax. The way he handled the demonstrations in Iran, even though there was CIA and Mossad involvement, was terrible. His sharia law views are beyond the pale. For instance, he has a convert from Islam to Christianity sitting on death row. The man is a Christian preacher locked up for not reversing his conversion to the Jesus of the Gospels. According to his Islam, it's okay to believe in and to respect the Jesus of the Qur'an (which Jesus never existed), but it is not okay to believe in the Jesus of the Christianity of the Gospels, where Mohammed heard of Jesus in the first place.
How outrageous would Ali Khamenei think it if I were to behead a Christian convert to Shiism because he wouldn't renounce Islam and become a Christian again? Who would want to? Who in his right mind would want to be a member of such a violently coercive religion or sect? The violent history of some who claimed to be acting as Christians has given Christianity a bad reputation. In the end, it's no different for Islam; and Mohammed himself was a very bloody man (he renounced the Jesus of the Gospels remember).
There are Muslims who don't believe in Ali Khamenei's version of Islamic law. I've conversed with them. They don't have a problem with Christians proselytizing so long as they are free to remain Muslims if they choose. Why can't Ali Khamenei be at least that non-coercive/non-compulsive (in this case, using violence to cause something to occur)?