Are supporters of the Santorum, Newt, Mitt, Obama just begging for War?

A war in Iran is inevitable so long as Iran proceeds down the path of becoming a nuclear superpower with a religiously bent, derelict-led system of government. When the leaders of a nation endlessly talk about erradicating another country from the map, you set yourself up for repercussions. When the leaders of a nation talk about the same AND are on the cusp of possessing the means needed to make good on their goals, you set yourself up for a full blown war.

The man who says "America should never go to war again, end of story." is a fool and a piss poor candidate for the position of President of the USA. The man who says "War isn't a good thing, but is sometimes necessary... nothing is off the table." is at least grounded in reality in terms of nationalism and warfare. The USA has interests at stake in the Middle East... to take a no war for any reason approach at that without first fully divesting ourselves from those interests (as well as from any and all allies) and becoming wholey isolationist, is a joke and will only lead to America getting a boot jammed down her throat as happened on 9/11. This is an all or nothing game, regardless of whether the demilitarize the US crowd accept that truth or not. We either demilitarize, seal our borders completely, and withdraw from all international affairs (that includes political, economic, and trade) and prepare ourselves for full defense of America or we attempt to regain our previous status as king of the mountain in regards to economic, trade, and political sway and we keep the dogs of war at hand when needed. There is no in-between here which will work. It seems to me that Ron Paul tends to drift towards the middle on this and I think he's delusional in doing so... although his supporters seem to be punch drunk on giddyness over his policies to the point that they are effectively blinded from seeing the reality of Earth 2012.

On a side note, but still related. The USA and Israel are close allies. So long as that is the case, a direct threat to Israel is something we cannot simply stick our heads in the sand over. If we had a "leader" who was willing to flat out turn his back to our closest and arguably high profile ally, how do you think that "leader's" policies would consider the 320 Million or so John Q. Public no-names that they hold so much power over? Do you really think someone who takes a "screw 'em" attitude towards a close allied nation in danger is trustworthy when dealing with his own nation? I'm not sure I do...