Would Israel try to "bull" its way past the US Air Force and across Iraq relying on a US "failure of will" to make the thing work?

In the WaPo, here

A "statement of principles" that Bush and Maliki signed in December said the framework, which they plan to sign by July 31 to take effect Jan. 1, included "security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace."

Col. Lang wonders: "Against whom? You know the answer.

The Muslims will laugh at the thought that the US might defend Iraq's airspace against the Israelis, but the Israelis went to GW Bush to ask for overflight clearance to reach Iran and Natanz. This clearance was denied by the US. The United States is obligated by international law to defend Iraq. President Bush's bogus assertion notwithstranding, an occupying power is obligated to defend the territory of a state that it occupies. That is a general principle. I have not seen the final text of the "Strategic Framework Agreement" between Iraq and the United States but it would be mighty strange if there is not language in it concerning the defense obligations of the United States toward Iraq.

Israel has been steadily working itself into a frenzy over the Iranian nuclear program. The Iranians launched an orbiter of their own this week. The Israelis are now under intense international scrutiny (unobstructed by the Obama Administration) for their conduct in Gaza. They are having a national election next week in which the advantage seems to lie with whichever party can make the most bellicose noises. All of these factors point to increasing Israeli instability in decision making.

Would Israel try to "bull" its way past the US Air Force and across Iraq relying on a US "failure of will" to make the thing work? This would be a crazy thing to do, but many crazy things have been seen lately."