@soryang My mistake.

I have some other thoughts about the following text:

The report said Israel developed plans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities that would have required significant US support. The initial Israeli plan would have involved a bombing campaign with Israeli commando raids on Iranian nuclear sites in hopes that American aircraft would be involved.

The commando plan would have taken months to prepare, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was looking to attack Iran this May, so the plan shifted to a prolonged bombing campaign that would last over a week. The idea would be to destroy Iran’s air defenses and then start targeting nuclear facilities.

Report: Trump Declined To Back Israeli Attack on Iran in Favor of Diplomacy

This is the typical decapitation type mission that seems to be inevitably proposed in this situation. This as I have said before this is an inadequate and dangerous, if not totally disastrous and inappropriate tactical military response to a strategic dilemma. The same kind of bs was discussed during the "fire and fury" threats against North Korea during Trump 1. Regardless of the results of the mission, think of the risks. There is simply no reasonable cost benefit analysis. In the North Korean situation, virtually all experts of any credence whatsoever, except for a few nutballs, like MacMaster, regardless of political persuasion advised strongly against it. This isn't Entebbe, this isn't Afghanistan. There will be terrible outcomes that can't be walked back, ever, if such an attack is carried out.

As Wilkerson says, it's amateur hour at the Pentagon. It's a lot worse than letting children play with guns. This figures:

The officials against diplomacy include Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. Trump is also under pressure from US Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) to take military action against Iran.

All of the above mentioned politicians are incompetent fools.

I have to say I find the picture in the article of Israeli fighter aircraft flying with the B-52 on March 4, very disturbing. It implies or suggests that this could be worse than Ukraine. Whatever terrible disaster unfolds, if the US participates like this, there is no dissociation from the disaster that will follow. The US air forces should never be allowed to fly with Israeli forces, not even tanker support.

This is a misuse of the expression "wave off" in my opinion. Wave off is a naval aviation term. They have confused this with the concept of waiver, or to waive. Once a pilot is on final approach to an aircraft carrier descending for a landing on the fantail to engage the hook in one of the wires, the landing signal officer who observes his glideslope for an appropriate and safe landing gives instructions such as you're above glideslope or below glideslope, pull up, power back, etc. When corrections to an appropriate safe approach fail to ensure a safe landing, the sequence ends in WAVE OFF, WAVE OFF, and the pilot is supposed to fly around and try again. The expression literally refers to the gesture with signal flags the LSO would wave frantically at his station on the catwalk to visually signal to the pilot that his landing approach was unsafe and should be aborted.

What happened to the "commando plan" mentioned in the OP? At Antiwar.com there is no mention of this in the Dave DeCamp article. I had some appropriate comments on such a proposed plan, but edited them out of my post, because the email source and the actual article are different.