Is this the same Iran that endorses a policy of ‘Death to Israel and Death to America?’ Just curious."
Maybe Pat Buchanan feels we should just hang around, waiting for the fanatical, jihad promoting mullahs to build up a nuclear weapons arsenal & test a few on Tel Aviv-Rafo & Haifa, or maybe the mullahs nuking Israel does not count for Pat?
Maybe Pat is on the mullahs' payroll..
Pat has never met a non-communist dictatorship he didnt approve of
" Of Iran, Buchanan said, “no matter how militant, (Iran) has shown no desire for war with America.” I'm guessing the gift of weapons to the terrorist in Iraq doesn't qualify as an act of WAR.
Yes and no, maybe? During a sleepless early morning I was musing, thinking first from the reports/surmises that Israel has nukes and an operational submarine....
First scenario: What's the (political) fallout of an "untraceable" ocean launch on Natanz? Okay, bad because the US *and* Israel will be implicated (even were one party innocent.)
Second scenario: (Assuming the sub can launch two missiles and one can get high enough): What's the (political) fallout of first, an "untraceable" ocean launch resulting in an EMP bust over Iran, followed by a launch on Natanz? Bad for the mullahs; their communications will be cut, they will not be able to call in defenses, it will be a local matter of who is stronger -- their forces or the populace. Downside: later on it will come out that Iran has been nuked. Bad effect on the populace, I think.
Third scenario: What's the (political) fallout of simply an "untraceable" ocean launch resulting in an EMP bust over Iran? (Natanz will likely be inoperable following such.) Same conditions as before, but without the following negative reactions. Yes, everything electronic (including cars) is wrecked... but the popular opposition, which outnumbers the mullahs and their bought enforcers (incl. the bassiji), would have the upper hand. Focused mobilization is the mullahs' strength, and this would deny them that, no?