given the leadership, iran will use everything they have left to attack israel if they can, and us interests in iraq if they cannot. either way a regional war is in the making, and it is hard for me to fathom the geopolitics that follow the scenario above. I don't think china and russia can simply afford to let the us put a new regime in iran without some participation, which would add a whole new element of uncertainity to what could already be the death knell of israel (how many nukes to reduce all major population areas?)
i think it is a given iran has a very small number of nukes already (possibly of separate origin than their current program, this has been said for maybe 10 years and it makes perfect sense, just 1 nuke is a tremendous insurance policy against the US) and they are in enough different places that there is no way to remove their capability to use them.
A lot of posters on fr talk about 'taking iran out' without any recognition of the above risk, particularly the nuclear risk to israel, as well as to US forces or even europe depending on what they can put on which missile. Fortunately the people making this decision seem very cognizant of this, since I would assume a nuclear exchange is not the desired outcome of the adults in charge.
THe current leader of iran is quite scary in this context, can YOU (plural) see him in his bunker giving orders to his military (including destroyed or surrendered units) to fight the zionist enemy and great satan until the very end? I certainly can.
well said...
again, to hell with the fascist bastards...but when they are armed with nukes, we should at least be aware that despite the west's moral justification...we very well may lose a few western cities in turn...
I say this not in tacit acceptance but as a sobering reminder of the consequences of eight years (92-00) of juvenile leadership in the WH. and yet many $hit for brains lib jews refer to slick willy as Israel's "best friend". BARF>