I appreciate your response, and I fully admit my analogy was a bit of a reach. Comparing geopolitics and threat of war to the goings-on at a bar can be done well for a laugh, but it takes a better writer than I.
Your point about nuclear weapons is interesting. I believe you do have delivery systems, namely planes. Perhaps you'd know more about it than I do, but an Israeli official once spoke about 'the Samson option' regarding their strategic weapons. I highly doubt Israel would take the risks involved in building and maintaining a nuclear arsenal without developing the effective means to use them. The 'Samson' talk may well have been bluster, and understandable bluster at that. Most of Iran's belligerent talk is bluster, too. I hold no love for Iran's government, quite the opposite. They are not, however, an existential threat to Israel at the moment. The U.S. is to Iran. They know that, and their words and actions make some sense in that context.
I say that Iran is the 'smaller' guy not referring to land mass or population. Israel is a much more powerful nation in military and technological terms. Whatever limitations you wish to apply to the Israelis, and of course there are some, are also faced by the Iranians. Israel and Saudi Arabia both outspend Iran by significant margins in the defense and technological realms. Iran could not defeat Iraq in the 1980's, while Israel has repelled several combined attacks throughout its history.
Iran is not an irrational nation. Several current and former Israeli civilian and military/intelligence officials have plainly stated this, too, despite heated rhetoric from both sides. Should Iran take tangible actions that suggest a nuclear attack is possible, let alone eminent, then the game is different. As of now, Iran has not even tested a nuclear weapon.
Feel free to disagree, but my main point is in challenging the notion that the United States should be engaging in pre-emptive wars of choice whether ours or an ally's. I'm in the minority on FR, I'm sure, and it's something the U.S. has done often in its history. I see a certain hypocrisy in our dealings with the DPRK-South Korea situation versus the Iran-Israel situation. The DPRK has issued not only crazy verbal threats, but lethal direct military actions including downing an airliner and attempting to assassinate the ROK president. They've developed, tested and threatened to use nuclear weapons. Somehow Iran is touted as a greater threat then the DPRK. Israel and Saudi Arabia, Iran's enemies, have a lot of money and influence in DC...
Several current and former Israeli civilian and military/intelligence officials have plainly stated this, too, despite heated rhetoric from both sides.
You mean the Kibbutznik ideologues who said that leaving Gaza would lead to peace?
A nuclear bomb weighs about a ton, I’ve heard. You need a plane capable of going all the way from Israel to Iran carrying that heavy load and also the defensive capacity to make it to a target through hostile air space. I’m not an expert in military matters. But it’s no easy feat, I’m sure.
A preemptive conventional strike would at least not require as strong an engine as a nuclear bomb, but still the logistics of getting F16s there and back again after dropping their respective conventional loads sounds prohibitive without a carrier or a land base nearby.
The Iranians are working on long-range missiles, besides. They very much want to be an existential threat to everybody.
As for North Korea, don’t know much about it. I would think China would just plain swat them upside the head and tell them to shut up and stop picking on their neighbors.