[LS]

Israel can't. We discussed this on another thread. We're not talking about an Osirik-type single reactor. We are talking about an archipelago spread across the entire nation, much of it in hardened underground sites. Even IF. Other ME nations helped (they won't) it will require, and a,ways has required, boots on the ground.

Bush had it right. Dual bases in Iraq and Afghanistan are STILL going to be necessary and until Iran and Syria are removed, the threat remains.

[Mr Apple]

We are talking about an archipelago spread across the entire nation, much of it in hardened underground sites.

Iran has up to nine nuke sites and all nine would have to be attacked and taken out. It's either Israel attacks all nuke sites in Iran - - or - - Israel could be gone. Does anyone think that Israel is going let itself be gone? With emphasis on - - let itself be gone? No, obviously not.
It is a widely accepted view that Israel has 300 + nuclear bombs with approx. 20% of them in their submarines. So again, if Israel is faced with extinction, Israel, as a last resort to avert extinction - will use their nuclear weapons. And poof, Iran and it's nine nuclear sites, underground or not, instantly vaporize. Unground sites would fall in on themselves. Israel will only be delayed until the trade winds are blowing from West to East - towards the mountainous region of Afghanistan to lessen collateral damage.

We might be talking about WW III here, but Israel is not going to just sit back and let itself be gone. Period! Now I'm no military scholar but I'd say this scenario is irrefutable.