Replies

"Thanks for clarifying my paranoia."

You're thinking the right way and in the right direction. There is a LOT more to this than appears.

First: The demands from England. They'd need to have some kind of parity to make demands like that, yet they're attempting to deny possession of that which they've not been accused of possessing by asking for it.

Second: The reasonable "tit for tat" threat against Israel. That is an outright misdirection on their part. They refuse Israel's right to exist. They've declared it their "allah given duty" to irradicate Israel, yet they attempt to treat them as equals? Nope. No way. If they could hit Israel's reactor, they could hit Tel Aviv. It's a shallow attempt to distract Israel from their real goal.

Third: The threat of preemption against US forces. To threaten the only nation on the planet that has used nuclear weapons is not something that a rational mind would do, unless they want us to strike first. I'm reminded of the "sheathing" knife fighting tactic. They may intend to absorb damage of their choosing in order to fulfill their greater mission, which is the destruction of Israel.

They may intend to absorb damage of their choosing in order to fulfill their greater mission, which is the destruction of Israel.

Astute observation. I concur. Although I would say that were we to pre-emptively strike them first, I doubt it would be a "half measure." Although I don't think we'd be the first to go nuclear, I wouldn't doubt for a moment that the proven-in-Afghanistan "Daisy Cutter" might be on the table for certain missions.

Excellent analysis.

The Iranians also have one thing we may or may not have contemplated. Access to our troops.

For years the Iranians have made threats but havent had direct access to US military assets they can attack. We had the advantage of standoff distance and they had no weapons capable of hitting our assets anywhere in the world.

Now, if they do have nukes, they have large concentrations of US troops within 500 miles range, and they have multiple platforms that can deliver them.

Small nations gain initial advantage on large nations by staging pre-emptive attacks and degrading the opposing force ( cutting it down to size). This usually comes as a surprize attack.

Pearl Harbor comes to mind as one example.

I wouldnt disregard the threat from Iran. They dont operate within the bounds of common sense.