I don't share that opinion.Iran will most likely be more than happy to give Hezbollah or other proxy groups a nuclear present as soon as possible who have very little to lose in using them as a means of extortion or first strike.
I see a different risk for Israel, where the government might provoke a conflict resulting in use of nukes.Can you think of proxy groups that Israel might give one too who'd do similarly?
I don't say that Iran should have nukes...only that preemptive invasion looks worse than reaching negotiated agreements.Maybe if Iran wasn't ruled by the IR regime and didn't have links to known terrorist groups who have made clear their intent to destroy Israel things would be different. I don't think Israel should do the dirty work though, I think they're ignoring a great opprotunity to arm and let the Kurds take out their armies.
But it doesn't suggest to you that they'd be handing out nukes like Christmas presents to their proxy buddies?
Now, now....I haven't accused you of "conveniently ignoring" things.Are you conveniently ignoring....
All invaders give reasons for invasions. At some times, this is more reasonable than others. But if preemptive invasion because of threats....that when Israel invades another country (name them specifically...Egypt, Syria, Lebanon) it was because they were dealing with...(gasp)....countries intent on obliterating them?
voiced is justified for the USA & Israel, then this would also justify Iran's nuking up, especially after Iraq's invasion. After all, the USA has
a long record of backing up threats with conquest. And since it's joined at the hip with Israel, Iran should mount a strong defense.
Play nice, now.Or just deliberately brushing it aside.
Twas a dangerous game then too, but I see even more dangerous circumstances now.When Israel took out Syria's nuclear reactor, no one really said much because they all knew it was for a good reason. When Israel took out Iraq's nuclear reactor, Ron Paul was one of the only Republicans who actively supported it even, for he understood that Israel had a legitimate threat to deal with.
I don't buy that view of history, which is based upon Saddam's word. Iraq (now a quasi US ally) invaded Iran.What would suggest such a thing? Iran does most of its current "dirty work" in the form of using Proxy groups and intelligence operations. Saddam wasn't the one who initiated the Iraq-Iran war for example, he initially offered peace, and the Ayatollah flat out refused and continued to send out agents to stoke Shi'a-Sunni civil war.
And contrary to what we often hear in the media, he did have & use "weapons of mass destruction", ie , chemical weapons.
Iran has the same need for nukes as Israel.Hezbollah gets nearly all its money from Iran. What do you think they want a nuke for in the first place? Do you think they are afraid of being invaded without one or something? Israel has a legit reason to carry them as a deterrent from proven hostile elements. Who does Iran need a deterrent to exactly if they weren't building them?
I'd be OK with all parties eschewing them.
Moreover, all parties engage in covert mischief, so no one's hands are clean.
Last edited: