# At what point in Iran's pursuit of a nuclear bomb are we justified in attacking? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 12, 2006, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082 "2006-02-12T04:39:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Pope\_Bob\_The\_Pious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@Pope\_Bob\_The\_Pious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pope_Bob_The_Pious)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/81 "2006-02-13T02:22:58Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The Iranians are denying it and nobody has any hard proof to the contrary. Yet. Too true. I was conflating North Korea with Iran. Though you can count me in the ‘dubious’ column when it comes to Irans claims of just wanting another source of energy. > [@](#): > > All speculations along those lines are just that, speculations, based on the Iranian government’s ideology and rhetoric, and the not unreasonable inference that North Korea has taught the world that the best way to avoid being regime-changed by the U.S. is to actually **have** weapons of mass destruction; and that the Iranians are as capable as any “axis of evil” nation of learning that lesson. I don’t doubt that it may be in the best interests of Iran (or North Korea, for that matter) to have nukes. The question (as I see it), however, is when or if it would be in _our_ best interests to stop them. > [@even sven](#): > > We already allowed a theocracy with a habit of funding terrorism to get nukes. And they are our good buddies- Pakistan. Pakistan has many issues, but being a ‘Theocracy’ is not among them. More properly, they are a old-fashioned military dictatorship. Also, I don’t know if it is fair to claim that we ‘allowed’ them to get nuclear weapons, as it took the world by suprise back in 1998. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/82 "2006-02-13T02:28:56Z")
> [@Dominic Mulligan](#): > > Of course, that’s presupposing that the Iranian government feels any duty towards the Iranian people at all. No people, no power. I bet they feel at least that much duty. > [@Quartz](#): > > America should bomb Iran any time it feels that bombing is required for its own safety and the safety of the world. And how does “we’ll bomb you whenever we feel like it” make the world safer from America ? You can make all the speeches you want about the _potential_ dangers of Iran, but it’s America that’s been causing death and destruction and general nastiness right and left. In terms of the safety of the world, America is a much bigger danger. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > This is just a load of nonsense, and I’m getting tired of hearing it. Is Egypt under threat of invasion from the U.S? How about Turkey? Bahrain? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia? Qatar? Indonesia? The UAE? Do you think any of the leaders of these countries lay awake at night worrying about a U.S. invasion? I’d be surprised if they didn’t. > [@What Exit?](#): > > But I agree, we would probably flatten Iran and not worry about land troops. Just knock them back to the stone age. Every bridge, power plant, factory, government office and Military location. We would destroy their hardened bunkers and generally let the Air Force really enjoy themselves. **We might leave them their pipelines but that would be about it.** Bolding mine. Really ? I can just see the headlines, “AMERICA NUKES IRAN FOR OIL”. We’ll kill millions of people, throw the rest into complete privation, but make sure the oil infrastructure is OK. And we are better than these evil Iranians how ? > [@Sam Stone](#): > > I didn’t say the U.S. was perfect. The fact is, if Iran believes that it needs nuclear weapons to prevent an attack, it’s only because it intends to continue doing the things that could lead to an attack. Specifically, supporting terrorism, destabilizing neighboring countries, whipping up middle east rage against the west, oppressing its people, and threatening to destroy Israel. And we’ve cared about the welfare and freedom of other people since when ? Is destabilizing countries only good if we do it ? Is terror only bad if other people do it ? Outside our borders, the primary difference between the US and Iran is scale; we have more power, so we use missles instead of hidden bombs. > [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > Does anyone believe that Iran needs to protect its sovereignty? > > Who is going to attack them now that the Shiite government in Iraq is in control? Us, of course. Why ? Because we can; it’s not like we had a sane reason to invade Iraq. If Iraq stabilizes enough that we can withdraw the troops from the street, I’d be very surprised if we didn’t start invading it’s neighbors. America has proven that is aggressive, untrustworthy and irrational; they have no reason to trust us. Only a fool trusts America; ask what’s left of the Native Americans. America has _never_ been trustworthy. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/83 "2006-02-13T02:38:09Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > …snip… > > Bolding mine. Really ? I can just see the headlines, “AMERICA NUKES IRAN FOR OIL”. We’ll kill millions of people, throw the rest into complete privation, but make sure the oil infrastructure is OK. And we are better than these evil Iranians how ? > …snip… Maybe you could reread my post and notice I was responding to the Concept of what if Iran had nuked Tel Aviv. Additionally I never said we would have to nuke them. The Oil was half joking knowing the love of oil our Admin has. We would kill thousands of people not millions and it would be horrible but it was said as a response to what would happen if Tel Aviv was Nuked. See a difference now? Jim ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/84 "2006-02-13T03:30:56Z")
**Tom** , What actions or statements would you consider evidence of sufficient that Iran would use a nuclear weapon offensively that action would be justified? Because I agree with other posters that Iraq was the wrong bad guy … Hussein was a nutjob and oppressive, but he was mainly interested in his own regional power. The leadership of Iran are true believers, and true believers are scary things. They’ll blow themselves up to punish the infidel, confident of rewards to come. Iran has a track record of supporting terrorism, and public statements that Israel should be destroyed. Sure that is more likely posturing than not, but … well. What, precisely, short of launching an attack, would be adequate evidence of sufficient risk of future offensive action? Meanwhile, who knows if Israel actually has the bomb or not? They may not but they don’t “need” it now since everybody _believes_ that they do … and for deterrant purposes that is all you need to have. 🙂 Agreed that Israel will act first, if it comes to that. Although who knows with what degree of success or at what cost. My hope has been that the knowledge of that, and of the likely dire consequences to all, will inspire China and Russia to pressure Iran in ways that the US cannot. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/85 "2006-02-13T03:33:49Z")
> [@What Exit?](#): > > Maybe you could reread my post and notice I was responding to the Concept of what if Iran had nuked Tel Aviv. Additionally I never said we would have to nuke them. The Oil was half joking knowing the love of oil our Admin has. > We would kill thousands of people not millions and it would be horrible but it was said as a response to what would happen if Tel Aviv was Nuked. > > See a difference now? > > Jim I already knew that, except for then half joking part. You probably shouldn’t do that, as it leads to confusion; frankly, I’ve talked to a number of people who in all seriousness would love to carpet bomb Iran ( and quite a few other places ) with nukes. If you say such things, I’m likely to think you mean it, and aren’t joking at all. If Iran gave Bush an excuse as good as nuking Israel, I think he _would_ use nukes, and lots of them. In that case. millions _would_ die. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/86 "2006-02-13T03:39:59Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > I already knew that, except for then half joking part. You probably shouldn’t do that, as it leads to confusion; frankly, I’ve talked to a number of people who in all seriousness would love to carpet bomb Iran ( and quite a few other places ) with nukes. If you say such things, I’m likely to think you mean it, and aren’t joking at all. > > If Iran gave Bush an excuse as good as nuking Israel, I think he _would_ use nukes, and lots of them. In that case. millions _would_ die. So we basically agree but differ on details. The oil joke was vague, I am sorry. If you knew me you would know I despise Cheney and his oil ties and I think very little of President Bush. I would like to think we wouldn’t resort to Nukes. Beside I am pretty sure the Israelis would retaliate by turning Tehran into nuclear waste. I am thinking we would just go high tech and knock them out. I don’t really think the oil could be kept flowing. I don’t think we could afford another ground troop action of the size required. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/87 "2006-02-13T04:08:09Z")
Well, if Iran nukes Israel and we are plunged into Gulf War III morphing into World War III, I think our definitions of “afford” will be a bit different. We could certainly afford to train, equip and send a few million more soldiers if we didn’t pretend we could wage a world war but yet have no change in routine on the home front. So if we’re fighting Iran and probably a half dozen other Islamic countries and dealing with daily or weekly or even monthly attacks by shaheeds here on US soil, plus attacks on Europe, plus who knows what China, India or Russia are up to, maybe their on our side, maybe they’re selling arms to Islamists, nukes flying who knows where, allies going wobbly, whatever, it’s gonna be a mess. So with an indefinate total mobilization for a long war of attrition lasting years we could certainly afford to occupy Iran and any number of middle eastern countries, as long as we were willing to accept a permanent reduction in the consumer economy, and as long as we are willing to accept occupation measures that make our current occupation of Iraq look like Andy Griffith’s occupation of Mayberry. So, what does “afford” mean in this context? In a scenario like this we’re already in World War III, millions of people are being incinerated in a nuclear holocaust, and what we’re willing to pay for to kick the ass of the nuclear genocidiers is a bit different from what we’re willing to pay to kick the ass of some tinpot asshole. ---
**Author:** ![Werd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/4491bb/32.png) [@Werd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Werd)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/88 "2006-02-13T04:34:50Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > would you distinguish our legitimate options from Israel’s? > > (from the international law point of view, of course, there is no difference–we are both equally bound or equally empowered by the sercurity council’s diktat) > > There’s sort of an intuitive difference when you are actually within range of the other guy, tho. Do you think Israel would launch a campaign against Mexico if they were in the same position as Iran? I think that was the most rediculous post I have ever created. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/89 "2006-02-13T05:03:46Z")
I’m just going to stick my head in to repeat something I said a while back. “Rumor has it… Irael will be doing something late March to April. Unless Iran backs down.” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/90 "2006-02-13T05:21:48Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Because I agree with other posters that Iraq was the wrong bad guy … Hussein was a nutjob and oppressive, but he was mainly interested in his own regional power. The leadership of Iran are true believers, and true believers are scary things. They’ll blow themselves up to punish the infidel, confident of rewards to come. Iran has a track record of supporting terrorism, and public statements that Israel should be destroyed. Sure that is more likely posturing than not, but … well. What, precisely, short of launching an attack, would be adequate evidence of sufficient risk of future offensive action? I’m not sure, frankly. Evidence (substantially different than “we know 'cause OSP says so”) that Iran is providing nuclear weapons (or nuclear waste) to Hamas? A direct statement from Khameini or the ruling council (rather than Ahmadi-Nejad) that they intend to _act_ against Israel in the immediate future? A removal of support from the Palestinian state as though any further support would be a waste of effort? My problem with the issue of how scary they are is that they have been in charge of Iran for 26+ years and the worst that they have done (and I do not minimize how bad that it) is provide small arms and explosives to Hamas. Even the current nuclear issue came to the fore after Bush idiotically lumped them in with their natural enemy, Iraq, declared them part of an “Axis of Evil,” then invaded Iraq. Ahmadi-Nejad appears (to me) to be the loud mouth that they are using to scare the West, but their other actions for a quarter century have displayed no serious efforts to expand their domain over their neighbors. Even their recent clampdown on dissident parties appears to be a reaction to U.S. threats rather than something they did from a longstanding plan of authoritarianism. I do not believe they will respond well to threats, (and all the “offers” of uranium, etc. have still been made as veiled threats), and I am hoping that an easing of rhetoric on our side (along with a show of good faith that we do not intend to sit on their border in Iraq for the rest of their natural lives) will cause them to back off. If we continue to push them and they eventually demonstrate a willingness to go nuclear, we may be forced to attack them, (although note **Carnac the Magnificent!**'s analysis), but I think it is premature to begin talking about destroying them at this stage. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/91 "2006-02-13T05:29:12Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > I’m just going to stick my head in to repeat something I said a while back. “Rumor has it… Irael will be doing something late March to April. Unless Iran backs down.” Interestingly, I have heard on a couple of occasions, (although I have not found it repeated in a quick search just now), that the air strikes on Osirak were actually covers for what was, essentially, an on-the-ground sabotage expedition. If Israel intends to repeat that effort, the major air conflict that was contemplated earlier may not come to pass (or may be less than expected, since it will be a diversionary feint). ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/92 "2006-02-13T06:01:20Z")
_show of good faith that we do not intend to sit on their border in Iraq for the rest of their natural lives)_ I am reminded of the classic line, “what you need here is sincerity; once you can fake that, you’ve got it knocked…” I thought we DID intend to sit on their borders, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Noone\_Special](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/noone_special/32/2863_2.png) [@Noone\_Special](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noone_Special)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/93 "2006-02-13T06:37:53Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Interestingly, I have heard on a couple of occasions, (although I have not found it repeated in a quick search just now), that the air strikes on Osirak were actually covers for what was, essentially, an on-the-ground sabotage expedition. If Israel intends to repeat that effort, the major air conflict that was contemplated earlier may not come to pass (or may be less than expected, since it will be a diversionary feint). I’ve never heard that wrinkle, and I know a few things (Please don’t ask for cites, though…) ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/94 "2006-02-13T08:24:00Z")
> [@Carnac the Magnificent!](#): > > Not really. Israel can at best do a half-assed job and will then leave the Big Decision to Bush and his successor. Israel knows this, the US knows this, Iran knows this. It’s axiomatic. The Pentagon’s war gamers have been through this simulation many times and the outcome isn’t going to get rosier. A limited US bomber/cruise missile attack isn’t going to provide the confidence level the US needs, especially knowing that the day the US attacks Iran soil begins the countdown to when Iran someday responds in kind. > > Given the presumed hardening of the Iranian sites–and we’re talking possibly dozens–there’s no way the US can neutralize the iranian threat without boots on the ground–and thousands of them. Any offensive scenario that doesn’t include Rangers/Special Forces/Marines is a scenario that leaves the US open to downrange retaliation. Connecting the dots, we’re now talking strategic occupation, which is impossible on many levels, thus pointing to the futility of any US attack and the unstoppability of Iran’s nuclearization. The die is already cast. Iran will have a nuclear arsenal. A post of this quality can bear a quibble. The phrase ‘the die is cast’ suggests events of uncertain outcome are in play, rather than metal cooling to a solid form. That said it may still be the case that Iran can be prevented from becoming a nuclear power by negotiaton. Some very favourable commercial offers or the US reconsidering its position vis a vis Israel could be circumstances with some sway over Iran’s policies. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/95 "2006-02-13T11:56:56Z")
> [@even sven](#): > > We already allowed a theocracy with a habit of funding terrorism to get nukes. And they are our good buddies- Pakistan. Yes, a mistake. We’d better make sure another one doesn’t get any, otherwise we’ll be forced to cosy up to them, too. > [@](#): > > Under your theory, we are justified in attacking anyone. In the civilized world, you don’t attack people who haven’t at least threatened you. They’ve threatened an ally, Israel. > [@](#): > > You especially don’t attack people who are actually incapable of threatening you. What part of “once they get nukes we can’t do shit to stop them developing long range missiles” are you not getting? Again, are you seriously suggesting that we allow Iran to develop nukes _and then_ attempt to stop them developing long range missiles? How exactly do you envisage that panning out? > [@](#): > > Taking over a country is a very grave action. Think of all the countries you know of that have overthrown other country’s governments…not a lot of good guys in that club, are there? Nobody in this thread is talking about taking over Iran apart from you, so the point is essentially moot. > [@](#): > > Sure, maybe at some point in the future Iran will gain the ability to attack Europe. Europe has it’s own nukes. Europe is capable of making it’s own decisions. If Europe decides to go to war, there is a good chance we will support them. Oddly, Europe doesn’t seem all that worried. As a European, I’m worried. The bombing couldn’t commence sooner, as far as I’m concerned. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/96 "2006-02-13T16:42:11Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > The leadership of Iran are true believers, and true believers are scary things. They’ll blow themselves up to punish the infidel, confident of rewards to come. Iran has a track record of supporting terrorism, and public statements that Israel should be destroyed. Sure that is more likely posturing than not, but … well. What, precisely, short of launching an attack, would be adequate evidence of sufficient risk of future offensive action? By what scale do you rate them as “true believers?” Personally, I’m more terrified of the true believers we have in this country, the fundamentalist Christians, to whom war with Islam and the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem are serious, serious considerations for bringing about the Second Coming. One man’s “scary true believer eager to die for their god” is another man’s next-door neighbor. Or possibly President. Iran is a complicated country with nearly 70 million people. Their current leader was legally elected in a tightly contested race whose outcome no one could predict one way or the other (i.e., it wasn’t a fix, a sham election, etc.). Yes, they all still have to answer to the clerics. But you’re painting them with too wide a brush. Way too many people are way too eager to demonize them all as just a “bunch of religious crazies.” ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/97 "2006-02-13T18:33:10Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > A post of this quality can bear a quibble. The phrase ‘the die is cast’ suggests events of uncertain outcome are in play, rather than metal cooling to a solid form. In the interest of fighting ignorance, google “alia iacta est.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/98 "2006-02-13T19:25:41Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Well, if Iran nukes Israel and we are plunged into Gulf War III morphing into World War III, I think our definitions of “afford” will be a bit different. We could certainly afford to train, equip and send a few million more soldiers if we didn’t pretend we could wage a world war but yet have no change in routine on the home front. > > So if we’re fighting Iran and probably a half dozen other Islamic countries and dealing with daily or weekly or even monthly attacks by shaheeds here on US soil, plus attacks on Europe, plus who knows what China, India or Russia are up to, maybe their on our side, maybe they’re selling arms to Islamists, nukes flying who knows where, allies going wobbly, whatever, it’s gonna be a mess. > > So with an indefinate total mobilization for a long war of attrition lasting years we could certainly afford to occupy Iran and any number of middle eastern countries, as long as we were willing to accept a permanent reduction in the consumer economy, and as long as we are willing to accept occupation measures that make our current occupation of Iraq look like Andy Griffith’s occupation of Mayberry. > > So, what does “afford” mean in this context? In a scenario like this we’re already in World War III, millions of people are being incinerated in a nuclear holocaust, and what we’re willing to pay for to kick the ass of the nuclear genocidiers is a bit different from what we’re willing to pay to kick the ass of some tinpot asshole. This post makes a good case (intentionally or not) that we should leave Iran alone even if they **do** nuke Tel Aviv. Not gonna happen that way, of course. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/99 "2006-02-13T21:28:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Have we bombed India? Pakistan? Israel? South Africa? China? Why not? In large part because they have not demonstated an attitude of implacable hostility towards the United States and the West, and because (except maybe for Pakistan) their governments have no ties to anti-Western terrorism. I am not worried that India or China might supply a nuclear weapon to the likes of Osama bin Laden. Iran might very well do so. Please remember that this was the nation that marched its own children across mine fields in the Iran-Iraq war to clear the fields for regular troops. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/100 "2006-02-13T23:15:31Z")
**Tom** , While I agree that a military option is way premature at this time, I am disturbed that your analysis leaves action as appropriate only when it is clearly too late. Surely there must be some middle ground? On the bright side, I am getting the impression that the Bush administration has learned the value of multilateralism. **Toadspittle** , hey I am not crazy about our religious fundamentalists either. But even if you count our President as a fundamentalist (a very debatable item) our system has enough controls to offset too much change too quickly in that direction. Plus few of our fundamentalists have a track record of strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up civilians as the intented target. No, Iranians are not crazies and I use no broad brush. But, yes, the two leadership contagiencies are of two stripes: crazy religious nut and crazier religious nut. And the clerics are the less crazy of the twoo! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082.md?page=6)