# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/101 "2006-02-13T23:23:26Z")
> [@Lonesome Polecat](#): > > 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. If we’re using “cruelty to their own people” as a litmus test for evil threat level, though, China doesn’t score all that well either. I agree that Iran looks in many respects a lot less “trustworthy” as a member of the nuclear club than India or China. However, I’m not at all convinced that the **potential** threat they pose in the future is worth the **definite** drawbacks to attacking them now. Some of the parallels seen here with the rhetoric of the buildup to the Iraq invasion are making me rather uneasy. Back in 2002, we were being assured that Saddam Hussein was well on the path to having nuclear capability, that he was a crazy megalomaniac with a thirst for the destruction of Israel, that he was a tyrannical despot who gassed his own people, and that he was a huge threat to the safety of the world. A typical [worst-case scenario in early 2003](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=165684) looked like this: > [@Sam Stone in February 2003](#): > > Saddam develops nuclear weapons, or buys them from North Korea or Iran. With a handful of nukes, he can try to smuggle one into the U.S., load one aboard a remotely-piloted vehicle, and put three or four on SCUD missiles and aim them at Kuwait City, Ankara, and Tel Aviv. Emboldened by what he believes to be a solid deterrant against invasion, He begins building up his conventional military forces in preparation for invasions of Kuwait or even attacks on Israel through the Golan Heights (he even tried to do that in 2000, and was only deterred at the last minute). End result - nuclear war between Israel and Iraq, and possibly a nuclear attack against U.S. assets either in the middle east or at home. Millions die. Destruction of oil fields and enironmental damage cost trillions, and the world economy is plunged into a depression. Not all of the claims about Saddam were exaggerated, and not all of the concerns about the threat he posed were unrealistic, but I think there’s now a general consensus that the fear was much worse than the reality. Under the stimulus of that fear, we invaded Iraq, and now confront a difficult and expensive situation there which has stimulated Muslim resentment and fears that we’re waging some kind of crusade or imperial conquest against Muslim nations. I don’t want us to close our eyes to genuine threats, but I don’t want us to jump out of the frying pan into the fire again. When I hear the familiar themes of “nuclear threat—hatred of Israel—power-mad despots—implacable animosity towards the West—inhuman monsters who abuse their own people—ideological fanatics”, I start to worry that we’re whipping our emotions up for another under-planned, ill-advised adventure. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > What happened to the left, btw? In the 80’s and 90’s, their big issue was nuclear non-proliferation. Now it’s like, “Who are we to tell Iran they can’t have a nuke? We’ve got them, so why can’t they?” This isn’t really accurate. Opinion on the left is still very solidly pro-non-proliferation, and liberals are genuinely concerned about the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran. Nobody’s lolling around going, “aw hey, cats, let’s not be so uptight about that nuclear danger thing anymore.” But that doesn’t mean that we automatically agree that launching bombing raids or worse is ultimately going to be a helpful course of action in deterring nuclear proliferation. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/102 "2006-02-14T00:39:02Z")
- helpful course of action in deterring nuclear proliferation.\* Would it be ok if they didn’t use nukes directly asgainst the people, but only to breach the shield wall? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/103 "2006-02-14T00:47:26Z")
Would it be **okay** for Iranians to use nukes, you’re asking, if it were against non-human targets? No, I’m against **all** use of nukes where it can possibly be avoided. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/104 "2006-02-14T00:53:42Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Would it be **okay** for Iranians to use nukes, you’re asking, if it were against non-human targets? No, I’m against **all** use of nukes where it can possibly be avoided. _mea culpa_ a relatively obscure (and disingenuous) reference to a formulation from an american novel–I really wasn’t parsing the personnel vs. property issue ---
**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 14, 2006, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/105 "2006-02-14T01:02:45Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > _mea culpa_ > > a relatively obscure (and disingenuous) reference to a formulation from an american novel–I really wasn’t parsing the personnel vs. property issue Wouldn’t that violate the Great Convention? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/106 "2006-02-14T01:02:58Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > - helpful course of action in deterring nuclear proliferation.\* > > Would it be ok if they didn’t use nukes directly asgainst the people, but only to breach the shield wall? Technically, that doesn’t break the Great Convention. Or, at least, you can argue that (successfully) once you’ve captured the Imperial household and declared yourself ruler of the galaxy. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/107 "2006-02-14T01:09:11Z")
:o Ik ben gewhooshd. Sorry for spoiling your joke, **alaric**. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/108 "2006-02-14T01:16:47Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > :o Ik ben gewhooshd. Sorry for spoiling your joke, **alaric**. H’al yom ---
**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 14, 2006, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/109 "2006-02-14T02:29:22Z")
> [@toadspittle](#): > > Technically, that doesn’t break the Great Convention. > Or, at least, you can argue that (successfully) once you’ve captured the Imperial household and declared yourself ruler of the galaxy. Damn… I wanted to be the first to make that joke. I hate you all ☹ (No, not really.) (About the hating you thing, not about wanting to make the joke first.) (I really wanted to make the joke first, but I don’t really hate you.) (Tacos are crunchy and good.) ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/110 "2006-02-14T07:01:10Z")
> [@Dominic Mulligan](#): > > 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. Funny. We’re “forced” to cozy up to resource possessing strategically placed Pakistan because of nukes, and also “forced” to remain mortal enemies with relatively barren strategically null North Korea because of nukes. The truth is we support Pakistan and it’s nukes because it keeps potential superpower India too busy to cause trouble. Using your “logic” you could justify any foreign policy based on some country somewhere having nukes. > [@](#): > > They’ve threatened an ally, Israel. And if Israel decides to go to war based on that, then we will have to make decisions about how much we want to support that. Blindly following alliances is what got everyone into WWI, which is retrospect wasn’t humanity’s brightest move. Blindly following alliances based on mere threats is…well, so dumb nobody has ever done it before. > [@](#): > > 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? Hey, I never said anything about stopping anyone. The practicality is that Iran has no motivation to develop ICBMs. Right now only China and the former Soviet Republics have ICBM technology. It’s just not worth developing them when you have no ability to follow up on a strike. There is now way Iran could occupy the US. There is simply nothing they could do with them that would put their country in a better position. Iran may talk the talk about the US, but in reality their concerns and sphere of power is much closer to home. > [@](#): > > Nobody in this thread is talking about taking over Iran apart from you, so the point is essentially moot. Oh yeah. I’ve never heard that before. Like, uh, a couple years ago about a country right next door. Let me guess…we’ll be there for a week and they’ll greet us with flowers and the opposition will collapse like a house of cards as the liberators roll in to Teheran. We’ll win, they’ll vote, and we’ll be out of their lickity split mission accomplished, right? > [@](#): > > As a European, I’m worried. The bombing couldn’t commence sooner, as far as I’m concerned. Then send your own damn troops and stop betting my friends and family. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/111 "2006-02-14T07:14:00Z")
[http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/](http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/) If you’d like to read up on ICBMs, this is a good start. By the time Iran could develop ICBMs (much less ones that can carry nuclear warheads) in all likelihood they will have gone through at least a couple new governments. And the reality is that right now they have pressing security concerns that affect their country in a very real way today. They have a lot of military holes to plug before they can start thinking about major long term projects- especially major long term projects that they have no way to follow up on. ---
**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 14, 2006, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/112 "2006-02-14T07:24:15Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > 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. Highly implausible. When was the last time a country that supported terrorism let, say, poison gas or bioweapons fall into terrorist hands ? When was the last time terrorists where given so much as a fighter jet or tank ? I think this idea that Iran is going to hand out nukes to anyone is sheer paranoid ( or politically motivated ) fantasy. Any nukes they have, they’ll keep - with a deathgrip. > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > 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. IIRC that was Iraq, not Iran; I once heard our support for Iraq referred to as “The Kill-a-Boy Fund”. Besides, when was the last time Americans cared about the lives of foreign children ? > [@DSeid](#): > > Plus few of our fundamentalists have a track record of strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up civilians as the intented target. Because they don’t need to; they have an Air Force. I’d d also like to say that whatever else they may be, the Iranian leadership is pefectly justified in fearing an American attack. In this thread alone, several people have demonstrated he attitude of “Iran _might_ be a danger, so we must attack !”. Thing is, _any_ country _might_ decide to harm us, so that’s basically an implicit declaration of war on humanity. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/113 "2006-02-14T08:03:06Z")
strictly speaking, we will be jusified in attacking Iran when the General in the Blue Helmet at the head of the Armies of the United Nations blows “boots and saddles”. Prior to that, it’s just another war crime (unprovoked wars of aggression, a crime against humanity-nb.we are already one-time losers, but I don’t think that there’s a three-strike rule) ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/114 "2006-02-14T08:51:30Z")
You probably didn’t get this bit of news, but in the Arab press, there’s a statement from some Iranian government official that Gulf states do not need to worry about Iran using nuclear weapons against them. Reassuring, eh? ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/115 "2006-02-14T09:06:52Z")
> [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > You probably didn’t get this bit of news, but in the Arab press, there’s a statement from some Iranian government official that Gulf states do not need to worry about Iran using nuclear weapons against them. Reassuring, eh? would it be better if they told the gulf states that they were at risk? ---
**Author:** ![Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnac_the_Magnificent)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/116 "2006-02-14T15:02:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \ ***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.\* > [@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. > > 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. I was using “the die is cast” in the Cambridge Dictionary sense: “The die is cast is something that you say when a decision has been made or something has happened which will cause a situation to develop in a particular way… [e.g.] From the moment the first shot was fired, the die was cast and war became inevitable.” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/117 "2006-02-14T15:36:34Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > > > 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. > > IIRC that was Iraq, not Iran; I once heard our support for Iraq referred to as “The Kill-a-Boy Fund”. Besides, when was the last time Americans cared about the lives of foreign children ? Actually, **Lonesome Polecat** is correct that Iranian kids did sweep mine fields the hard way. I believe that the characterization of the event is wrong. My memory is that the militias recruited by the Imams to fight off Iraq included a lot of kids and old people who were encouraged to join up to resist the invasion and sent out with few weapons and little training (there being no weapons available and no time to set up training camps). In the course of several battles, they engaged in mass charges in the hopes (sometimes successful) of overwhelming the better armed and trained but less numerous Iraqi invaders. Several of those charges _were_ acrossed mined fields. This is a bit different than a claim that children were “marched across minefields” for the purpose of clearing the mines–although it is horrible enough. ---
**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 14, 2006, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/118 "2006-02-14T15:39:11Z")
> [@even sven](#): > > Funny. We’re “forced” to cozy up to resource possessing strategically placed Pakistan because of nukes, and also “forced” to remain mortal enemies with relatively barren strategically null North Korea because of nukes. Perhaps it’s because they’d flatten Seoul if we tried anything? [Cite.](http://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/dprkmil.htm) > [@](#): > > … > The biggest military concern in striking North Korean nuclear facilities is the threat of North Korean counter-attacks. Seoul, the South Korean capitol, lies within range of North Korean long-range artillery. Five hundred 170mm Koksan guns and 200 multiple-launch rocket systems could hit Seoul with artillery shells and chemical weapons, causing panic and massive civilian casualties. North Korea has between 500 and 600 Scud missiles that could strike targets throughout South Korea with conventional warheads or chemical weapons. North Korea could hit Japan with its 100 No-dong missiles.[7] Seventy percent of North Korean army ground units are located within 100 miles of the demilitarized zone separating North and South Korea, positioned to undertake offensive ground operations. These units could fire up to 500,000 artillery rounds per hour against South Korean defenses for several hours.[8] Finally, if North Korea does have one or two deliverable nuclear weapons, nuclear retaliation (or nuclear threats) would also be available to North Korea leaders. > … > [@even sven](#): > > The practicality is that Iran has no motivation to develop ICBMs. Right now only China and the former Soviet Republics have ICBM technology. China and Russia are colluding with Iran to update the Shahab-3 missile platform. [Cite.](http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/shahab-4.htm) > [@](#): > > … > The first indications of the development of the Shahab-4 came in The Washington Times on September 11, 1997 when it stated the following: “The Shahab-3 and 4 programs appear to be getting considerable assistance from China and Russia.”(1) > … _The Guardian_ also reports that Iran is in the process of developing missile technology capable of reaching Europe. [Cite.](http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1677542,00.html) > [@](#): > > … > Scientists in Tehran are also shopping for parts for a ballistic missile capable of reaching Europe, with “import requests and acquisitions … registered almost daily”, the report seen by the Guardian concludes. > … > [@even sven](#): > > Oh yeah. I’ve never heard that before. Like, uh, a couple years ago about a country right next door. Let me guess…we’ll be there for a week and they’ll greet us with flowers and the opposition will collapse like a house of cards as the liberators roll in to Teheran. We’ll win, they’ll vote, and we’ll be out of their lickity split mission accomplished, right? What on Earth are you talking about? I’m suggesting we bomb their nuclear facilities, not send ground troops in. > [@even sven](#): > > Then send your own damn troops and stop betting my friends and family. 😕 Where did I say anything about sending American troops? ---
**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 14, 2006, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/119 "2006-02-14T16:08:21Z")
> [@Dominic Mulligan](#): > > What on Earth are you talking about? I’m suggesting we bomb their nuclear facilities, not send ground troops in. > > \< snip \> > > 😕 > > Where did I say anything about sending American troops? I’m not **even sven** , but ground troops - American ones - are pretty much implied. Bombing them will at most set them back ( not to mention encourage them to try harder ); it would take ground troops to actually stop them. I doubt that any European nation is willing to support the military effort to do that, so that leaves America. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-irans-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-bomb-are-we-justified-in-attacking/344082/120 "2006-02-14T16:16:33Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > I’m not **even sven** , but ground troops - American ones - are pretty much implied. Bombing them will at most set them back ( not to mention encourage them to try harder ); it would take ground troops to actually stop them. I doubt that any European nation is willing to support the military effort to do that, so that leaves America. Troops would be needed to seize the oil fields (conveniently adjacent to the Iraq border) if they decided to screw the world economy in retaliation. Not to mention put down the uprisings in Iraq and prop up our friendly dictators in Saudi. They have a hostile superpower parked next to their oil fields, making belligerent noises. Of course they want a Bomb. They’d be insane not to. That’s why the Israeli’s have nukes - and you can’t blame them either. [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=5) [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=7)