Who exactly is denying this? I think it unlikely, since any such action would leave Teheran in tiny little bits - they might get one or two nukes, but we have lots, and it would be unwise to set a precedent.
I’m a lot more worried about our “friends” in Pakistan myself.
Because America is far more aggressive. And because America is in a position to actually do so. With or without nukes, Iran is and will remain too weak. And because the desirablility of Armageddon is a central part of much of American Christianity.
I think we’re ignoring the real enemy, growing in our very midsts…BRAZIL! They already have a nuclear energy program and they are as we speak furthering their capability to enrich uranium. Sure, they say they won’t make nuclear weapons, their constitution forbids it, and they are a signatory to the NPT and they have IAEA inspections…but all that applies to Iran! Shit! Brazil is going to nuke us! They’re right in our back yard, too, so the missiles will barely take any time to reach us.
Have you looked at their President? He has a beard and everything!
The point is a sound hypothetical. I say hypothetical because if Iran were to have nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad would have about the same amount of leverage over what happens to them as I would. Also because their current Supreme Leader and Guardian Council has said some very odd things about nuclear weapons (mainly that they’re evil and against Islam and stuff like that, and they denounced Pakistan and North Korea for having them…I mean, maybe they’re totally lying, but it’s not like you can back down from religious edicts by saying you had your fingers crossed).
Devastate an oil producing country if a superfluity like Israel were liquidated? Not a chance the US would.
It would be foolish for them to attack.
That said, if they want to, now’s the time, while troops are either busy in Iraq or elsewhere or recovering from same, and any more warring would be highly unpopular with the U.S. population. Were I in charge and wanting to provoke the U.S., i’d learn my lessons from 9/11; it would have to be something big enough to force their hand, but also not so big that everyone immediately says “hunt the bastards down”. I wouldn’t predict actual war per se, but certainly as much thumbing of the nose as they think they can get away with, which could be a lot. This line of guessing tends to assume the people in charge aren’t morons, though, and sadly that’s not the kind of assumption you can make.
Some people may scoff at the possibility of Iran attacking the United States but what they don’t realize is that Iran is only a three day drive away from America.
I say that we should attack Iraq before they attack us. We can’t wait until nothing whatsoever becomes a smoking gun which in turn becomes a mushroom cloud.
Maybe we’d decide to kill them off by peaceful means, but I wasn’t aware all the oil was under Teheran. MAD may be awful and immoral, but the world is not a radioactive slagheap, so it appears to work pretty well.
And rendering Iran’s oil inaccessable would raise world oil prices, and make Bush’s oil buddies happy. Just as attacking Iraq has make Iraq’s oil inaccessable and his buddies happy, but without the radioactivity.
If refrain from nuking Iran, it’s not because we want to spare the oil from radiation. And it’ll die down anyway.
Don’t get it.
IIRC, it was an excuse used to attack either Niceragua or Grenada. Or some other of the long list of little countries we’ve screwed with.
And just how many people on the “Left” seriously fall into this category?
And what makes you eager to believe that Amadinejad has any such authority?
Because the keys and deployment of the US arsenal is governed by rage and bloodlust and there’s no evidence Iraq has any such thing?
Does the US have a reputation for attacking without proper justification?
(I think Vietnam and the current Iraq war count towards this.)
Does the US threaten to attack countries with nuclear weapons?
(Not that I know of.)
Is the conclusion that countries will feel safer if they obtain nuclear weapons?
( :eek: )
Of course! It all makes such sense!
Bush spends billions of dollars starting wars to raise the world oil price. This ensures a worldwide recession, and perhaps hurts gasoline-loving America most of all.
Other fuel alternatives become economically equal to oil in this new energy-starved world, and energy conservation becomes very serious, harming oil company profits.
Bush serves out his term as the most hated president in history (all right: the even more most hated president in history :)).
Please name at least two prominent members of “the Left” and provide evidence that this is their belief. In other words, “Cite?”
As to the OP, Iran will not attack us anymore than they already have. (I.e., possibly funding terrorist groups to attack or disrupt our interests. This is, of course, the same thing that the US has done to Iran in the past.)
Grenada is an island, which makes it a much longer drive than three days, unless they had massive fleets of ferries.
That’s exactly the conclusion. Below the level of the great powers, nukes are seen as a “keep the U.S. out of our yard” insurance policy as much as anything else.
Which makes Brazil such a credible threat. Amenidinijad says Iran has none, but during Carnival the streets of Rio are filled with them!
Everybody, grab your thongs and sunscreen! We’re hitting the beach at Ipanema in a preemptive strike. We did it before on Greneda and we’re not afraid of doing it again.
By that criteria we are at war with Saudi Arabia already too.