What would they have to do or say to make you think so?
Who knows? What would a leadership have to do to convince me they are suicidal maniacs? I don’t know. What I do know is that Iran doesn’t even come close.
Lol, so you can’t think of ANYTHING Iran could do or say which would make you think that they have even the SLIGHTEST intention of launching a nuclear attack against Israel.
Yeah believe it or not, I don’t think countries tend to be ruled by people who invite nuclear destruction. Just about the craziest regime in the world is North Korea and I don’t they would initiate a nuclear war. And I don’t think Iran is even in the same ballpark of crazy as North Korea. For the most part I read them as pretty savvy operators, who understand their region and interests and work carefully to promote the latter.
Why should they try? They aren’t the ones invading nations bordering us and establishing bases in countries to literally surround us with their military presence. That would be the USA, doing it to them. Who’s the badguy, here?
Iran would never launch a direct nuclear attack on Israel for just the reason you state - they are not suicidal maniacs. However, they may be stupid enough to believe they could make one of their proxies (Hezbollah) able to carry out such an attack and escape relatively unscathed. They have given money and material aid to terrorists acting against Israel for decades and avoided direct military retribution.
I doubt having one of their client terror groups launch the attack would save them from a fiery response but the ayatollahs may not see it that way.
Whether or not they would actually provide nuclear weapons to a group like Hezbollah is irrelevant. Based on past behavior it is reasonable to believe they would do just such a thing. Israel isn’t alone in thinking this way. The recent unified actions by the US, the EU and the UN indicate this is a major concern of a large number of nations.
What are you trying to prove with this line of comments? Do you personally think Iran is spending a large percentage of their economy developing a nuclear weapon just so they can use it in a suicide attack against Israel?
USA has sponsored more guerilla (or terrorist, if you prefer) groups with the intent of overthrowing a government than Iran has, and yet you aren’t using that as evidence that the USA would give such groups a nuke. Why the double standard?
Iran is not monumentally stupid; of course they know that a nuclear attack by one of their proxies would invite retaliation in kind. As to your second point, just because the EU is willing to impose sanctions doesn’t mean they believe that a nuclear-armed Iran can’t be contained. It’s all a matter of magnitude; it’s possible to believe that it’s worth imposing sanctions on Iran but not remotely worth launching a military attack which could easily trigger a regional conflagration and global economic meltdown.
Then all this debate over what exactly it means to “destroy” Israel was a complete red herring. Even if Iran announced that somebody needs to detonate a nuclear bomb in downtown Tel Aviv and Iran would like to be the one to do it, you still wouldn’t infer even the slightest intent on the part of Iran to attack Israel with nuclear weapons.
Sure if Iran made an explicit nuclear threat of that nature, it would indicate some chance of them carrying it out though I would still consider it unlikely. Of course Iran hasn’t done anything remotely like that. All you have produced is some random quote from 1982 without even a reference.
I do not understand your point here. Does “some chance of carrying it out” mean the same thing as “having the slightest intention”?
Before I go looking for quotes, I want to figure out where the goalposts are. Earlier you stated (in effect) that you could not think of ANYTHING Iran might do or say which would make you think that Iran has even the SLIGHTEST intent of launching a nuclear attack against Israel. Is that still your position?
Has anyone told you that have a really annoying and pedantic debating style? I suggest you read my previous posts and decide for yourself what you want to go looking for.
I think you need to ask Der Trihs that question, since he is the one who asserted that Iran tried to make peace. I’m simply trying to determine whether there is any truth to such a claim.
I would say it’s Iran, but let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that the US is the “badguy.” The question on the table is whether (1) it’s reasonable for Israel to attempt to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons; and (2) what Iran could or should do to prevent an attack by Israel.
Sure, and I would suggest the annoyance you are feeling is the result of cognitive dissonance; that you are starting to realize that your position is self-contradictory and you don’t want to face that reality.
I don’t need to go looking for anything. I am satisfied that a nuclear-armed Iran is a grave threat to Israel. This is based on my reasonable interpretation of Iran’s actions as well as the statements of its leadership.
OK. On the evidence of this thread where the only statement you have produced is an annonymous and unreferenced quote from 1982 you have an extraordinarily low threshhold on which to base such an interpretation.
That lantern’s position is ridiculous.
No I don’t think that. I think that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons so that (1) it can move more openly against its enemies (including Israel) without having to worry as much about retaliation; (2) for purposes of national pride; (3) to make it less likely that other countries will meddle in Iran’s internal affairs as was done in Libya; and (4) to open up the option of nuclear terrorism using proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah.
And of course whatever Iran’s intentions are at the moment, they could change down the road. For example, if there were a revolution and the supreme leader’s residence were surrounded by rebels who would surely execute him. In such a situation the leader might be tempted to order a nuclear strike against Israel in hopes of provoking a nuclear war. He might hope that a massive nuclear strike against his own country would have a bigger impact on rebels than on loyalists; or that the resulting disarray might give him a better chance of escaping or at least holding on to power. He might hope that if the rebels learned that Iran is likely to get nuked in the next hour or two, they will flee.
I have not laid out all the evidence on which I base my opinion. Did I say something in this thread to make you think so? Or are you simply attempting to erect a strawman?
Anyway, I am still waiting for an answer to my questions:
-
Does “some chance of carrying it out” mean the same thing as “having the slightest intention”?
-
Earlier you stated (in effect) that you could not think of ANYTHING Iran might do or say which would make you think that Iran has even the SLIGHTEST intent of launching a nuclear attack against Israel. Is that still your position?
Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? This is a truly absurd scenario from some bad Hollywood film. Real countries don’t work like this. If it comes to the point where “rebels” (what rebels?) are on the verge of executing the supreme leader he will almost certainly have lost control of the military and nuclear weapons and no one will listen to his orders.
Are you saying a situation could never arise where the leader of a country realizes that a revolution is about to succeed (at least in deposing him) but still has some degree of control over the military?