Nah, we’d kick their ass. We’re getting pretty good at fighting countries who’s names start with vowels.
What’s the point in sponsoring Hizbullah?
Uh…My point was that the US and Europe haven’t had noticeably more protracted periods of “stability” or peace – especially if we consider the contemporaneous time period. How was Europe in, say, 651 AD? And Parthain power “evaporated”…after lasting twice as long as the US has, so far.
Your comment about Rome and Parthia competing through client states sounds a lot like what superpowers do even today. One could argue that the Roman period of peace was distinct – but that was an anomaly, really, and it’s not like Rome was a good neighbor to have generally. As John Keegan wrote in A History of Warfare:
And that’s the state that is regarded as the longest-lasting Western empire, presumably what you’d call stable.
I think the Middle East does look as if it has been unusually “unstable” for 5,000 years only if you have blinders on about the rest of world history.
While I agree that triumph over Israel would lead to Iranian hegemony in the region (and have internal political payoffs as well), I’m less sure that nuking it solves the ‘Israel problem.’
Would it be fair to summarize the foundational ‘problem’ the Arab neighbors have with Israel as: “the Israelis have displaced the Palestinians from their [perceived] homeland?”
I’m not sure reducing the said beloved homeland to uninhabitable, radioactive slag necessarily results in the Palestinians getting everything they want.
edited to add: Of course, the Iranians don’t necessarily have the Palestinians’ best interest at heart, and might do it for their own reasons. But that’s not really solving the root problem, it’s more like using the unhappiness of the Palestinians as an excuse to do your own thing.
At the very least you give Iran huge amounts of leverage. First thing they would do is start bulldozing protesters, ramp up inhumane policies, and anything the world finds repulsively extreme their leaders will run with full steam ahead.
Then you have an Iran foreign policy agenda becoming even more abrasive, aggressive, and teetering on real full scale war with other cultures.
That’s just the bright side of it.
The crazy thing is not Iran’s leaders. It’s that Iran was on the verge of being a shining democracy before America’s further bullying in the region ramped anti-Western sentiment in the population. I remember secular politicians staging sit-ins and such.
As usual, if you’re not a failed state, the US will do its damnedest to make you one, then bomb the shit out of you for it.
Sorry, another clarification occurred to me. I was showing that Iran/Persia has had multiple, prolonged periods of what passed for stable government in the rest of the world. DrDeth seems to be defining the Middle East as a whole as unstable.
If Iran itself has a tradition of stable government, but is wielding influence in the “region,” particularly in this case the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, for its own reasons, is that objectively worse than the United States wielding influence in the same “region” for its own purposes?
I am not defending Iran’s alleged motivations per se, just continuing my line of thought that Westerners have been overusing claims of “instability” to shape perceptions about countries in that area. Especially when applied to the scale of “all of written history,” it seems absurd on the face of it to claim Iran has been unstable compared to the US/Europe, and if the claim is that Iran is meddling outside its area, surely the same applies to the US/Europe.
What’s the point in sponsoring Hizbullah?
[/QUOTE]
Harassing Israel at minimal risk and expense to themselves; as opposed to being destroyed which is what would happen if they nuked Israel.
For what possible reason? He’s perfectly aware that an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would result in the most populated areas of Iran being glassed. Do you think he has some insane death wish for his country? Stalin and Mao both had no compunctions about killing millions of their own countrymen, had nuclear weapons, and didn’t decide to end their countries entire existence by using them. Why would Iran possibly push the button the second the get a bomb knowing full well it would be signing a death sentence for their entire country? Not ‘pull the trigger first,’ your claim was ‘Do you guys sincerely believe they wouldn’t fire them into Israel as soon as they have them?’ I would submit that you do not in fact understand MAD.
What is Israel’s nuclear arsenal estimated to be in terms of numbers of warheads?
The real thing is IF the OP scenerio was correct, the result would be, “You have nukes to Iran? How 'bout giving some to us.” The us being the Saudis, the Omanis, the Egyptians, the Kurds, The Kuwaitis and so forth.
And if we didn’t give them away the oil rich countries are in a position to highly pay scientists to develop them for them.
This was the logic of keeping North Korea from getting nukes as it was said, then Japan and South Korea (and maybe Taiwan) wouild go nuclear.
Of course going nuclear would be problematic in Japan but they certainly have the know-how to do so. (I’m not sure about Taiwan and South Korea)
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
What is Israel’s nuclear arsenal estimated to be in terms of numbers of warheads?
[/QUOTE]
Since they have denied having the things, and since no one that I know of has gone out of their way to out them publicly, it’s anyone’s guess (I’m sure the US and other intelligence agencies know or have a good guess, but they aren’t saying, again afaik). I’ve heard 10 to 20, but it could be none or double that I suppose. My WAG is that they have a few (maybe 5 or something in that ball park), but they are playing it very close to the vest. It could all be a Saddam level bluff, and they really don’t have any of the things at all and just want folks to assume they do.
-XT
You may have a more nuanced view of MAD, but yes I DO think he has a death wish. BTW, as long as Israel is gone too, I doubt he’s too worried about Iran’s fate.
Best guess is ~200 warheads. Federation of American Scientists gives a range of 70-400, Global Research a range of 200-500, Global Security 125-250 warheads.
etv78: There is nothing nuanced about MAD. A nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran would result in Iran’s destruction. It wouldn’t even be mutual if carried out as you visualize it, attacking as soon as they have the bomb may have a nice Lex Luthor evil supervillain ring to it, but it would take more than one or two bombs to destroy Israel, much less be assured of it.
Missed the edit - Israel has never denied having nuclear weapons, they just have never officially acknowledged that they possess them. Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the evidence of their existence is voluminous , uncontrovertial and not seriously contested ala Saddam’s WMDs.
I wonder if in such a (ahem) MAD scenario whereby Iran nukes Israel, Israel and/or the US responds in kind if any other countries (like say, Russia) would get involved. Would the mainland US be at risk?
You’re right, I did misapply MAD in this scenario, BUT I still contend Iran would be willing to take itself down if Israel came with them.
[QUOTE=Dissonance]
Missed the edit - Israel has never denied having nuclear weapons, they just have never officially acknowledged that they possess them. Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the evidence of their existence is voluminous , uncontrovertial and not seriously contested ala Saddam’s WMDs.
[/QUOTE]
You are right…afaik they have never denied that they have them. However, all of the ‘evidence’ is circumstantial. They haven’t, for instance, detonated a test nuke, which would be important for a nuclear weapons program, even if they stole the design from us. As I said, I BELIEVE that they have them, though my WAG is that they have only a few…but to say something is ‘uncontrovertial’ is, IMHO, vastly overstating things. If there is evidence that they have actually detonated one for testing, THEN I’d say that ‘uncontrovertial’ is appropriate. Otherwise, it’s still conjecture. YMMV of course.
-XT
It’s actually somewhat likely, although not certain, that the joint South Africa-Israel nuclear cooperation saw at least one nuclear test.
I’d heard of that, but I honestly didn’t think it got much above the urban legend level of confirmation. Seems like it would be a hard thing to hide though.
-XT
It’s well above the status of an urban legend, but not proven.
[
](Did Israel Play a Role in 1979 South Africa Nuclear Test? - Israel News - Haaretz.com)
Appreciate the cite, Finn. I remember reading about this years ago, but I thought it was mostly a CT or something along those lines.
-XT