Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba
Entire post
|
FWIW, I agree, and the "value of deterrence" is the 64K question: On the one hand, it is understandable to get caught up in the trap, as the Shi'ites do believe in a man-made apocalypse which will bring about the return of the twelfth Imam[1]. On the other had, up until recently, Iran has been relatively cautious about what is directly attributed to Tehran, while most people know that Hezbollah is generally controlled by Iran, there is still some level of plausible deniability, if in name only. Then again, the political winds in Iran may be shifting[2].
IMHO: As nuts as Tehran may seem, politics is a lucrative business, and I am sure there are many who would like to keep it that way. Lobbing nukes at nuclear armed countries doesn't really work for the status quo. Saudi Arabia on the other hand... (My signature not withstanding
)
Of course, as pointed out many many previous posts, we can always circle back to the "suitcase bomb" and Iran: "We didn't do it."
MOO, considering Pakistan's (in)stability, I would worry more about their
established nuclear program falling into the wrong hands[3].
Another point to consider is Israel's nuclear policy, if anything, they may be just as guilty of setting the "trap"[4]. What is known of Israel's "Samson Option" was built around the fact that none of its mortal enemies had nuclear armaments[5], if this were to change, whats to guarantee that Israel's pre-emptive or subsequent strike(s) will not be nuclear?
[1]http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/07/battle_hymns_of_the_madmen_in.html
[2]http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/irans-conservatives-grapple-power
[3]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13507767
[4] Israel's Nuclear Opacity: a Political Genealogy
[5]http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/razdel.php?article_id=101&id=15