I probably shouldn't be surprised by willful ignorance anymore, but it amazes me that everybody in the article can celebrate this achievement and at the same time admit that it's just "pushing back the clock." Israel's still going to get hit by a nuclear weapon some time, because the technology to build one is just going to keep getting cheaper and more accessible.
You think it's inevitable that Israel gets nuked? I find that very unlikely, especially since the attacking nation would definitely be destroyed as well.
Iran doesn't want nukes so that they can destroy Israel. They wants nukes, because obtaining them immediately makes them powerful on the world stage. (and I say that as someone who really doesn't want to see them get nukes too because they're a crazy religious theocracy)
"You think it's inevitable that Israel gets nuked? I find that very unlikely, especially since the attacking nation would definitely be destroyed as well."
The biggest fear isn't that Iran attacks Israel. The biggest fear is that they'll make a few nuclear weapons, give them to terrorists that aren't officially affiliated with them, and let the terrorists nuke Israel.
In a case where there is a terrorist nuclear attack on Israel, that can't be directly tied to Iran, I'm not sure what Israel could do.
"give them to terrorists that aren't officially affiliated with them"
I'm not convinced that this will happen, although I used to think so. Those terrorists could turn on Iran. 'Suckers you gave us a nuke, but now we want more or else.' Any proliferation at all would alter the balance of power. The Iraninan regime know this, and I predict that the only thing the regime wants more than to destroy Israel is to stay in power whilst watching this happen, and giving away nukes would not necessarily bode all that well with this goal. Terrorists with nukes could usurp power in Iran before they even lay a finger on Israel.
add: In my opinion, the most Iran can hope for is a direct confrontation with Israel that involves nuclear missiles, which ideally would see the decimation of Israel. These missiles will be fired from Iran. But I think there would be an Iranian uprising or some type of coup before that occurs: the people of Iran like themselves more than they hate Israel, and definitely don't want to suicide for it. Israel also has counter-measures to defend against it.
Iranian controlled mobile nuke scuds parked in south Lebanon - that's a possibility, but not now at least. I don't think the Lebanese would like that very much, and what if they're sabotaged by Israel or confiscated by Hizbollah? Risky.
Its certainly probably that Iran doesn't want nukes in order to use them against Israel. But that doesn't mean you get to discount their rhetoric about destroying Israel, and the fact that such rhetoric aligns horrifically neatly with the notion of a nuclear Iran.
Still, the prospect of an Iran that is powerful on the world stage and the inevitable proliferation that will result probably increases the chances that someone crazy enough to nuke an Israeli city will get ahold of enough material to do so exponentially.
So this doesn't make it inevitable, just a hell of a lot more likely.
>I find that very unlikely, especially since the attacking nation would definitely be destroyed as well.
You're talking about a region where suicide bombing is perhaps the most common attack method now. I think its clear that our definition of rationality is different from Iran's regime (as opposed to Iranian people).
I agree Israel is a relatively minor issue. The real conflict here is Sunni-Shiite and Farsi-Arab (Iran-Iraq war alone probably had more casualties than the entire 100 year Arab-Israeli conflict). If Iran has a nuclear capability, it's unthinkable that Saudi Arabia or Egypt or, at a later stage, Iraq, will not strive to have it as well. You will get a multi-lateral arms race in the most volatile region in the world.
On the other hand, it's impossible to stop Iran forcefully. The best you could hope for is to delay it, hoping that the current regime will be replaced by a more rational one.
Not sure what your point is. The worst of effects of nuclear weapons weren't known at the time (yes, killing all those civilians was terrible too, but worse things happened in WW2).
Here's a few questions for you: who has a leader that bizarrely denies the holocaust? who has a religious paramilitary force that murders their own civilians? who keeps innocent students hostage so that they can play with them like pawns in the game of international politics?
And here's a bonus wikileaks reveal: who is so disliked by their neighbors that ALL nearby countries want the US to attack them?
So really?!
Holocaust? You really want to get into this? holocaust happened or not is one thing, Murdering innocent Palestinians and kicking them out of their country, and supporting this is another.
who has a religious paramilitary force that murders their own civilians?
I don't know, but I know how kills Iranians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
And who supported Iraq in the war against Iran.
who keeps innocent students hostage so that they can play with them like pawns in the game of international politics?
I've no idea what are you referring to?
who is so disliked by their neighbors that ALL nearby countries want the US to attack them?
And who is the most disliked country in the word? Who has military attacks on most countries in the world? Let's say Iraq. Iraqis dislike Iran or US? How about Afghans? How about Pakistanis?
Iran is disliked by the nation of his neighbors or by the governments? Who is disliked by the nations?
