Other than Syria, what other ME state would place themselves under the aegis of Iranian missiles and more practically, which of them would risk transcending the Shia-Sunni divide to make this happen? A Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon, perhaps?

So, Anjin... you think nuke attacks are limited to missles?

Missiles or planes, and planes get shot down quite easily these days. If Iran is going to attack with a nuke, it will be on a missile.

And no, they won't be giving backpack nukes to Hamas or Hezbollah, so don't even try that fallacious argument.

So, Anjin... you think nuke attacks are limited to missles?

No, I think Iraq is a Persian, not an Arab nation. Wave your ignorance flag proudly dude.

Face it, guys.. here's your problem:

http://bitsblog.florack.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/cfnuclearends-x.jpg

Look, gang, you keep mouthing platitudes about how Iran doesn't have the ability. In a conventional sense, that's true. But since when has Arab extremism been limited to a conventional fight?

Posted by Bithead | April 12, 2008 | 10:50 am

Ignorant, and damn proud of it. A true modern "conservative".

I have little doubt he'd do it given the chance.

He already has the change, he has enough conventional weapons to attack Israel. He's had them for quite some time now, and he hasn't once used them.

What you seem to be missing here, is we're talking about giving Iran an advantage that Germany sought, but thankfully never got. Nukes.

An advantage currently held by Russia, China, Britain, France, Israel, Pakistan, India and South Africa. Adding Iran to that list isn't going to change the balance of world power. This isn't 1945, having nuclear weapons doesn't make you unstoppable or invulnerable anymore.

So we are to assume that just because Ahmadinejad has made some ridiculous statements that it is now the official state policy of Iran to wipe Israel off the map?

And on what basis do you consider he's not serious? As one of the biggest exporters of state sponsored terrorism, most of it directed against Israel, I have little doubt he'd do it given the chance.

Totally! I mean sure Nazi Germany was a military powerhouse and it invaded its neighbors whereas Iran is a big fish in a small (but important) pond that has never attacked a neighbor in modern history. Other than that the two could be twins.

What you seem to be missing here, is we're talking about giving Iran an advantage that Germany sought, but thankfully never got. Nukes.

Screw Godwin. If the comparison is an apt one, I'll use it. It certainly qualifies, here.

Totally! I mean sure Nazi Germany was a military powerhouse and it invaded its neighbors whereas Iran is a big fish in a small (but important) pond that has never attacked a neighbor in modern history. Other than that the two could be twins.

Well, look, Iran has the right to Nuclear power the same way Germany had the right to walk-in oven technology.... and for the same reason.

Godwin's Law isn't a race. You don't win by getting there first.

Why though do they keep threatening Israel then if they have no intention of attacking?

They only threaten Israel with retaliation. Their standard rhetoric is never a direct threat of aggression, but rather the anti-Israel position they are setting up for themselves in their community of nations.

Why though do they keep threatening Israel then if they have no intention of attacking? It makes no sense to me, maybe I'm too logical to understand the mind-games at play here.

The real issue, and the subject of any meaningful discussion to be held with Tehran, is Iran's near-certain effort to acquire a military nuclear capability. And the development of missiles that will deliver the end-product to the vicinity of Tel Aviv.

Iran doesn't want nuclear weapons to attack Israel, they want them for defense. More specifically, they want them so they can offer protection to other ME states against Israeli (or US) attacks in exchange for their loyalty. Nuclear weapons are the key to Iran's hegemony in the ME, just as they were our key to hegemony in Europe and the Pacific.