If your goal is to stop Iran from nuking Tel Aviv and Haifa, and you go in bombing them, you'd better be damn damn sure they don't have a missile and bomb ready to go that US intel didn't know about or the whole thing will be counter-productive.
Who knows what NK may have sold them? Or how many sites they may have? Or how far along they really are? Or whether airstrikes alone would be a)effective b)not disastrously counter-productive.
Who knows what NK may have sold them? Or how many sites they may have? Or how far along they really are? Or whether airstrikes alone would be a)effective b)not disastrously counter-productive.
I was just reading about a scenario like this, where Iran already has a few nukes acquired from or built with materials given by North Korea. The Iranians could be holding back on their first test or announcement until they have an assembly line ready to crank out more bombs in a timely fashion.
If they do have a bomb, that really complicates things. I guess you'd have to figure out what you think the worse scenario is: attacking now and risking an Israeli city or letting Iran finish their program and having to deal with the consequences of a Middle East in which nuclear proliferation, nuclear arms races and terrorist acquistion of nuclear weapons is much more likely.
Comment