So how long before those mad men force the US to attack Iran?

[OzzyKP]

My only quick comment is that some of these options are not mutually exclusive-- There could be bombing and Iran still gets a nuke and then does or does not use it . You treat bombing as a endpoint in and of itself. Do you assume that bombing will certainly prevent nuke acquisition?

None of these options are really end points, nor are they meant to be. They are mostly about near-term options, or what will happen first. The winning option could be Iran gets the nuke but doesn't use it. Then 50 years from now a new regime comes to power and they decide to nuke someone. Indeed, ALL of the above options could happen at some point or another. But I'm only really guessing at the most immediate.

North Korea is far more unstable country in "perpetual" war with a close target, where they can deliver their nukes any day of the week, and do they use it? No... they also know that the day they used it, it would be the day the northern part of the peninsula would become one huge ocean filled crater... and even insane dictatorships want to continue to exist.

I would rate it a much higher chance that they would use it in response to a conventional war, obviously depending on how severe it was. But then again, I think Iran and Israel would be far less likely to fight a conventional war if both have nukes.

I do agree completely about North Korea.

[Heraclitus]

25% - Israel bombs Iran pre-emptively to slow/stop their nuclear program.
else (Saudi Arabia, United States, etc)
20% - The US bombs Iran pre-emptively to slow/stop their nuclear program.
5% - The US bombs, invades & occupies Iran.
45% - We do nothing (but ineffective sanctions) and Iran gets a nuke, but doesn't use it (unless attacked).
5% - We do nothing (but ineffective sanctions) and Iran gets a nuke, and nukes Israel.
2% - We do nothing (but ineffective sanctions) but Iran doesn't get (or want) nukes, just power plants.
3% - We do nothing (but ineffective sanctions) and Iran gets a nuke, and nukes someone





What I think the odds are. I'm not treating all the scenarios as exclusive.

[Heraclitus]

None of these options are really end points, nor are they meant to be. They are mostly about near-term options, or what will happen first. The winning option could be Iran gets the nuke but doesn't use it. Then 50 years from now a new regime comes to power and they decide to nuke someone. Indeed, ALL of the above options could happen at some point or another. But I'm only really guessing at the most immediate.

I don't know. I can't imagine there being a hardliner Islamic cup and any other antiwestern regime (Fascist, Communist) is much less likley.

And if a proWestern government comes into power, why wouldn't Iran in 50 years time follow the same steps taken by South Africa and the various post Soviet states and disarmed?

[TCO]

I thought Iran danger was supposed to be a big George Bush exaggeration? Didn't the MSM pundits get all hot and bothered about some CIA finding that there was no weapons program danger in Iran in 2006? Why should we be concerned? I'm sure all is fine there.

[Docfeelgood]

The government of Iran will launch nukes then go hide in their bunkers waiting for their apocalyptic god to return.
Your naive to think that they are building a bomb just for deterrence.

[DaShi]

How's the swine flu treating you?

[SlowwHand]

If they do get nuked, it's not soon enough. Should have done them, Iraq and Syria, then looked at North Korea and anyone else and asked if there were any questions.

[DaShi]

And you, for that matter.

[SlowwHand]

Ask me if I had any questions?

[David Floyd]

If they do get nuked, it's not soon enough. Should have done them, Iraq and Syria, then looked at North Korea and anyone else and asked if there were any questions.

Although we could have solved this problem altogether in 1946/47, by preemptively destroying the Soviet Union when they had not the capability to respond, threatening to do the same to any unfriendly power developing a nuclear capability, and then asking if anyone had any questions for the next 75 years or so.

[ShaneWalter]

Although we could have solved this problem altogether in 1946/47, by preemptively destroying the Soviet Union when they had not the capability to respond, threatening to do the same to any unfriendly power developing a nuclear capability, and then asking if anyone had any questions for the next 75 years or so.

Was the USA really capable of that, though?

[David Floyd]

Yes. Oh, we didn't have bombers with the range to destroy the whole country. I really just mean take out Moscow in a first strike, as well as a couple of other strategic targets (frex. C3I and logistics positions in Eastern Europe). If this doesn't do the trick, or if we want to wait a bit, we have the B-36 available in 1949 and the B-47 in 1951, and at neither point does the Soviet Union have a delivery system capable of threatening the US, even if in the latter case they have the atomic bomb.

The Berlin Blockade, for instance, would have presented us with an early opportunity, as would Stalin's initial refusal to vacate Northern Iran and his interference in free elections in Europe.

[Docfeelgood]

How's the swine flu treating you?

I see that you came through....................