Iran has never attacked the US or our neighbors in the past. Israel and the US don't have that clean a record.
Directly? Iran has not. Indirectly, Iran has attacked many countries by supplying arms, support and cash. They are currently supplying arms to Syria so that Assad can kill off maybe 10,000 more civilians. Iran tried to kill the Saudi Ambassador on US soil. They are by no means, harmless. What
more would they do if they thought as you do, that a nuclear weapon would protect them from any retaliation?
You keep assuming Iran and its allies won't see it as an act of war and retaliate. That's not an assumption I am willing to make, based on the total lack of threat to the US.
Over Iran? They won't. Iran is not important enough to go to war over. If we were talking about Taiwan or maybe North Korea, you could be certain of a violent Chinese response. If we were talking about Georgia or Siberia, you could be certain of a violent Russian response. But not Iran. Not if they understood that no invasion was planned. I expect there are closed-door discussions with Russia and China over this very subject. If the US planned strikes on Iran, you could be sure we would privately inform both than we plan no invasion, and intend to keep the oil fields intact. This would result in tacit agreement from both in private, condemnation in public, but no further action.
so, until iran can establish military parity - in this instance mutually assured destruction - by attaining nuclear devices to counter the ongoing israeli threat, the nation of iran is vulnerable to israeli attack
hell, we see israel rattling its sabers every day
and notice what happens to nations like north korea and pakistan, after they acquire nuclear weapons. they become insulated from attack. the persians are smart. they recognize that reality, too
MAD only works when the conventional military of both sides is strong enough to hold off the other side long enough for a nuclear launch to happen. This worked for the US and Russia because both sides have very powerful conventional forces. Iran does not have a strong enough conventional forces to prevent a nuclear weapon from destruction in the very first phase of an attack. The nuclear deterrence is nullified almost immediately.
If we do things my way, sanctions may force Iran to negotiate sincerely and permit FULL IAEA inspections. In this case, not a shot is fired. This is the best scenario. OR, if Iran refuses to cooperate, strikes occur on nuclear facilities ONLY. The oil fields (Iran's primary source of income) are left intact. Civilian deaths occur, which is bad, but they are confined to the nuclear facilities. No civilian city centers are hit. Iran is humiliated but otherwise remains able to function as a nation.
As it stands now, Obama and Netanyahu are trading blows over action against Iran. Obama has barely managed to keep Netanyahu at bay, and purely on the hopes that sanctions will work. Thus, Obama has been able to keep the peace. If we do things Justabubba's way and permit Iran to develop nuclear ICBMs, we have a 100% guarantee of hostility by Israel. Why would they? Because they know they can take out those nukes with a quick strike, and Iran would be helpless to stop it. Iran would be at their mercy.
Remember that "mysterious explosion" at Iran's missile facility? Nothing showed up on radar, no enemy aircraft invaded Iran airspace. The missiles just "spontaneously" blew up. Guess what, JDAMs or cruise missiles can do exactly that. They don't show up on radar (JDAMs too small, cruise missiles fly under the radar). Iran's "nuclear deterrent" disappears in a flash, and nobody knows why...and least until Israeli aircraft come streaming in out of the sun prepared to dismantle the Iranian military. Israel has the weapons to do this. Israel hasn't attacked Iran, but letting Iran have nukes is a sure way to
make it happen.
In short, if we do things as they are, we have the possibility of No Conflict, or Limited Conflict. If we do things Justabubba's way the ultimate end result is: Maximum Conflict.
Lastly, nuclear-armed nations have in fact, attacked one another directly. in 1999 (while both India and Pakistan possessed nuclear weapons), Pakistan felt they could attack into Indian territory. They felt the concept of MAD would prevent a nuclear exchange, so then conventional attacks could happen without nuclear reprisal. Even with nukes, war happens anyway. Even then, the superior conventional military wins the day.
Indo-Pakistani War of 1999 (minor war): Commonly known as Kargil War, this conflict between the two countries was mostly limited. Pakistani troops along with Kashmiri insurgents infiltrated across the Line of Control (LoC) and occupied Indian territory mostly in the Kargil district. The Pakistani government believed that its nuclear weapons would deter a full-scale escalation in conflict but India launched a major military campaign to flush out the infiltrators.[11] Due to Indian military advances and increasing foreign diplomatic pressure, Pakistan was forced to withdraw its forces back across the LoC.[5]
Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
