seycyrus said:
Who are they trying to impress, and to what effect? Like it or not, one of the best ways we have to gauge intent is their words.
Like GWB's words concerning Iraq ? Come on. Iran's leaders are out to become a dominant regional power, and they will do and say anything which helps them - or which they think will help them in that respect. Bully talking about Israel is usually well-received in the Arab world, so that's what they do. In fact, I believe that *if* they found a way to "wipe Israel off the map" without hurting too much themselves, they might even consider it. But they are not going to risk their own existence for that. It would lead them away of their main goal. They don't hate Israel for its own sake, they hate Israel because it is the right thing to do from an Arab point of view. If they want to impose them as a regional leader, then hating Israel is part of the job.
Words can indicate intent. Due to the high stakes, words cannot just be dismissed.
If I'm going to write that I'm going to blow up planet earth, then you're just listening to a lunatic talking. There is in that case absolutely no relationship between what I'm saying and what I could or would possibly do.
I think you too casually dismiss the high level of tension. It was genuine! The situation was resolved because both players negotiated as if the other side wasn't bluffing.
The *tension* was of course genuine. However, we will never know what were the *real* intentions.
The Soviet Union would not have been able to threaten Western Europe if it did not have nuclear weapons.
This is manifestly and utterly wrong. In fact, even at the end of WWII, the Soviets could *easily* have continued all the way to Spain. After the withdrawal of the bulk of American soldiers, the conventional force of the Western European countries was an order of magnitude below what the Soviets had ready on the other side of the iron curtain. They would have ran over Germany and France in a blink of an eye. It was the fear of a nuclear conflict which refrained them. At no point, Western Europe was threatened just by Soviet nuclear arms. It was their huge conventional force that was the real menace. And that was countered by a nuclear threat on the western side. As I said, my dad did studies on that in NATO context, and they found that there was no way they could avoid, using purely conventional arms, from initial hostility onward, the Soviets to advance entirely up to the Rhine within *48 hours*.
This is documented in a book a certain General Close wrote back then, based upon these studies:
http://www.priceminister.com/offer/buy/10404844/General-Close-R-L-europe-Sans-Defense-48-Heures-Qui-Pourraient-Changer-La-Face-Du-Monde-Livre.html
I sense a disparity here in the fact that you seem to assign a smaller likelihood that the Israel's are *just bluffing*.
Because they might not fear yet total extermination - although it surely would be bad publicity! If Israel launched a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear country, they might have some hope to get away with it without being completely fried. Once their enemy would have nukes, then they would rather be sure to get fried too. Which is the main deterrent.
I call any menace of attack of one nuclear power against another, bluff. However, I don't necessarily call any menace of attack of a nuclear power against a non-nuclear power bluff. Look what we are discussing here in this thread: whether the US will invade Iran.
Believe me, if Iran had nukes, this discussion would be moot. (I think it is moot too right now, but for other reasons)
It is my contention that we are in our present pickle because of the belief that Iran doesn't really mean it.
I think they mean it to get nuclear weapons. I am sure they don't mean it to use them against Israel.
I for one, do not have to watch my grandchildren read their history books and ask me, "Granpa, If Iran kept saying they were going to destroy Israel, why did we let them do it? Were the Jews bad men?"
The answer to that one is simple: "we are not responsible for all evil that happens throughout the world, and after all, that wasn't such a bad thing, because now we got rid of Evil Iran too, which got blown up by Israelian bombs! Things calmed down a lot in the region since then."
Like the Japanese say: after long enough a time, even a disaster becomes useful. If ever (which I don't think would happen, but if ever it does) Iran and Israel blow each other up (no matter who started: one could even link the buttons together) this would then be a very good lesson for any other nuclear nation wanting to attack another one: that you can't get away with it.
Okay let's keep it simple which of Israel's neighbours hasn't it invaded.
