--- Alex Stanley wrote: > > Is Israel any less doomed if Iran acquires nuclear weapons?
I have a problem with these scenarios that assume Action B is a sure thing if Action A occurs. For example, people like to say the entire Middle East will be drawn into Sunni vs. Shia warfare if Iraq melts down, when it seems to me they'd keep the fight concentrated in Iraq, the way the West and the Soviet Union fought their fights in proxy countries during the Cold War. This assumption that Iran would give nuclear weapons to terrorists, who in turn would plant them in a handful of Israeli cities and detonate them, seems equally problematic. I can see how Iran would love to cause problems for two enemies at once - the Iraelis and the Arabs - but I'm not clear why the terrorists would want to invite the reprisal that would come following a nuclear explosion. Would anyone here like to explain how a nuclear strike against Israel serves any purpose for the Arabs?
