--- In [email protected], "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- 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?
The answer lies in the question, a reflection on which gives at hand that the question needs to be modified. It can hardly have escaped anyone that there exists inside Islam a strong and growing undercurrent colored by an apocalyptic world view that wants to wipe the state of Israel off the map. What may, be really shouldn't, come as a surprise is that this undercurrent is led by Iran, and has been so for the last quarter of a century. Using terrorist front organizations to do their dirty work is an established MO for the Iranian regime that has worked wonders for them for the last twenty years or so. Of course using the same MO to set off of nuclear bomb in Tel Aviv would probably be the best way for the Iranians to literally wipe the state of Israel off the map (one big nuke might very well be enough to do the job, given Israel's geography).
