U.S. In Afghanistan Firing On Pakistan

rob021275 said
This whole house of cards we call "relative" Middle East peace (and I use that term very lightly considering what is happening in Iraq, Lebanon, and the usual Israeli/Palestinian eye-for-an-eye mentality) is built on the premise that, given their historical dominance over their vastly more populated enemies, no one wants to engage Israel alone. But if Iran somehow gets the means to deliver a nuclear weapon to Israel (which isn't that ridiculous at the rate we're headed -- everybody remember the Scuds Saddam fired into Israel during the first Gulf War?), then all hell will break loose.

Iran needs to be stopped, and I hope we do it rather than Israel. The Muslim world will think twice against taking on the U.S. rather than their scriptural and historical (and decidedly smaller, closer, and less populated) enemy.

But the Sunni Arabs are enemies of Iran. It is debatable that they would want to see Iran in a position to challenge Israel.

Whether Iran gets the bomb or not, it has no capability to project force much further than its borders. You will recall that Saddam's numerically inferior forces kept Iran at bay for 8 years. And back in Desert Storm you got a good taste of the overall qulaity of that fighting force. That should give some indication of Iran's capabilities in an all out conventional conflict.

The whole thing sounds too much like the grave threat that was painted by the Soviet Union, which althought with a lot of manpower was rotten from the inside out. Only the nukes gained them respect and that is probably the main thing Iran is looking for respect and the desire to not end up like Iraq.