Originally Posted by
Excargodog
The area where “communication and negotiation” leaves off and “blackmail” begins is both very broad and very gray. Nonetheless, a nation emerging from theocracy is likely a better fit for us than one embracing an apocalyptic form of theocracy - especially if they are nuke capable.
One can never really know what goes on in the mind of the other guy. Is Iran touting a non existent capability to rapidly develop a nuclear warhead to fit on a burgeoning ballistic missile capability? Did they learn nothing from Saddam’s desire for strategic ambiguity as to whether or not he actually had WMDs? Nonetheless, when you spend almost half a century getting the mob to shout “Death to America” and you couple that with statements that you can have nukes in a few weeks the conservative (as in cautious, not left-right) course becomes one of keeping that from happening. It’s the kind of implied threat that raises the ante considerably in any conflict. Preemption becomes a very reasonable choice.
IL doesn't believe anything IR says.
IL's decision will be based entirely on their own (and maybe US) intel and their own assessments. It certainly doesn't help when IR leaders threaten to nuke TLV... for that reason the IL red-line will be based on capability, not assessed intent.
As you know but for the benefit of others, there's a very old military axiom that you must plan for what the enemy is *capable* of doing, not what you *expect* him to do. Otherwise you're subject to a rude awakening.