if they have the capacity (most ppl think they have) israel should attack and "take out" iran's suspected nuclear facilities soon (as in before end of year). imo they probably will.
there are several reasons.
but what will be the consequences of that attack, on the rest of the world?
that will depend on rationality of iran's leaders. if they are sensible to their own interests, rest of the world has not much to fear.
in that case, iran will not attack americans directly, or close the straits of hormuz given the likely terrible repercussions on themselves (such actions and american response will be costly to americans too, but iran will get the worst of it in the end). in this scenario iran will fire off several missiles at israel and will stop at that. (it is already helping terrorists to attack israel and americans so there wont be any increase in that front anyway).
worst that rest of the world will have to suffer, will probably be a week of very high oil prices. in fact imo attack will be beneficial in the sense it will take away one cause of instability (i.e. constant speculation about the israeli attack - iran's missile tests increased oil price by $6 on last thursday) in the region for some time.
of course if iran's leaders act like crazies all bets are off. but that is unlikely. for one thing, iran is not quite a dictatorship, it is a theocratic oligarchy. more people there are in leadership, less crazy and thankfully more selfish decision making will be.
will israel's leaders have the balls to do what is in their best interests? we will soon see.
ps
iran and nuclear weapons
i was deliberate in avoiding the question of moral right (so to speak) of iran to have nuclear weapons in main post.
in the opinion of most, nobody (including usa) has a moral right to n-weapons. but that is irrelevant and naive. in reality it is in best interests of usa to have nuclear weapons given world history and politics. similarly, it is in best interests of iran to try to have them, and of usa and israel to try to prevent iran having them.
most of rest of the world's (i.e. those who value democracy and capitalism, aka individual political and economic rights - including sri lanka and me as an individual) interests coincide with usa's for the most part, and to a lesser extent with israel's.( however there is no harm in playing iran against others to milk both sides, as sl already do).
there are several reasons.
- obviously attacking after iran has developed a nuclear bomb is silly.
- waiting for "diplomacy" to succeed has failed, again obviously. while usa and rest can take the risk of waiting, israel cannot. iran's n-bomb = bye bye israel (sooner or later).
- high probability (65% chance according to futures market prices) of obambi winning and thus putting even more pressure on israel to fruitlessly wait than bush administration.
- iran's present capacity to respond will only cause limited damage to israel itself. iran's missiles (it has them, silly photoshoping was just to show it has more) are inaccurate and targets in square kms not meters. as such with conventional warheads they are less lethal than terrorist suicide bombers; a threat israel is well used to.
but what will be the consequences of that attack, on the rest of the world?
that will depend on rationality of iran's leaders. if they are sensible to their own interests, rest of the world has not much to fear.
in that case, iran will not attack americans directly, or close the straits of hormuz given the likely terrible repercussions on themselves (such actions and american response will be costly to americans too, but iran will get the worst of it in the end). in this scenario iran will fire off several missiles at israel and will stop at that. (it is already helping terrorists to attack israel and americans so there wont be any increase in that front anyway).
worst that rest of the world will have to suffer, will probably be a week of very high oil prices. in fact imo attack will be beneficial in the sense it will take away one cause of instability (i.e. constant speculation about the israeli attack - iran's missile tests increased oil price by $6 on last thursday) in the region for some time.
of course if iran's leaders act like crazies all bets are off. but that is unlikely. for one thing, iran is not quite a dictatorship, it is a theocratic oligarchy. more people there are in leadership, less crazy and thankfully more selfish decision making will be.
will israel's leaders have the balls to do what is in their best interests? we will soon see.
෴
ps
iran and nuclear weapons
i was deliberate in avoiding the question of moral right (so to speak) of iran to have nuclear weapons in main post.
in the opinion of most, nobody (including usa) has a moral right to n-weapons. but that is irrelevant and naive. in reality it is in best interests of usa to have nuclear weapons given world history and politics. similarly, it is in best interests of iran to try to have them, and of usa and israel to try to prevent iran having them.
most of rest of the world's (i.e. those who value democracy and capitalism, aka individual political and economic rights - including sri lanka and me as an individual) interests coincide with usa's for the most part, and to a lesser extent with israel's.( however there is no harm in playing iran against others to milk both sides, as sl already do).
