Has anyone noticed yet that Iran recently seems to have launched a series of terrorist attacks against a widely disparate group of countries? Iran has attacked (Asian) Georgia, India
( Read more... )
Just means tanks will never roll on Tehran. But their patrol boats will still be sunk.
It does not mean that "tanks will never roll on Tehran." You're assuming that the Iranians would be as rational as the Soviets and avoid starting conventional wars because they would be afraid they would escalate into atomic wars, while feeling secure that we would not start conventional wars against us. The whole reason we are trying to stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons is that the Iranians are not rational in that fashion, as they are demonstrating RIGHT NOW by randomly attacking other Powers.
What is extremely likely is that a nuclear-armed Iran would become even more aggressive in terms of terrorist attacks, to the point that other Powers would feel they had no choice but to go to war against Iran despite an Iranian nuclear arsenal. The result would be an atomic war in which the initial objective was a disarming first strike against the Iranian nuclear arsenal, with the first-striker considering Iran the aggressor and hence likely to consider any Iranian hits on his country as unprovoked countervalue strikes, with all this would imply in terms of the likely retaliation.
This is not the Cold War 1949. It is much worse in terms of the aggressiveness of the bad guys, though the situation is better in that Iran is weaker relative to the modern West or even America alone than the Soviet Union was relative to NATO in 1949. In other words, the aggressor state is much less likely to win, but is also much more likely to attack.
The cost of ignoring this difference is likely to be paid in burning Western cities, followed by the utter destruction of Iran as a nation.
It does not mean that "tanks will never roll on Tehran." You're assuming that the Iranians would be as rational as the Soviets and avoid starting conventional wars because they would be afraid they would escalate into atomic wars, while feeling secure that we would not start conventional wars against us. The whole reason we are trying to stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons is that the Iranians are not rational in that fashion, as they are demonstrating RIGHT NOW by randomly attacking other Powers.
What is extremely likely is that a nuclear-armed Iran would become even more aggressive in terms of terrorist attacks, to the point that other Powers would feel they had no choice but to go to war against Iran despite an Iranian nuclear arsenal. The result would be an atomic war in which the initial objective was a disarming first strike against the Iranian nuclear arsenal, with the first-striker considering Iran the aggressor and hence likely to consider any Iranian hits on his country as unprovoked countervalue strikes, with all this would imply in terms of the likely retaliation.
This is not the Cold War 1949. It is much worse in terms of the aggressiveness of the bad guys, though the situation is better in that Iran is weaker relative to the modern West or even America alone than the Soviet Union was relative to NATO in 1949. In other words, the aggressor state is much less likely to win, but is also much more likely to attack.
The cost of ignoring this difference is likely to be paid in burning Western cities, followed by the utter destruction of Iran as a nation.
Reply
Leave a comment