Quote:
Originally Posted by Asim Aquil
There's a pretty good chance Iraq will either end up as a US stooge or be run over by a greater Persia... Willingly.
Either way, that's how the fight would ensue from there on. And whatever gap in logistics there seems to be won't be there. Bombs? The US can supply Israel indefinitely it seems.
I really doubt Iran would go ahead and fight Israel. Iran showed restraint in sending troops to fight Israel in Lebanon. It knew that it'd get its butt kicked in return by giving the US the excuse it needs to fight. Iranians have shown they won't go gung ho, when they know they can/will be beaten.
When they didn't take on with the threat of conventional retaliation what makes you think they'd risk it with nukes?
|
"When they didn't take on with the threat of conventional retaliation what makes you think they'd risk it with nukes?"
It would only take about 12 nuclear warheads 750 kiloton in size to "wipe Israel off the map" and reduce Israel's 5 million people to a few hundred thousand sick and dying people, which would be far easier and more efficient than a conventional invasion. The Mad Mullahs could care less about Iranian casualties as long as the result of their holy war is the complete destruction of Israel. You seem to favour the Neville Chamberlain approach to dealing with dictators, give them what they want and than they will be nice and leave you alone--that really worked out well, after selling out Czechoslovakia to Hitler, Hitler attack Poland starting WWII in Europe. So after Iran wipes out Israel, why would Iran stop there? The infidel stronghold of Rome and the Vatican would be a rather good point to start once Israel is finished.