Israel's myth of invincibility drives a dangerous idea-- attacking Iran

Mirek good point; Israel doesnt need US help or money. Let them go alone since Iran is not a threat to the US.

Kevin, you are correct in that if Israel survived a nuclear attack they would retaliate, likely destroying every Islamic nation their missiles could reach. I really don't think Israel would limit a retaliatory strike to just the suspected nation who nuked them; instead they'd use such a horrific incident to at least cripple (if not annihilate) all Islamic nations. They would be foolish to leave the other Islamic nations intact and capable of finishing Israel off when Israel would be at it's weakest trying to recover from a nuclear attack. Of course, that's assuming it was a limited (one suitcase bomb) attack and Israel is still capable of retaliation.

While we know Israel has nukes placed in strategic land based areas (areas likely far from Tel Aviv) I don't believe she has sub deployed nukes yet, though she may have some deployed on Naval ships that would be capable of a limited retaliation. Either way, any nuclear attack on Israel would be devastating to all living there, Jews, Christians and Islamics alike, and would undoubtedly trigger a severe response from the US if the perpetrators were known.

I'm still not convinced that Iran would attack Israel even if Iran had several nukes, for several reasons. First, regardless of popular opinion that because Iran is an Islamic nation and has supposedly said they'd like to see Israel destroyed, the Ayatollah and his top cleric advisers are not suicidal madmen. They are fully aware that Israel (or the US should Israel not be capable) would retaliate with enough nukes to make Iran disappear, and regardless of that 70 virgin martyr belief (crap) they so willingly indoctrinate their foot soldiers into believing I don't believe for a second that the top leaders in Iran really believe that or want to die to find out. Religion is one thing but their personal instinct to survive and continue to live in luxury, as the top leaders of any nation invariably enjoys, is as strong or stronger than their urge or desire to see Israel destroyed if it meant their own end in the process.

It's almost never the rich and powerful that are willing to be that guy to strap on a bomb vest; it's usually those who financially have little or nothing and who have been indoctrinated from childhood to believe it is what their God would want that decide it would be an honorable thing to die while killing some of their enemy.

Look at Bin Laden. He came from money and while he did give up the luxurious life he would have had if he had not dedicated his life to his lost cause, he never strapped on a vest, he had his followers for that. When faced with capture by the US Navy SEAL Team it was initially reported in the Pakistani media that he died because he fought to the end, when in reality the SEALs had orders to kill on sight and their account was he was seated when they entered his room and they killed him as he went to stand up. There was no heroic attempt to fight off his captors, likely because he was hoping (after hearing the raid well before they reached him) to be taken alive.

Dead he is a hero and martyr to many (for awhile but that would fade in time), and while his death was expected to set off mass (and maybe major) attacks, in reality that has not happened. Alive he is revered enough among the Islamic extremist groups that he would know there would soon follow many attempted kidnappings of high level targets (politicians and/or their children) to be used as bargaining chips for his release, regardless if the US would ever trade him or not.

Bin Laden came from money and likely still had limited access to family funds, but in the end he did not practice what he preached. He chose not to fight his enemy when they came for him; not to die for Allah and the 70 virgins. How much more reluctant would someone as wealthy and powerful as the Ayatollah be to give up all he has? Especially when he can likely arrange for a non-Iranian to deliver the suitcase, throwing suspicion on Syria, Pakistan or Lebanon, all of whom are experiencing internal turmoil making it more believable. Hell, Pakistan has plenty of nukes and Israel and the US have been worried for over a year that Pakistan's internal turmoil (which is getting worse) might lead to some of those nukes falling into the wrong hands, especially when some of the generals who have possession and control of those nukes are at the center of the problems.

I'm sure you'll disagree with much of this, especially with my opinion that peace in the M.E. would be more likely if at least one of Israel's neighbors had a nuclear arsenal. As I've said before, Israel behaves badly and aggressively towards their neighbors because they can, because they have nukes while their neighbors do not. Their are those who would say that Israel's nukes keep the peace by keeping the neighbors at bay, but history has shown time and again that when both parties have the capability to destroy the other through the use of nuclear weapons it creates a draw, if you will, and understanding we call Mutually Assured Destruction. It has worked for Pakistan & India; US & USSR; US & China, etc.

Until one of Israel's neighbors becomes a nuclear power to be recconed with Israel will continue to feel that they can get away with whatever they want. Would Israel treat Iran (constant threats of attack, etc.), Iraq (bombing their nuclear facilities), Syria (bombing their nuclear facilities), Lebanon (bombing suspected Hezbollah targets that resulted in destroying a Mosque and killing over 100 civilians), Egypt (killing several police and military personnel who were in UNIFORM, while claiming they mistook them as Palestinian terrorists), etc., as badly as they have if those nations had a nuclear arsenal? I'm no fan of the current Israeli regime but even I don't believe they would be that dumb.

I believe Israel is so desperate to maintain nuclear superiority in the area (thereby maintaining their bully ability) that there is no hope that they will not attack Iran. I believe, as well, that Israel would attack Egypt or any other neighbor to prevent them from acquiring the ability to stand up to Israel. Israel wants to maintain the "biggest bully on the block" status they currently enjoy, not out of any realistic fear that every Islamic nation wishes their destruction, but simply to maintain superiority. While I don't fault them for wanting that, we have seen by their actions that the potential for abuse of that power is all too real.