Why should Iran not have nuclear power?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

There is no Right in this solution, then beyond being unfair and partial, it creates problem.

Then the less worse solution would surely be to establish fair rules, to establish Right.

If Right leads to a nuclear war, I still prefer undfairness and partiality.

Fear and absence of reflexion, coupled to absence of Right, unfairness, and partiality would imo give more odds for such a thing.

You just realize that you speak about a nuclear conflict out of nowhere, without considering all nuances of the reality and all solutions that could be used, but just saying Iran=Nuclear War, that's a bit short to me.

I don't say it will necessary happen. Just that Iran having nuclear bomb dramatically increase the odds of a nuclear conflict. So, I'm in favor of taking precautions.

Then, if you want to decrease the odds, have a look to the possible fair solutions. And the earlier the better, what will say if US, or whatever country with nukes, one day become crazy since they already nuclear weapons?? Better to find solutions that put everybody under an equal preventive treatment of such conflicts. The earlier the better to establish some Right in this domain.

I 100% agree, but this doesn't solve Iran's question. While an international regulation on nuclear weapons seems necessary, it's also evident that it won't be reached before a few decades at best. But in Iran case, it changes nothing to the fact that the world will be safer as long as they haven't the atomic bomb.

The fact not to try yet gives more odds to have problems, while trying could help to rule the question.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

There is no Right in this solution, then beyond being unfair and partial, it creates problem.

Then the less worse solution would surely be to establish fair rules, to establish Right.

If Right leads to a nuclear war, I still prefer undfairness and partiality.

Fear and absence of reflexion, coupled to absence of Right, unfairness, and partiality would imo give more odds for such a thing.

You just realize that you speak about a nuclear conflict out of nowhere, without considering all nuances of the reality and all solutions that could be used, but just saying Iran=Nuclear War, that's a bit short to me.

I don't say it will necessary happen. Just that Iran having nuclear bomb dramatically increase the odds of a nuclear conflict. So, I'm in favor of taking precautions.

Then, if you want to decrease the odds, have a look to the possible fair solutions. And the earlier the better, what will say if US, or whatever country with nukes, one day become crazy since they already nuclear weapons?? Better to find solutions that put everybody under an equal preventive treatment of such conflicts. The earlier the better to establish some Right in this domain.

I 100% agree, but this doesn't solve Iran's question. While an international regulation on nuclear weapons seems necessary, it's also evident that it won't be reached before a few decades at best. But in Iran case, it changes nothing to the fact that the world will be safer as long as they haven't the atomic bomb.

The fact not to try yet gives more odds to have problems, while trying could help to rule the question.

You're changing the subject of the question. We're talking about Iran trying to get atomic weapons.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

There is no Right in this solution, then beyond being unfair and partial, it creates problem.

Then the less worse solution would surely be to establish fair rules, to establish Right.

If Right leads to a nuclear war, I still prefer undfairness and partiality.

Fear and absence of reflexion, coupled to absence of Right, unfairness, and partiality would imo give more odds for such a thing.

You just realize that you speak about a nuclear conflict out of nowhere, without considering all nuances of the reality and all solutions that could be used, but just saying Iran=Nuclear War, that's a bit short to me.

I don't say it will necessary happen. Just that Iran having nuclear bomb dramatically increase the odds of a nuclear conflict. So, I'm in favor of taking precautions.

Then, if you want to decrease the odds, have a look to the possible fair solutions. And the earlier the better, what will say if US, or whatever country with nukes, one day become crazy since they already nuclear weapons?? Better to find solutions that put everybody under an equal preventive treatment of such conflicts. The earlier the better to establish some Right in this domain.

I 100% agree, but this doesn't solve Iran's question. While an international regulation on nuclear weapons seems necessary, it's also evident that it won't be reached before a few decades at best. But in Iran case, it changes nothing to the fact that the world will be safer as long as they haven't the atomic bomb.

The fact not to try yet gives more odds to have problems, while trying could help to rule the question.

You're changing the subject of the question. We're talking about Iran trying to get atomic weapons.

No, look this fantastic suite of quotes, everything makes logic, I'm saying since the beginning that, if you want to rule questions like Iran, you have to rule the question of Right in that domain, the earlier the better, for Iran and all cases present or future.

[Lief 🗽]

I'm very sceptical of any type of international "law".

From my perspective, enough countries have nuclear weapons to ensure that no country will run wild with them.

Increasing the number of countries that have them, especially a country like Iran....is simply asking for trouble. I'm not personally interested in "equal rights".

Oh, and Antonio: You're becoming quite a Neocon

I don't think anyone is arguing that Iran ought to have nuclear weapons (I'm definitely not). However, Iran does have a right (recognized by the United States) to peaceful nuclear power, and we should deny this to Iran just because we don't like their government. We're really in no position to decide which states should and should not be allowed to have peaceful technologies.

As an aside, I find it ironic that the people who are so gungho about nuclear power in the United States are some of the strongest opponents of letting Iran develop this power for its own citizens.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I honestly don't care if it's hypocritical. I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, period.

[Bo]

I'm in favour of nuclear disarmament. I don't want anyone to have nuclear weapons.

Neither do I, and Britain should set a precedent by disarming all ours.

I am in favor of worldwide nuclear disarmament as well. However, I think every country that already has nukes (with the expections of Pakistan and North Korea) should have a right to retain them until all other countries agree to reliquish their own nukes as well.

[dead0man]

Why does the US oppose Iran having nuclear power - or for that matter, nuclear weapons? Belief that they will pass it on to Hezbollah or other Shiite terror groups? I'm skeptical. Such a thing would obviously be traced back to Iran and result in the obliteration of Iran.

Which intelligence agency are you going to trust to tell you where a nuclear bomb came from post blast?  Mossad, CIA?  Would you trust them if they had intel pre-blast?

If Israel was nuked and the CIA said it was Hezbollah then people would believe it.

Well yeah, "people" will believe anything.  I asked if YOU would trust them or not.  If random terrorist dirty bomb goes off in Tel Aviv, Mossad says Hezzy did it and got the bomb from Iran.  How would you feel about Israel launching an attack against Iran?  How would you feel if they went nuclear with it?  How long before it becomes "disproportional"?

I've got a feeling that there are some here that would be against Israel retaliating because of a lack of proof.  And I'm not just talking about the the over the top Jew haters like Libertas.

[Хahar 🤔]

I'm in favour of nuclear disarmament. I don't want anyone to have nuclear weapons.

Neither do I, and Britain should set a precedent by disarming all ours.

I am in favor of worldwide nuclear disarmament as well. However, I think every country that already has nukes (with the expections of Pakistan and North Korea) should have a right to retain them until all other countries agree to reliquish their own nukes as well.

Interesting exceptions.

[k-onmmunist]

I'm in favour of nuclear disarmament. I don't want anyone to have nuclear weapons.

Neither do I, and Britain should set a precedent by disarming all ours.

I am in favor of worldwide nuclear disarmament as well. However, I think every country that already has nukes (with the expections of Pakistan and North Korea) should have a right to retain them until all other countries agree to reliquish their own nukes as well.

Interesting exceptions.

Most people tend to base who should have nuclear weapons on who they like.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

There is no Right in this solution, then beyond being unfair and partial, it creates problem.

Then the less worse solution would surely be to establish fair rules, to establish Right.

If Right leads to a nuclear war, I still prefer undfairness and partiality.

Fear and absence of reflexion, coupled to absence of Right, unfairness, and partiality would imo give more odds for such a thing.

You just realize that you speak about a nuclear conflict out of nowhere, without considering all nuances of the reality and all solutions that could be used, but just saying Iran=Nuclear War, that's a bit short to me.

I don't say it will necessary happen. Just that Iran having nuclear bomb dramatically increase the odds of a nuclear conflict. So, I'm in favor of taking precautions.

Then, if you want to decrease the odds, have a look to the possible fair solutions. And the earlier the better, what will say if US, or whatever country with nukes, one day become crazy since they already nuclear weapons?? Better to find solutions that put everybody under an equal preventive treatment of such conflicts. The earlier the better to establish some Right in this domain.

I 100% agree, but this doesn't solve Iran's question. While an international regulation on nuclear weapons seems necessary, it's also evident that it won't be reached before a few decades at best. But in Iran case, it changes nothing to the fact that the world will be safer as long as they haven't the atomic bomb.

The fact not to try yet gives more odds to have problems, while trying could help to rule the question.

You're changing the subject of the question. We're talking about Iran trying to get atomic weapons.

No, look this fantastic suite of quotes, everything makes logic, I'm saying since the beginning that, if you want to rule questions like Iran, you have to rule the question of Right in that domain, the earlier the better, for Iran and all cases present or future.

As I already said, yes, it would be nice, but it won't be done before a while. So, among the currently realizable possibilities, the best one for world's safety is Iran not having nuclear weapons.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

There is no Right in this solution, then beyond being unfair and partial, it creates problem.

Then the less worse solution would surely be to establish fair rules, to establish Right.

If Right leads to a nuclear war, I still prefer undfairness and partiality.

Fear and absence of reflexion, coupled to absence of Right, unfairness, and partiality would imo give more odds for such a thing.

You just realize that you speak about a nuclear conflict out of nowhere, without considering all nuances of the reality and all solutions that could be used, but just saying Iran=Nuclear War, that's a bit short to me.

I don't say it will necessary happen. Just that Iran having nuclear bomb dramatically increase the odds of a nuclear conflict. So, I'm in favor of taking precautions.

Then, if you want to decrease the odds, have a look to the possible fair solutions. And the earlier the better, what will say if US, or whatever country with nukes, one day become crazy since they already nuclear weapons?? Better to find solutions that put everybody under an equal preventive treatment of such conflicts. The earlier the better to establish some Right in this domain.

I 100% agree, but this doesn't solve Iran's question. While an international regulation on nuclear weapons seems necessary, it's also evident that it won't be reached before a few decades at best. But in Iran case, it changes nothing to the fact that the world will be safer as long as they haven't the atomic bomb.

The fact not to try yet gives more odds to have problems, while trying could help to rule the question.

You're changing the subject of the question. We're talking about Iran trying to get atomic weapons.

No, look this fantastic suite of quotes, everything makes logic, I'm saying since the beginning that, if you want to rule questions like Iran, you have to rule the question of Right in that domain, the earlier the better, for Iran and all cases present or future.

As I already said, yes, it would be nice, but it won't be done before a while. So, among the currently realizable possibilities, the best one for world's safety is Iran not having nuclear weapons.

Hmm, let's try a last time, and after enough:

If you don't try you'll get nothing, you have to try the earlier possible to rule Iran and other future questions would it just be for those who already have some. Because trying can rule Iran, not trying will anyways make the situation worse. That's not very hard to get I think, the rest is blind fear.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

There is no Right in this solution, then beyond being unfair and partial, it creates problem.

Then the less worse solution would surely be to establish fair rules, to establish Right.

If Right leads to a nuclear war, I still prefer undfairness and partiality.

Fear and absence of reflexion, coupled to absence of Right, unfairness, and partiality would imo give more odds for such a thing.

You just realize that you speak about a nuclear conflict out of nowhere, without considering all nuances of the reality and all solutions that could be used, but just saying Iran=Nuclear War, that's a bit short to me.

I don't say it will necessary happen. Just that Iran having nuclear bomb dramatically increase the odds of a nuclear conflict. So, I'm in favor of taking precautions.

Then, if you want to decrease the odds, have a look to the possible fair solutions. And the earlier the better, what will say if US, or whatever country with nukes, one day become crazy since they already nuclear weapons?? Better to find solutions that put everybody under an equal preventive treatment of such conflicts. The earlier the better to establish some Right in this domain.

I 100% agree, but this doesn't solve Iran's question. While an international regulation on nuclear weapons seems necessary, it's also evident that it won't be reached before a few decades at best. But in Iran case, it changes nothing to the fact that the world will be safer as long as they haven't the atomic bomb.

The fact not to try yet gives more odds to have problems, while trying could help to rule the question.

You're changing the subject of the question. We're talking about Iran trying to get atomic weapons.

No, look this fantastic suite of quotes, everything makes logic, I'm saying since the beginning that, if you want to rule questions like Iran, you have to rule the question of Right in that domain, the earlier the better, for Iran and all cases present or future.

As I already said, yes, it would be nice, but it won't be done before a while. So, among the currently realizable possibilities, the best one for world's safety is Iran not having nuclear weapons.

Hmm, let's try a last time, and after enough:

If you don't try you'll get nothing, you have to try the earlier possible to rule Iran and other future questions would it just be for those who already have some. Because trying can rule Iran, not trying will anyways make the situation worse. That's not very hard to get I think, the rest is blind fear.

Damn, this quote is starting to get big...
If we manage to establish such thing, then fne with me. If not, it's still better not to have a nuclearized Iran.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

For god sake, stop with this pyramid!

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Iran's energy policy is none of our business.

[Franzl]

Iran's energy policy is none of our business.

I really do wish my brain were as small as yours...

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Iran's energy policy is none of our business.

I really do wish my brain were as small as yours...

Why, do you have some lesion on your brain inhibiting your ability to think objectively?

[Beet]

Why does the US oppose Iran having nuclear power - or for that matter, nuclear weapons? Belief that they will pass it on to Hezbollah or other Shiite terror groups? I'm skeptical. Such a thing would obviously be traced back to Iran and result in the obliteration of Iran.

Which intelligence agency are you going to trust to tell you where a nuclear bomb came from post blast?  Mossad, CIA?  Would you trust them if they had intel pre-blast?

If Israel was nuked and the CIA said it was Hezbollah then people would believe it.

Well yeah, "people" will believe anything.  I asked if YOU would trust them or not.  If random terrorist dirty bomb goes off in Tel Aviv, Mossad says Hezzy did it and got the bomb from Iran.  How would you feel about Israel launching an attack against Iran?  How would you feel if they went nuclear with it?  How long before it becomes "disproportional"?

I've got a feeling that there are some here that would be against Israel retaliating because of a lack of proof.  And I'm not just talking about the the over the top Jew haters like Libertas.

In that case there would only be two real possibilities from the Israeli perspective, one is that they dirty bombed Tel Aviv themselves in order to have an excuse to go after Iran. I am skeptical about this because it is at odds with how Israel has behaved in the past. While they are certainly possibly the most fanatical nation on earth about protecting their citizens. The other more likely possibility is that they did not do it to themselves. In which case, they probably are genuine in their desire to find out who it is. Therefore if they say it's Hezbollah, there is a good chance that it is Hezbollah, and this could start a war.

The only pertinent point however, is that in such a case Iran knows it would face retaliation and they would not likely do such a thing.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Iran's energy policy is none of our business.

I really do wish my brain were as small as yours...

Damn you, Franzl, you make me to agree with Libertas this time

[dead0man]

In that case there would only be two real possibilities from the Israeli perspective, one is that they dirty bombed Tel Aviv themselves in order to have an excuse to go after Iran. I am skeptical about this because it is at odds with how Israel has behaved in the past. While they are certainly possibly the most fanatical nation on earth about protecting their citizens. The other more likely possibility is that they did not do it to themselves. In which case, they probably are genuine in their desire to find out who it is. Therefore if they say it's Hezbollah, there is a good chance that it is Hezbollah, and this could start a war.

The only pertinent point however, is that in such a case Iran knows it would face retaliation and they would not likely do such a thing.

Well they (Iran) could just deny it.  That would be a good enough excuse for 90% of the people that are "anti-Zionists" today to say Israel made it up.  That's about half of Europe and maybe a third of the US.  There would be many people in the West that would be against Israel retaliating.

And this scenerio, because of the easy potential excuses Iran can come up with, is much more likely than Iran putting warheads on rockets and firing them at Isreal.....for numerous reasons.

[MasterJedi]

What we really need is some nice secret mission inside Iran to destroy their nuclear program. Sneak in, plant explosives, get out, then boom. They wouldn't be able to prove anything and wouldn't dare do anything about it or they'll be annihilated.

[Beet]

In that case there would only be two real possibilities from the Israeli perspective, one is that they dirty bombed Tel Aviv themselves in order to have an excuse to go after Iran. I am skeptical about this because it is at odds with how Israel has behaved in the past. While they are certainly possibly the most fanatical nation on earth about protecting their citizens. The other more likely possibility is that they did not do it to themselves. In which case, they probably are genuine in their desire to find out who it is. Therefore if they say it's Hezbollah, there is a good chance that it is Hezbollah, and this could start a war.

The only pertinent point however, is that in such a case Iran knows it would face retaliation and they would not likely do such a thing.

Well they (Iran) could just deny it.  That would be a good enough excuse for 90% of the people that are "anti-Zionists" today to say Israel made it up.  That's about half of Europe and maybe a third of the US.  There would be many people in the West that would be against Israel retaliating.

And this scenerio, because of the easy potential excuses Iran can come up with, is much more likely than Iran putting warheads on rockets and firing them at Isreal.....for numerous reasons.

There are always many people in the West against Israel retaliating. If they had any power, Rachel Corrie would still be alive.

[Lief 🗽]

What we really need is some nice secret mission inside Iran to destroy their nuclear program. Sneak in, plant explosives, get out, then boom. They wouldn't be able to prove anything and wouldn't dare do anything about it or they'll be annihilated.

Yay, state-sponsored terrorism!

[Хahar 🤔]

What we really need is some nice secret mission inside Iran to destroy their nuclear program. Sneak in, plant explosives, get out, then boom. They wouldn't be able to prove anything and wouldn't dare do anything about it or they'll be annihilated.

No.