Israel will almost certainly do something. If Iran's smart it will absorb it conventionally and respond with increased support for Hamas and Hezbollah. If it is set for revenge then it will cause mischief in the Persian Gulf, which will draw us in and then God knows what happens.

America can live with the unpalatable reality of a nuclear Iran or de facto nuclear Iran. Israel cannot. Netanyahu's coming to Washington next week. Things will probably be decided one way or another based on how that all goes.

Right, which is why I want the U.S. to do something. I rather hope that we could get a U.N. authorized use of force if they actually detonated a weapon, but short of that i think we'd have to go it alone with Israel. Although I think we'd have unstated support from all the Persian Gulf States.

That makes no sense. Attacking Iran has too many nightmarish unintended consequences to even imagine doing it of our own accord. If Israel thinks they need to do then they'll make that decision, but an American attack is too much risk for too little gain.

A conventional attack I would have to agree, we lack the resources to go through a second Iraq, but I'm thinking something more along the lines of non-combat support for the Israeli attack, or covert operations to destabilize, or support an already present opposition in Iran. I'd also be happy to see the deaths of major leaders in Iran, hopefully as a result of CIA, rather than Mossad agents. But the CIA is probably too ineffectual to carry them out, and even if they did we'd never know. So I'll have to give up on that little bit of satisfaction.

"If Iran's smart it will aborb it conventionally and respond with increased support for Hamas and Hezbollah.
Using the word smart to refer to support for terrorist organizations that have killed innocent people for decades all over the world is a horrible misuse of the word.
Israel will be completely justified to defend itself from the mullahs trying to develop nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. The real unforseen consequences will occur if Israel not to defend herself before the mullahs have nuclear weapons.

Any military action would be a terrible, terrible idea.

It will only cause further justification in the eyes of the Iranian people to acquire weapons and would back fire as a result.

http://www.economist.com/node/21548233

However I must admit, the idea of Isreal attacking Iran in October, a month prior to the US election would heavily influence the US's chance of sending in troops. A politically genius move on behalf of Isreal...

The Iranians are already developing nuclear weapons without Israel attacking so an Isreali attack doesn't motivate Iran to do something they are already doing and can only have a good result, preventing the Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons. The mullahs are no different than the Nazis in Germany. The world did everything it could to keep nuclear weapons from the Nazis and the world should keep nuclear weapons from Iran. Ask the Japanese and South Koreans the fear of apocalypse they live under because of North Koreas nuclear program. Iran cannot be allowed to become another rogue state with nuclear weapons.

I have yet to hear a good reason why we - meaning the US - should give a flying fuck if the Iranians get nukes.

If the Israelis are worried about it, maybe they should sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and get rid of their 100-odd nukes, because this whole "we've got nukes but you can't, because we're cool and you suck" hypocracy is obnoxious.

I'm having a real hard time feeling that they're significantly at risk, since they've got anti-missile programs out the butt, and if someone wanted to WMD them, a bioweapon would be a lot easier.

If they go ahead and strike Iran, I - again - fail to see why that's our concern if the Iranians retaliate. I'm still not seeing it as our problem - they made their beds, and they can damn well lie in them. I'm pretty annoyed with the conventional wisdom which is that they can dictate our foreign policy by presenting us with a fait accompli - I think that's a load of crap, and if one of our "allies" can cause us to piss away more lives and trillions of dollars we really don't have, then perhaps it's time to reexamine that alliance.

If the Iranians decide to retaliate against an Israeli strike by attacking shipping, the proper response is to blow their navy out of the water, not to go screwing around with airstrikes in the middle of the damn country.

Right Emac, because Israel hasn't been threatening Iran with military action for years.

There is no evidence Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.

James Clapper, the director of national intelligence: "We don't believe they've actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon."
"We do not know ... if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons."

Leon Panetta: "(Is Iran) trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that's what concerns us. And our redline to Iran is: Do not develop a nuclear weapon."

If Iran wanted a war with the U.S., it would be so easy to start one: just attack any of the plentiful U.S. targets in afghanistan, or fund an attack in america. There is no evidence they are doing any of these things. It is Israel--and perhaps the U.S.--sending their agents into Iran and assassinating Iranian scientists.

You'd think that after the Iraq fiasco people would realize that moving into countries on the basis of shaky intelligence is a bad goddamn idea. And if Iran actually is developing a nuclear weapon, this should be discouraged, but they have the freedom to do that.

Israel can defend itself with all the nukes it has yet still officially denies possession them and refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty (which, btw, Iran has signed and still allows IAEA inspectors).

And if I were Iran, hearing bellicose language and under threat of sanctions from nuclear-armed Israel and nuclear-armed U.S., while bordering nuclear-armed Pakistan and rather close to nuclear-armed Russia and nuclear-armed China, all the while bordering the Saudis and their allies, who are begging to "cut off the head of the snake," I might be a bit encouraged to pursue a nuclear program (and yet there is still no solid evidence they are doing so.)

And how is the U.S. supposed to fund another (likely undeclared) war in the middle east? The country is broke, for christ's sake.

Several points, in no particular order:-
Iran is also developing longer range missiles that *will* allow it to reach anywhere, including the US of A.

If Iran does develop nukes, there's no guarantee that Iran will be the one to detonate them - they give (conventional) weapons to Hezbollah after all.

If Iran test detonated a nuke tomorrow and then Washington or London or Syndey was vapourised next week, who would be blamed? Who could be blamed?

The oilfields that supply most of the worlds petroleum are already within missile range of Iran. A Nuclear armed Iran could destroy them and wreck the worlds enconomy (more than it is already,).

Israel has had nukes since the '60s and (allegedly) threatened Egypt that if it ever invaded again they'ed nuke the Aswan Dam - billions of tons of radio active water would flood through the Nile delta. No one would be able to live or grow crops there for decades.

Iran's main atomic facilities are 200 feet down under rock. There are no conventional weapons that can reach that deep, apart from the suggested 6-bombs-down-the-same-hole scenario that is very very very unlikely to work. What would reach them and would be sure to destroy them is a nuke. We (the West/Israel) would have to nuke Iran to stop them developing nukes - oh the irony.

The 2007 U.S. intelligence assessment, reinforced in a 2011 report, was that Iran abandoned attempts to develop a bomb in 2003, and though it is not noticed very much, that is still the official story on the books for the view of the government towards allegations of Iran's "nuclear weapons program." Any ideas that Iran is developing long-range weapons or perhaps (ive heard this one) has a plan to smuggle a dirty bomb into central america are make-believe. Speaking in terms of nuclear weapons, the more pressing (and legitimate) problems are the large numbers of ill-protected or missing nuclear materials in Russia and the instability in nuclear-armed Pakistan.

@Speaker re: Atomic facility depth

The depth of the Natanz facility I believe is something like 22 m of earth covering up 4.5 meters of reinforced concrete. While formidable, the Israelis may have the capability to penetrate it. In general, bombs are less effective at penetrating as missiles, so a missile strike could remove a lot of that earth. Then a plane could drop another bomb - a GBU-37 - into that hole. The GBU -37 can penetrate 6m of reinforced concrete.

But that may not be necessary if they buy some of the new fancy toys the United States is developing. In comes the Massive Ordinance Penetrator. Currently, the US has about 20 of these 30,000 pound bombs, which can penetrate 200 meters of Earth and rock. One of these could easily punch through the 20 meters of earth and 6 meters of concrete protecting this facility, the deepest one of all of Iran's nuclear facilities.

I'm not convinced whether or not Iran is in fact aiming to develop nuclear weapons.

IMHO, there should be international pressure on Iran to adopt either Indian or Canadian technology so they can abandon their enrichment program. Then, station some international agents at the plants to monitor the spent fuel and proliferation becomes very difficult,

When Stalin was a deeply paranoid lunatic who happened to be the de facto God King of the Soviet Union, they didn't launch the bombers. When the Great Helmsman was knee deep in the Cultural Revolution and had evidence that Lin Biao was planning on launching a coup d'etat with Soviet backing, the missiles stayed in their silos. Nixon was straight up nuts in 1974, and had demonstrated a willingness to fight wars just to bolster public opinion, and yet we didn't launch. Pakistan and India have fought shooting wars since both became declared nuclear powers. I fail to see how Iran, which is nationally certain that they and they alone have God on their side and thus that they will win in the end, poses a unique threat to the world with their nuclear program.

Whenever Israel publicly promises to defend itself against Iranian attacks and threates Israel always specifically mentions the Iranian action that merited the promise of legitimate self-defense. Iran is a unique and specific threat to the existense of Israel.

@Goldfinger0303:Oh. Ok..

I think that there needs to be conclusive, indisputable proof of nuclear weapons and effective delivery systems before America does anything other than severe sanctions. Personally, I would rather see the Israelis do the heavy lifting in a hypothetical war. As most of you have said, America simply can't afford much more than a couple of months of shock and awe. We can provide logistical support and possibly air and naval strikes, but that's it. Israel doesn't need a babysitter.

stratagos just about covered my opinion on the issue.

@Gunfighter: So let me get this straight, ignore Iran until they get nukes then attack a nuclear power. GOOD IDEA! (sarcasm)

Allow me to rephrase that. Indisputable proof of the development of weapons-grade uranium or plutonium and a delivery system capable of striking Israel. I'm also not advocating any direct action (other than providing logistical and air support for an Israeli invasion) by the US under any circumstances, unless Iran directly attacks American forces in theater before the hypothetical Israeli invasion. For example, if they decide to shoot a few missiles at the Fifth Fleet tomorrow morning, that's enough justification to go to war.

I would be strongly opposed to an Iraq-style occupation. Just kick their asses and get out. We know that there is support for democracy among the Iranian people, so let them do the work after initial attack.