It is better not to attack Iran... 2.0


Verified Military
Jan 22, 2010
Standing in the door
News from Davos guys...John Chipman, the head of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, (one with a last name like that could be the head of Krypto City... LOL) argues: "Israel could mount a bombing raid, but only the United States could mount a sustained campaign."...
More... A "raid" of the sort that Israel could mount would probably leave substantial parts of Iran's nuclear programme intact – as well as leaving Iran with enough military capacity to retaliate against Israel and against western interests in the region. Iranian retaliation, particularly if it involved the threatened blockade of the Strait of Hormuz or overt attacks on western interests, would almost certainly drag the US and key European allies, such as Britain and France, into the conflict.

Pt. 1 of what will happen once Iran gets the bomb:

Saudia Arabia would move quickly to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran successfully tests an atomic bomb, according to a report.
Citing an unidentified Saudi Arabian source, the Times newspaper in the U.K. (which operates behind a paywall) said that the kingdom would seek to buy ready-made warheads and also begin its own program to enrich weapons-grade uranium.
The paper suggested that Pakistan was the country most likely to supply Saudi Arabia with weapons, saying Western officials were convinced there was an understanding between the countries to do so if the security situation in the Persian Gulf gets worse. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have denied such an arrangement exists.

... from your link..


who are they?...oil wells guards?.. LMAO... (MP5 without bananas....)

Saudi Arabia will buy atomic bomb?...uhm... I dont believe in an atomic proliferation in the meddle east...
They'll get them. They have a LOT of money, and need nukes. Pakistan has lots of nukes, and needs money, especially since the US gravy train is about to dry up. Plus, since Pakistan, India, nKorea, and now Iran are showing that there are no real consequences for getting nukes... I mean why not go ahead?
I am one of those guys that thinks they already have bought them when Russia went on a selling spree. As we all know having the bomb is one thing having the delivery vehicle is a whole different issue. My guess would be Saudies bought delivery and war head and have kept it very quiet.
I have never figured how they are like tephlon nothing sticks to Saudi Arabia they get people to defend them fight for them and never get a headline.
For this reason I dont believe in it... too dangerous have the bomb....
I hear what you are saying and any nuclear capability is dangerous to the whole world. Once the bad guys use a nuke the good guys will take that as a green light to fight with equal weapons.
There are a lot of weapons missing from the Russian arsenal.
For this reason I dont believe in it... too dangerous to have the bomb....

I think that used to be the case, but now it's turning the other way. Having nukes is a "get out being invaded by the US" free card, and thanks to Libya now everyone knows it. It is also a golden ticket for foreign aid; no one wants to see a government with nukes fall apart (Pakistan, nKorea).
You left Israel off ghat list: nobody wants to see them fail. Well, almost nobody.
Are you suggesting that Isreal is close to being a failed state or that they would not be able to exist without US support?
Wonder what would happen to the price of oil if we even seriously threatened carrying out a military strike.

Obviously not the deciding factor, but something to keep in mind.