Holmes writes:
This Iran situation seems pretty volatile . . . Here's a quick one for you . . .: Israel vs. Iran - who wins? Based on sheer military capabilities. From what I understand Israel has one badass military, I think my old boss and I were discussing that a few years ago or something, but Israel is a country you don't want to mess around with.
My Answer:
(Purely one on one?) Israel in a romp. Israel has nukes, for one thing. Israel is not afraid to fight. The biggest problem would be that the land in between Israel in Iran is hostile territory for Israel and what we would almost inevitably see would be a war between several nations and Israel. Hamas and Hizbollah would join in, and it would be a conflagration. Israel would win, but at what cost? And of course, we'd get sucked in. Ugh -- this is why we have to crush Iran's nuclear hopes now.
2 comments:
No doubt Israel has a back-up plan should the world fall at this hurdle but nonetheless wouldn't it be nice if the free world was determined to deal with this dangerous regime as one united force.
Michael --
A guy can dream, eh?
This was the concern many of us hawkish liberals had from the outset with Iraq -- we felt that we had to be careful in picking our fight because if we chose the wrong one we would be in trouble. It does appear that iran is a few years from developing a nuclear threat upon which they could act, but at the same time, do we really want to wait until we see something "actionable"?
Now we are going to have to rely on some adroit foreign policy, both to bring the rest of the world aboard and to keep Iran from acting on their impulses. This is not a balance I am confident that our administration is capable of striking, and so far I do not have a lot of faith in the other side of the aisle also.
Thanks for reading.
dcat
Post a Comment