There are certainly 2 things which are worse

Submitted by Jon-a brit in Euroland (France), May 15, 2006 at 09:49

While being in complete agreement with you regarding the unacceptable risks of the Iranian "Governement" being in charge of a nuclear weapons system, there is clearly another bad outcome of the US not eliminating this option, and that is the Israelis eliminating it.

Assuming that Israel has far more limited tactical resources and precision than the US in military options, it is quite likely that Israel would, if left to this as the only alternative to a predictable attack, at some time or another, take out the Iranian system, with far far more collateral damage.

Israel was founded as the refuge for the world Jewish community, and has about 6 million jewish citizens (about the number killed by Germany). It is inconceivable, whatever the costs, short and long term, political and economic, for Israel, and for the world, that Israel would not preemtively strike Iran if, in Israel's judgement, and its alone, there was a significant chance that Iran might launch seek to nuclear weapons against it.

The likelyhood of this pre emptive strike being nuclear must, logically, be significant, if it is true that such facilities are deep underground. A megaton style weapon would make a large hole in even a well buried installation, and would require precision in hundreds of meters not in tens of centimeters.

The US would preserve its own interests by doing it before the Israelis. Unfortunate perhaps, but it's about time to be real.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".