Iran made a big deal of two weapons it tested during the recent Holy Prophet manoeuvres. One is supposed to be "a radar-evading missile capable of hitting multiple targets," but this was strongly demented in the West. It's probably a variant Scud C with a range of about 700km. The other was a high-speed underwater missile-torpedo. The authenticity of this weapon was much more weakly demented, it seems it may well be real. If it is, it is a threat to US aircraft carriers in the Gulf.
I can't imagine that Iran would attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, had it one, outside the context of an ongoing conflict on that general scale. Certainly not merely to destroy a part of the Palestinian homeland in order to save it. The Mullahs are not interested in the myths of the elders of sion, and though it's just possible Ahmadinejad is, it's highly unlikely. He wants more power, but the Mullahs are not interested in permitting him more.
Iranian nuclear weapons, like this high-speed torpedo, would serve just one purpose, at least though the next twenty years. They would make it difficult for the USA to influence Iranian policy through its military force. It's certainly true that in an all-out conflict between Iran and the USA it would be Israel that would face and possibly suffer Iran's nuclear arsenal rather than the USA itself, but that's merely because the conflict would take place close to Teheran rather than Washington.
It's certainly not good that the world is full of armed nuclear powers, and one more does make the situation incrementally worse than it was before. Nevertheless, Iran is absolutely right to seek complete control of the nuclear fuel cycle because it will need this technology in the future, even if it had no military use for it.
I never apologised for getting picky about your use of the word "apocalypse" in another recent thread, not jack. I am sorry, and that's a good point too. |
