Israel had a large nuclear submarine threat with the promise of sudden destruction to any attacker the deterrent of this would be highly debatable to a nation willing to allow children to run across mine fields to clear them for more seasoned troops.

The U.S. would be required to follow Kennedy's previous line - "any attack launched from .... would be taken as an attack on the soil of the U.S. and require a full retaliatory response." However this only works where the other people fear such an outcome. Iran's theistic state is not one that follows the normally rules of diplomacy.

What is the answer? An Invasion of Iran? U.S. forces are already stretched. Th

Iran is the main inheritor of the Persian heritage. With this in mind it is understandable why they have immense pride and the belief they should be a major power on the world stage, pushed around by no-one. They have a population of approximately 70 million or over three times the size of Iraq. One wonders if the USA and its allies are struggling over controlling Iraq and preventing it from sinking into civil war how they can expect to go to war with an even larger country, with even more fanatical dedication (just read the history of the Iran-Iraq war) based on a theistic state. With this in mind the U.S. facing the horror of a nuked up Iran. Whilst Iran's president continues to speak publicly about the Iranian's people natural right to nuclear power may convince a domestic audience there is no doubt that nuclear power in Iran means one thing - a Nuclear Weapon capable Iran.

Many say so what! There are many other nuclear nations, - U.S., Russia, Ukraine, China, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and possibly North Korean (although their test was less than desired for) and South Africa (previously had nuclear weapons but now has disarmed and renounced such weapons). Whilst most of these players have a decades long history of nuclear it is the new players that raise the most fears. Pakistan and India although new are not a worry. They are so intent on each other they are unlikely to be thinking of using nukes in other roles than keeping each other in check.

North Korea appears to be backing from full blown nuclear status rather using the possiblity as a bargaining chip.

So with this world situation in mind why is Iran joining the club such a worry? Because firstly Iran is hugely anti-American, and fanatically anti-Israel. Iran has swore to the destruction of Israel and is seem as a major sponsor of terrorism. The fear is that if Iran achieves nuclear status that these weapons will find themselves in the hands of terrorists and suicide bombers. Any realistic observer knows that in the massive trade going around the world that it is impossible to control the movement of all goods (see the international narcotics trade, or fake designer goods to see the proof of this). Hence the chance of stopping a nuclear weapon being smuggled into the U.S. or Israel is next to nil. Whilst a logical person would realize that letting a nuclear bomb go off in down town Tel Aviv would result in the deaths of numerous Palestinians and others, one knows that a suicide bomber does not fit in the average definition of a logical person.

The U.S. knows well that if Iran goes nuclear it is a matter of time before a situation occurs whereby World War Three would start. Even if Israel had a large nuclear submarine threat with the promise of sudden destruction to any attacker the deterrent of this would be highly debatable to a nation willing to allow children to run across mine fields to clear them for more seasoned troops.

The U.S. would be required to follow Kennedy's previous line - "any attack launched from .... would be taken as an attack on the soil of the U.S. and require a full retaliatory response." However this only works where the other people fear such an outcome. Iran's theistic state is not one that follows the normally rules of diplomacy.

What is the answer? An Invasion of Iran? U.S. forces are already stretched. The

ontinues to speak publicly about the Iranian's people natural right to nuclear power may convince a domestic audience there is no doubt that nuclear power in Iran means one thing - a Nuclear Weapon capable Iran.

Many say so what! There are many other nuclear nations, - U.S., Russia, Ukraine, China, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and possibly North Korean (although their test was less than desired for) and South Africa (previously had nuclear weapons but now has disarmed and renounced such weapons). Whilst most of these players have a decades long history of nuclear it is the new players that raise the most fears. Pakistan and India although new are not a worry. They are so intent on each other they are unlikely to be thinking of using nukes in other roles than keeping each other in check.

North Korea appears to be backing from full blown nuclear status rather using the possiblity as a bargaining chip.

So with this world situation in mind why is Iran joining the club such a worry? Because firstly Iran is hugely anti-American, and fanatically anti-Israel. Iran has swore to the destruction of Israel and is seem as a major sponsor of terrorism. The fear is that if Iran achieves nuclear status that these weapons will find themselves in the hands of terrorists and suicide bombers. Any realistic observer knows that in the massive trade going around the world that it is impossible to control the movement of all goods (see the international narcotics trade, or fake designer goods to see the proof of this). Hence the chance of stopping a nuclear weapon being smuggled into the U.S. or Israel is next to nil. Whilst a logical person would realize that letting a nuclear bomb go off in down town Tel Aviv would result in the deaths of numerous Palestinians and others, one knows that a suicide bomber does not fit in the average definition of a logical person.

The U.S. knows well that if Iran goes nuclear it is a matter of time before a situation occurs whereby World War Three would start. Even if Israel had a large nuclear submarine threat with the promise of sudden destruction to any attacker the deterrent of this would be highly debatable to a nation willing to allow children to run across mine fields to clear them for more seasoned troops.

The U.S. would be required to follow Kennedy's previous line - "any attack launched from .... would be taken as an attack on the soil of the U.S. and require a full retaliatory response." However this only works where the other people fear such an outcome. Iran's theistic state is not one that follows the normally rules of diplomacy.

What is the answer? An Invasion of Iran? U.S. forces are already stretched. Th

ey are so intent on each other they are unlikely to be thinking of using nukes in other roles than keeping each other in check.

North Korea appears to be backing from full blown nuclear status rather using the possiblity as a bargaining chip.

So with this world situation in mind why is Iran joining the club such a worry? Because firstly Iran is hugely anti-American, and fanatically anti-Israel. Iran has swore to the destruction of Israel and is seem as a major sponsor of terrorism. The fear is that if Iran achieves nuclear status that these weapons will find themselves in the hands of terrorists and suicide bombers. Any realistic observer knows that in the massive trade going around the world that it is impossible to control the movement of all goods (see the international narcotics trade, or fake designer goods to see the proof of this). Hence the chance of stopping a nuclear weapon being smuggled into the U.S. or Israel is next to nil. Whilst a logical person would realize that letting a nuclear bomb go off in down town Tel Aviv would result in the deaths of numerous Palestinians and others, one knows that a suicide bomber does not fit in the average definition of a logical person.

The U.S. knows well that if Iran goes nuclear it is a matter of time before a situation occurs whereby World War Three would start. Even if Israel had a large nuclear submarine threat with the promise of sudden destruction to any attacker the deterrent of this would be highly debatable to a nation willing to allow children to run across mine fields to clear them for more seasoned troops.

The U.S. would be required to follow Kennedy's previous line - "any attack launched from .... would be taken as an attack on the soil of the U.S. and require a full retaliatory response." However this only works where the other people fear such an outcome. Iran's theistic state is not one that follows the normally rules of diplomacy.

What is the answer? An Invasion of Iran? U.S. forces are already stretched. Th

sive trade going around the world that it is impossible to control the movement of all goods (see the international narcotics trade, or fake designer goods to see the proof of this). Hence the chance of stopping a nuclear weapon being smuggled into the U.S. or Israel is next to nil. Whilst a logical person would realize that letting a nuclear bomb go off in down town Tel Aviv would result in the deaths of numerous Palestinians and others, one knows that a suicide bomber does not fit in the average definition of a logical person.

The U.S. knows well that if Iran goes nuclear it is a matter of time before a situation occurs whereby World War Three would start. Even if Israel had a large nuclear submarine threat with the promise of sudden destruction to any attacker the deterrent of this would be highly debatable to a nation willing to allow children to run across mine fields to clear them for more seasoned troops.

The U.S. would be required to follow Kennedy's previous line - "any attack launched from .... would be taken as an attack on the soil of the U.S. and require a full retaliatory response." However this only works where the other people fear such an outcome. Iran's theistic state is not one that follows the normally rules of diplomacy.

What is the answer? An Invasion of Iran? U.S. forces are already stretched. Th

Israel had a large nuclear submarine threat with the promise of sudden destruction to any attacker the deterrent of this would be highly debatable to a nation willing to allow children to run across mine fields to clear them for more seasoned troops.

The U.S. would be required to follow Kennedy's previous line - "any attack launched from .... would be taken as an attack on the soil of the U.S. and require a full retaliatory response." However this only works where the other people fear such an outcome. Iran's theistic state is not one that follows the normally rules of diplomacy.

What is the answer? An Invasion of Iran? U.S. forces are already stretched. The U.S. only likely allies in such a venture would be Britain and Australia and such a battle would require total mobilization and introduction of the draft. Not politically popular.

I believe any battle with Iran would be on the scale of World War Three as other nations became involved - Syria for sure, other Islamic nations as well? It depends on how well the leaders can hold their populations in check. But any such war with Iran is likely to result in a all bets are off situation and lead to a us and against them war of the West against Islam. If this were to happen nations like Indonesia, Malaysia and others may be draw in whether they want to or not.

One thing for sure is that the stakes over this one a very high indeed. Maybe both players need to have another look at their hands!