Much of what is written here is sense but one critical assumption is a problem: that Israel must attack Iran rather than allow it to obtain nuclear weapons. Is this - in fact - as much a consensus opinion in Israel as it appears? Both outcomes are bad at best and potentially catastrophic. At best an attack would delay the Iranian nuclear program by a decade (with the possibility at least that future strikes could cause future delays), make diplomatic pariahs of Israel and the United States and ruin any hope of constructive relations with Israels neighbors for a generation. At worst it would spark another regional war which could leave millions dead and which Israel could conceivably lose. Perhaps I should rephrase that... the genuine worst case scenario is one in which that regional war results in the accelerated acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran (perhaps with help from elements in Pakistan) and their use - in the course of said war - on Israeli soil.
U.S. says working on initiative to de-escalate Syria fighting, with focus on Aleppo (Reuters)
from the article: Israel: Stop alienating U.S. over Iran
The explosive dilemma of 'collaboration' with the Nazis in order to save German Jews split the Zionist movement in the 1930s.00:01 01.05.16 | 0 comments