Iran is no friend of the Arab world. They’ve long had sticky fingers in other people’s pies, from the Lebanese Civil War to the current conflagration in Iraq today. While this might not translate to armed invasion or occupation, it certainly does amount to a bad rap sheet that suggests it would not be in anyone’s best interests if Iran gained a feeling of significant invulnerability to consequences anytime soon.Only one small question: what aggresion? They aren't going to use nukes, as neither has Pakistan used them and they are arguably similar types of tyranical goverments - Pakistan even had revolutions occur while armed with nukes. I would need some serious proof of hostile intent to think Iran is getting the nuke for anything else then defense against a invading army.
Not to mention the points I made before about its rather unfortunate ties through the Jerusalem Force to al-Qaeda and its apparently consciously shoddy border control of the Afghan frontier.
Striking American bases in the Middle East would severely inconvenience – to say the least – our war effort in Iraq. Not to mention that Israel pioneered the tactic of bombarding neighbors to generate hostility against target groups. Just as the IDF pounded Beirut into rejecting the PLO, so too could Iran one day attempt to destabilize Iraq into rejecting Americans (more than they already do, of course). Even if they don't use bombs or missiles to do it, we want to be able to have a conventional option.Besides, they can't reach the US - no ICBMs remember? The only US thing they can hit is a army base in Iraq or Afganistan - a pinprick that awakens the giant, not exactly something that is in their intrest.
The point isn't that we're afraid Iran will nuke us; it's that we still want to be able to pound Iran when push comes to shove. You need to learn, mmar, that sometimes, it isn't in our best interest that other people be able to defend themselves.
