Let's Sanction Iran and see what happens next.

[oladub]

The House just passed HR 2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009. Once again, Congress has surrendered its duties to the President. It authorizes the President to sanction Iran as he sees fit, take measures to respond to violations of human rights and religious freedom in Iran, and impose additional measures to prevent the diversion and transshipment of sensitive dual-use technologies to Iran
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...94&tab=summary

The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. It is not 1948 anymore. With so much knowledge on the internet, unemployed Russian scientists looking for some good pay, and Pakistan sharing information with N. Korea, it has become almost impossible to stop the spread of this technology. This sounds like a fools errand and will probably cause increased levels of hostility with not only Iran but probably Russia and China.It does not lend itself to a speedier withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq because the President has now been assigned another mission in that part of the world.

The Senate voted unanimously for this bill. Only 12 Representatives, 3R and 9D , voted against this measure. As of April 22, the Senate and House were working out their differences to send this bill on to the President.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich address this bill as something akin to an act of war.

[Meddle]

I think there's more grounds to sanction The Vatican.

[Detroitnerd]

There's something unbalanced about this. The United States has almost 10,000 nuclear bombs, and is the only country to have ever used a nuclear weapon. The United States is allied with one country that has an estimated stockpile of 100 nuclear weapons that isn't even a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The United States is happy to supply nuclear material to India, in violation of the NPT. The United States has been pretty trigger-happy for the last 100 or so years, invading plenty of countries and killing their civilians too.

But Iran, which has not invaded any other country in the last 100 years, must not have nuclear material at all, even for peaceful uses. OK. Fine. And we wonder why the people of the world roll their eyes at us.

[gibran]

I sometimes think Iran and Israel have a secret pack..[[just kidding of course)..they are gaining from this rhetoric ....it takes away from the real issues...many inside Israel doesn't believe that Iran is going to Nuke the other residents of the Holy Land...not good form to nuke your beneficiaries.

we should continue to pressure through proper channels and stop the go it alone neocon driven foreign policy of past few years....

I wish we could just get ride of BIBI and his racist FM and Imadinnerjacket...then we would have real opportunity to keep Israel from self destruction and Iran from self inflicting...

Iran needs the revolution to gain strength again and Israel needs to find leadership that doesn't have a personality disorder....and the Palestinians needs an opportunity to develop real moderate leadership...not hamas [[although they were elected -even if it was by only 1/4 of the population)

but with 200 hundred nukes pointed all over the middle-east no wonder the neighborhood is edgy....

[gibran]

Got to love the Ron and Dennis show..sanity in a insane congress...

[Retroit]

Maybe this will allow Obama to commit some foreign policy blunder like his predecessor, and then all his supporters will be put in the same position that the supporters of his predecessor were put in.

[Patrick]

There's something unbalanced about this. The United States has almost 10,000 nuclear bombs, and is the only country to have ever used a nuclear weapon. The United States is allied with one country that has an estimated stockpile of 100 nuclear weapons that isn't even a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The United States is happy to supply nuclear material to India, in violation of the NPT. The United States has been pretty trigger-happy for the last 100 or so years, invading plenty of countries and killing their civilians too.

Plus Israel has a good number of nukes as well. Obama was asked which nations in the Middle East have nukes and he totally dodged the question. Why doesn't Israel admit that they have nukes?

[Bobl]

When push comes to shove, the Israelis will solve the problem, as they did in Syria.
Sanctions don't work.

[TKshreve]

All I see here is complaining about how the US addresses [[or lacks to properly address) nuclear ambitions of other countries. I don't recall reading one suggestion as to how we should effectively tip-toe our way around this current and real threat. Let's wake up and realize that we need to take action. I don't have the answer, but I am a big believer in taking action now. Countries are actively pursuing nuclear arms and complacency is not going to solve a thing. Sanctions may stir the pot in these countries and cause the overthrow these evil regimes [[a potential solution). It's obvious most of "those" countries have no intention of diplomacy or foreign intervention on these matters. N Korea will continue to test fire missiles. Iran will also continue this ongoing cat and mouse game we have played into for years now, until their nuclear ambitions are realized. The thought of Mother Russia selling technology to regimes sends shivers down my spine. I don't even know what to think about China, but I'm not gonna go poking them in the side. These are very clear and present threats.

You must see that countries/regions out there that would be happy to get their hands on something to lob at our country causing mass death and destruction. Afterall, it is much more suitable and efficient than flying planes into our buildings. Right?

Or do you suggest that this is how we ended up in Iraq? blah blah

DNERD WROTE:

There's something unbalanced about this. The United States has almost 10,000 nuclear bombs, and is the only country to have ever used a nuclear weapon. The United States is allied with one country that has an estimated stockpile of 100 nuclear weapons that isn't even a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The United States is happy to supply nuclear material to India, in violation of the NPT. The United States has been pretty trigger-happy for the last 100 or so years, invading plenty of countries and killing their civilians too.

But Iran, which has not invaded any other country in the last 100 years, must not have nuclear material at all, even for peaceful uses. OK. Fine. And we wonder why the people of the world roll their eyes at us.

D-nerd - While what you say is statistically true, you leave out all interpretation of the situation. I could use statistics to tell you the Lions will win the superbowl next year and my cat will have a 50+ goal season on Pavel Datsyuk's line. I can only agree with you on the India comment, assuming that's the entire story.

Our stockpile was an effect of the balance [[your word too ) of power maintained throughout the Cold War. When that balance is lost, you have what we saw in 1914 Europe. At least we have contemporary leaders who are willing to slowly unwind the tension through stockpile depletion [[another feeble solution, but one at that).

Regarding the trigger happy comment: WWI and WWII were not our decisions. We more or less were the main factor for ending those wars. Nuking Japan was ruthless, but so was Pearl Harbor. The choice to end the war was a choice of US lives invading Japan or Japanese lives through submission. Vietnam and Korea were to quell the spread of Communism into countries that [[ready for it) did not want to be communist countries. GASP! Desert Storm was justified, and only further justified the toppling of Saddam. Where we have gone since then is certainly debateable, but to call our country trigger happy and leave Germany, Japan, N Korea, N Vietnam, Russia and modern day terrorist regimes off the radar is very one sided, or unbalanced at that.

And your last comment is a doozy. Way to paint Iran with the smiley paintbrush. Yeah, they're harmless. [[except for the fact they openly want to nuke Israel off the map) [[With peaceful nuclear technology of course)

[East Detroit]

I sometimes think Iran and Israel have a secret pack..[[just kidding of course)..they are gaining from this rhetoric ....

Well, if such a pact existed, I would think that the USA [[and/or its corporations) would be involved.

Speaking of mutual benefit:

Imagine if the Middle East had no oil and had succeeded in removing Israel.

What would our next move be?

I am guessing something like making a lot of glass.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Imagine if the Middle East had no oil and had succeeded in removing Israel."

"What would our next move be?"

No move, the middle east would be of little consequence.

[TKshreve]

Quote: "Imagine if the Middle East had no oil and had succeeded in removing Israel."

"What would our next move be?"

No move, the middle east would be of little consequence.

So you're saying the middle east wouldn't hate our guts and still be willing to die for that belief? Hmmmm.......

[gibran]

The people in the middle east did not hate us until our policies directly effected their lives...despite the mythology...it's not Americans they hate; it has been their policies and some of their actions... if you were exposed to double standards would not resent the actions?

majority of the people just want to live in a fair and just world...most Israeli's and Palestinians are just plain folks trying to survive the policies of their governments....however if we demonize one group and not influence another...the frustration boils over and small segments spoil it for many others,,,,

Tk you seem to take on a neocon...the time to act is after the people of Iran stops trying to overthrow their government...you wanted a united country attack it now...but don't tak emy take on it...take the government..they are not willing to go into another phase of this conflict without exhuasting all elements of diplomacy and pressure..by the way it is coming form even Russia and China at the moment.

[Papasito]

Imagine if the Middle East had no oil and had succeeded in removing Israel.

What would our next move be?

I am guessing something like making a lot of glass.

Is radioactive Gasoline more fuel efficient
Just kidding, of course

The people in the middle east did not hate us until our policies directly effected their lives...despite the mythology...

They just warred with each other for the last 3000 years, now they can war with each other and us for the next 3000

[Detroitnerd]

All I see here is complaining about how the US addresses [[or lacks to properly address) nuclear ambitions of other countries. I don't recall reading one suggestion as to how we should effectively tip-toe our way around this current and real threat. Let's wake up and realize that we need to take action. I don't have the answer, but I am a big believer in taking action now. Countries are actively pursuing nuclear arms and complacency is not going to solve a thing. Sanctions may stir the pot in these countries and cause the overthrow these evil regimes [[a potential solution). It's obvious most of "those" countries have no intention of diplomacy or foreign intervention on these matters. N Korea will continue to test fire missiles. Iran will also continue this ongoing cat and mouse game we have played into for years now, until their nuclear ambitions are realized. The thought of Mother Russia selling technology to regimes sends shivers down my spine. I don't even know what to think about China, but I'm not gonna go poking them in the side. These are very clear and present threats.

Are you familiar with the term "begging the question"? Instead of how people usually use it [[they are trying to say that something "prompts" a question), "begging the question" means acting as though the matter is settled and not worthy of looking into. I see plenty of examples of this in your post.

"It's obvious most of "those" countries have no intention of diplomacy or foreign intervention on these matters."

"Iran will also continue this ongoing cat and mouse game we have played into for years now, until their nuclear ambitions are realized."

"These are very clear and present threats."

See, these are statements designed to negate questions and further critical thinking. You seem to enjoy pounding the podium and declaring that Iran is a threat, that other countries have no interest in negotiating, and that the only response other than brute force is complacency. None of this is necessarily true, of course. Because Iran is not a threat. Iran has not invaded another country in more than a century. Iran has helped the United States, actually, by supporting the regime we gave power to in Iraq and helping provide intelligence on "bad guys." And all this despite the fact that we have operatives in that country bent on making trouble. What's more, the United States refused to negotiate with Korea, and what happened? They just went ahead and developed a bomb. Good thing we didn't negotiate with them, huh? Even though the United States has allies who scoff at the very NPT that Iran is a member of.

See what I've done? I've provided facts for you. I didn't just bang my gavel and say Iran is not a threat. Do same when you want to debate and you'll get mucho respect.

You must see that countries/regions out there that would be happy to get their hands on something to lob at our country causing mass death and destruction. Afterall, it is much more suitable and efficient than flying planes into our buildings. Right?

So let me see this scenario properly. You are saying that a country on the other side of the world is going to develop a nuclear weapon. Even though our own intelligence estimates say that they are years away from developing a bomb, if they were developing a bomb, which they aren't. How do they get it here? And what do they expect once they bomb the U.S.? The U.S. to roll up and die? It would be suicide to attack the United States. If any country wants the bomb, it is not to attack the U.S. It is to defend against attack. Notice how North Korea totally went off our Axis of Evil radar once they had the bomb? It is because other countries know that Washington will not negotiate, and does not honor the NPT when it comes to its allies. What you need is a serious, fair and international framework for enforcing non-proliferation, as well as a serious effort to downsize our stockpile. That sort of go-it-alone tough talk is what contributed to North Korea going atomic.

Or do you suggest that this is how we ended up in Iraq? blah blah

Well, maybe it hasn't been such a hot idea to spend the last 50 or 60 years picking strongmen to run those countries, every so often having their people revolt and select rulers who, for some weird reason, think America is a bully pushing its nose the affairs of sovereign nations.

D-nerd - While what you say is statistically true, you leave out all interpretation of the situation. I could use statistics to tell you the Lions will win the superbowl next year and my cat will have a 50+ goal season on Pavel Datsyuk's line. I can only agree with you on the India comment, assuming that's the entire story.

You lost me there.

Our stockpile was an effect of the balance [[your word too ) of power maintained throughout the Cold War. When that balance is lost, you have what we saw in 1914 Europe. At least we have contemporary leaders who are willing to slowly unwind the tension through stockpile depletion [[another feeble solution, but one at that).

All I'm trying to do is compare the United States military actions over the last 100 years with Iran's military actions over the last 100 years.

United States, 1910-2010, includes nuclear bombings, mass nuclear weapon stockpiling, invasions of countries all over North and South America and Asia and the Middle East, establishing hundreds of bases all over the world. It also winks at its ally having an estimated 100-200 nuclear weapons and not being an NPT signatory, and supplies nuclear material to India, in violation of NPT.

Iran, 1910-2010: Defends country from Iraqi invasion, which was encouraged by Washington and done using American arms.

So, judging by these nations' actions, who is more likely to be a threat?

Regarding the trigger happy comment: WWI and WWII were not our decisions. We more or less were the main factor for ending those wars. Nuking Japan was ruthless, but so was Pearl Harbor. The choice to end the war was a choice of US lives invading Japan or Japanese lives through submission.

Ah, yes, good old World War I and II weren't our fault. So what about our actions in Honduras [[1911-1912, 1919), China [[1911-1941), Panama [[1912, 1918-1920), Cuba [[1912, 1917-22), Turkey [[1912), Nicaragua [[1912-1925), Mexico [[1914-17), Haiti [[1914-34), Dominican Republic [[1916-24), the Soviet Union [[1918-1920), Croatia [[1918-1920)? That's just one decade of meddling in the affairs of other countries. What about the dozens of strongmen installed by the U.S. government 1910-2010? What about the tens of thousands of people killed or disappeared by "our bastards"? The list goes on and on. The fact that you refer to the two world wars suggests you don't know the extent of U.S. military actions throughout the 20th century and beyond.

Vietnam and Korea were to quell the spread of Communism into countries that [[ready for it) did not want to be communist countries. GASP!

Have you ever read the Pentagon Papers? Did you know that lots of blue-chip American companies wanted a piece of Vietnam? Did you know that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened? You should look into the history a bit more, perhaps.

Desert Storm was justified, and only further justified the toppling of Saddam.

This is begging the question. Why was it justified? Use facts. Explain to me why it was necessary to kill thousands of civilians, turkey shoot a fleeing army, rain down death and destruction on a civilian population and destroy power and sewage in violation of international law. Explain what justified the death of 500,000 people, mostly children, during the ensuing American embargo. Explain what justified bombing Iraq's innocent civilians year after year during that embargo. And, finally, explain to me what justified killing an estimated 600,000 people, and forcing another 1 million to flee the country. Was it getting rid of weapons of mass destruction? Or was it toppling Saddam Hussein [[who we put in power in the first place)? Or was it bringing "democracy" to Iraq [[which seems to have been code for bringing in American business and ensuring private control of Iraq's national resources, elections be damned).

Where we have gone since then is certainly debateable, but to call our country trigger happy and leave Germany, Japan, N Korea, N Vietnam, Russia and modern day terrorist regimes off the radar is very one sided, or unbalanced at that.

Actually, I'd argue you get a more one-sided picture by including the world wars and leaving out all of the other Adventures of Captain America.

And your last comment is a doozy. Way to paint Iran with the smiley paintbrush. Yeah, they're harmless. [[except for the fact they openly want to nuke Israel off the map) [[With peaceful nuclear technology of course)

[/quote]

Begging the question again? These are facts, TK. Iran has not invaded another country in more than a century. Iran is pursuing peaceful atomic power under the rules of the NPT and the eyes of the international community. Our own intelligence agencies have determined that Iran is not after a bomb. No Iranian leader has threatened to nuke Israel. None of what you say is true.

Until you marshal some facts and stop just saying that something is so because you say it, you will find it hard to get people to take you too seriously.

But I don't say that to be rude. I encourage you to read the history. It's all just a Google-search away.

[Papasito]

There is a lot of information supporting insurgents armed trained and funded by Iran's government. There are many accounts of Iranians engaging American military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Stories of Iran thwarting every move America makes over in the Middle East are old and well documented. Iran has funded and armed folks who have sent American soldiers home in boxes.
They are no friend of ours.

There has been some uprising in Iran lately. It would maybe be in our best interest to support these people and maybe even help put some force behind them. I dont see Yabadabbadinnerjacket and the Ayatola of RockandRolla kindly stepping down because of peaceful protesters anytime soon.

I'm not encouraging arming some uprising Iranian rebel like we armed Osama Bin Ladin, I'm just talking about America officially recognizing the Iranian uprising and giving it some official clout in the world community.

[Detroitnerd]

There is a lot of information supporting insurgents armed trained and funded by Iran's government. There are many accounts of Iranians engaging American military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Stories of Iran thwarting every move America makes over in the Middle East are old and well documented. Iran has funded and armed folks who have sent American soldiers home in boxes.

Where are these stories, Papa? Links? Can you explain why Iran would be arming and training and funding insurgents when the government the U.S. swept into power is Shia, not Sunni, and therefore much more friendly to Iran? After all, the U.S. backed the Sunni leader [[Saddam Hussein) for years and even fomented war between Iraq and Iran. Now that Iraq's leadership is Shia, Iran is much happier. Can you provide links that aren't from disfotainment media?

There has been some uprising in Iran lately. It would maybe be in our best interest to support these people and maybe even help put some force behind them. I dont see Yabadabbadinnerjacket and the Ayatola of RockandRolla kindly stepping down because of peaceful protesters anytime soon.

So, you claim that Iran is funding and arming insurgents -- and that's bad. So you want to fund and arm dissenters in Iran? Presumably that's good? Well, teh good news is that the United States is already doing that.

I'm not encouraging arming some uprising Iranian rebel like we armed Osama Bin Ladin, I'm just talking about America officially recognizing the Iranian uprising and giving it some official clout in the world community.

Oh, sure. We never would want to twist the politics of a sovereign nation to our advantage. We all know what happens when we do that. All you're proposing we do is twist the politics of a sovereign nation to our advantage. Much smarter.

[TKshreve]

Our own intelligence agencies have determined that Iran is not after a bomb. No Iranian leader has threatened to nuke Israel. None of what you say is true.

Dnerd - Funny you would utilize our intelligence as all knowing, all seeing - but at the same time fault the Bush administration for their lack of intelligence for the invasion of Iraq. Unless you think that we went in knowing they didn't have nukes. But that would make everyone who approved of the invasion a liar as well, right?

You are saying that a country on the other side of the world is going to develop a nuclear weapon. Even though our own intelligence estimates say that they are years away from developing a bomb, if they were developing a bomb, which they aren't. How do they get it here? And what do they expect once they bomb the U.S.? The U.S. to roll up and die? It would be suicide to attack the United States.

Is that an example of one of the facts you would like others to use to support their opinions? Are you using "our intelligence" to support your facts? I will say it is quite impressive that you have an open line of communication with our intelligence officials. What color is the phone you use? I think there is a general understanding that "our intelligence" has been wrong in the past. It has cost the lives of many innocents. It really feels like you are cherry picking instances of "intelligence" when they support your stance.

I think everyone can agree that nobody knows what Iran is pursuing. But the fact remains that the country is in turmoil. The residents have openly protested/rioted in the streets. Their election fell under high scrutiny. Iran does not want to co-operate with the UN - on anything related to its nuclear ambitions. Ahmadinejad does not like Israel. Can you agree with me that these are facts?
[[PS - I researched the notion that Ahmadinejad said he wanted to bomb Israel off the map. While his quote may have been skewed out of context according to the internet , his disapproval of Israel in general remains)
Looks like, smells like, walks like.........


And while it may not be in any country's best interest to attack the United States, I should remind you that this is not how war goes anymore. Perhaps I could have been more clear by saying groups/regimes instead of country's/regions. There are groups out there who want to hurt the United States and all of her citizens. They do not indentify themselves with a flag. They would gladly set off a dirty bomb and hide in the sewers of New York. That is exactly what terrorism stands for; The epitome of cowardice. So it's easy for me to say that there are countries that would support the use nuclear weapons [[ballistic or any other form manageble) by groups/regimes/cells; inside or outside of our borders, whose nationality is not identified by the colors of a flag, but by the amount of American blood spilled.


Dnerd - You have obviously taken the time to respond to my post line by line. Thank you. Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the patience to attend to you claims of "begging the question" and the history of US foreign invlovement from 1910-2010. Maybe I will tackle that mountain later, but for now I have the luking idea that this will be enough for you and I to chew on.

Good day.

[Detroitnerd]

Dnerd - Funny you would utilize our intelligence as all knowing, all seeing - but at the same time fault the Bush administration for their lack of intelligence for the invasion of Iraq. Unless you think that we went in knowing they didn't have nukes. But that would make everyone who approved of the invasion a liar as well, right?

Back up a bit, hombre. The intelligence that was used as a pretext to the invasion was very carefully finessed by Dick Cheney and company. They basically set up an operation to massage incoming intelligence to point to a preconceived conclusion.

The intelligence I'm talking about did not come from that. It was done by apparently sane people in the intelligence community to show Iran's real intentions and perhaps to scuttle talk of an attack on Iran.

So I don't believe there's a double-standard there. Read up on it.

Is that an example of one of the facts you would like others to use to support their opinions? Are you using "our intelligence" to support your facts? I will say it is quite impressive that you have an open line of communication with our intelligence officials. What color is the phone you use? I think there is a general understanding that "our intelligence" has been wrong in the past. It has cost the lives of many innocents. It really feels like you are cherry picking instances of "intelligence" when they support your stance.

Oh, stop showboating. You don't have to have a contact in the intelligence community. You just have to read the newspaper.

Here's the llink from 2007

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120300846.html

And here's a link reiterating same from late last year.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/215529

If you take issue with these reports, perhaps you should take it up with the Washington Post, or Newsweek, or perhaps with the intelligence agencies who came to those conclusions.

I think everyone can agree that nobody knows what Iran is pursuing. But the fact remains that the country is in turmoil. The residents have openly protested/rioted in the streets. Their election fell under high scrutiny. Iran does not want to co-operate with the UN - on anything related to its nuclear ambitions. Ahmadinejad does not like Israel. Can you agree with me that these are facts?

You are still begging the question. As for the turmoil, yes, many people in Iran disapprove of the government in Tehran. I don't know if that can be called daily turmoil. The government still seems strong enough to make deals with Russia and China. [[And, of course, if we really don't like Ahmadinejad, perhaps we shouldn't have installed the Shah in the first place.) Their election has been scrutinized, yes, and I'm glad of that. Frankly, I wish we had the same scrutiny brought to bear on our elections.

As for the United Nations, who referred Iran to the Security Council? It was the United States. Washington has a long history of using narrow issues to bring censure from the Security Council. And even though the IAEA game the country a clean bill of health, it was still referred to the Security Council. So they cooked up a modified plan to effectively bribe Iran to not enrich uranium. It's the classic old game of coming to somebody with an offer they can't accept. And then when they refuse to accept the terms, you declare them an outlaw. And you know what happens to "bad guys."

Now, as to your other question, why would anybody in the Middle East not like Israel?

[[PS - I researched the notion that Ahmadinejad said he wanted to bomb Israel off the map. While his quote may have been skewed out of context according to the internet , his disapproval of Israel in general remains)
Looks like, smells like, walks like.........

So now you're a mind-reader? Lucky us.

And while it may not be in any country's best interest to attack the United States, I should remind you that this is not how war goes anymore. Perhaps I could have been more clear by saying groups/regimes instead of country's/regions. There are groups out there who want to hurt the United States and all of her citizens. They do not indentify themselves with a flag. They would gladly set off a dirty bomb and hide in the sewers of New York. That is exactly what terrorism stands for; The epitome of cowardice. So it's easy for me to say that there are countries that would support the use nuclear weapons [[ballistic or any other form manageble) by groups/regimes/cells; inside or outside of our borders, whose nationality is not identified by the colors of a flag, but by the amount of American blood spilled.

This is all getting pretty far-fetched. Even though our intelligence community finds them to not be making or planning a bomb, even though they've been peaceful for 100 years, even though they appear eager to avoid a U.S. attack, even though they'd be stupid to try to attack the United States, we must attack them first because some unspecified group may get unspecified materials and may, at some uncertain date, attack a U.S. city? That wouldn't stand up in a court of law, and it sure as heck shouldn't be U.S. policy.

Dnerd - You have obviously taken the time to respond to my post line by line. Thank you. Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the patience to attend to you claims of "begging the question" and the history of US foreign invlovement from 1910-2010. Maybe I will tackle that mountain later, but for now I have the luking idea that this will be enough for you and I to chew on.

Well, thanks for responding too. But I would caution you to read your history, TKshreve. We cannot run a country based on feelings, guesses or hunches. That's how you could wind up attacking a peaceful country of 70 million people.

[Detroitnerd]

Speaking of this issue, here's something from a former CIA analyst on Israel's nuclear arsenal vs. Iran's nuclear program.

http://www.counterpunch.com/mcgovern04272010.html