>>I don't think first strike strategic nukes are on the table even for the Israelis. Now there is a variety of bunker buster that is a limited tactical nuke. They would probably go that far.
>>
>>Of course, a serious attack with the conventional stuff would bring in lots of folks who are standing on the sidelines now to try to mediate some solution. I am not sure there can be a good outcome, other than an internally generated regime-change in Tehran. Makes the 1954 model look pretty good, by comparison. I am always in favor of subversion over airpower.
>
>And never in favor of letting those people decide for themselves, for better or worse. Always in favor of the divine right of the West to intervene and generally do whatever it pleases with those toy countries. Imagine, they wanted to own their oil - we'll give them a puppet emperor, we'll install a CIA kid to be a president, we'll fund any movement that'll overthrow the current government, these guys just aren't capable of governing themselves. Every attempt in that direction has led to the worst possible outcome - they wanted to own their oil, which is a direct attack on our soil.
>
>If you're sensing another hiatus of mine, you may as well be right. If you publicly denounce your dream of American Global Empire, we may talk further - in a world where all countries are equal, no less. Or I'm gone from here. There are other bars.

Are there ones where all countries are equal? Although I agree with your basic POV here, that seems pretty utopian, i.e. ain't gonna happen. I hope this doesn't irritate you so much you go on hiatus.