Israel's desire to bomb and incapacitate Iran's nuclear installations are well known, but a number of people have argued the risks are high. Iran is not enfeebled and disarmed as Iraq was, their installations are scattered and bunkered, they can seize control of the straits of Hormuz, and the US is overstretched. If Israel does attack, it's unlikely to be effective in stopping the Iranian nuclear program, but it would certainly further alienate Iran and make them turn east. The price of oil would skyrocket -- it's possible the dollar would benefit, but the US economy certainly would not. Ahmadinejad, who has turned out to be far madder than expected, not just in our view but in the views of a very large number of Iranians, even those who voted for him, would be enormously strengthened by such an attack. A missile counterattack that could cause some real damage would have to be contemplated, including attacks against Israeli nuclear bomb sites. A full-scale invasion is unthinkable at this point. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and not further strengthen Ahmadinejad's hand. If the West sticks to the NPT rather than trying to add new provisions, he will either moderate or be thrown out of office at the next election. The main problem with the NPT is that the US is overtly ditching it, even as they are trying to use it to put pressure on Iran.
For laughs: over the last three months, the loser gold-in-frozen-tundra CLG has been as good an investment as GOOG. |
