Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Big Black Swan who wrote (469538)	2/2/2012 10:47:27 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 794089

I don't think so. As rubin made clear, iran's foreign policy is incendiary in theory but cautious in practice. I think he's right in arguing that the nukes are simply to deter retaliation as it becomes more aggressive in the region. I don't think the mullahs are crazy or stupid enough to risk first use because that of course means the end of Iran as a nation. Neither Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Turkey seem to have the expansionist policies that Iran does, thus they do not need nukes. I agree with rubin that the nukes are a cover. MAD still applies. The complicating problem is that Israel cannot afford to be wrong. Nonetheless, it seems to have done a lot of damage to iran's nuclear efforts via covert means, I.e., stuxnet, assassinations, explosions, etc. Panetta's statements I think are part and parcel of a disinformation/psychological campaign designed to keep the Iranians off kilter.