Gordo, I'm just waiting on the isralis to nuke Iran; then the shit really hits the fan. :O
Let's wargame this out:
1) There is no reason for IL to conduct a first
nuclear strike
- After what Hamas did to a bunch of civilians (both Israeli and foreign), they already have enough foreign govt backing to do what they want in Gaza for a long time to come (which I'll admit, isn't winning them any moral points).
- People may protest worldwide (like the Vienna Pro Palestinian protest in which they protested against genocide of Palestinians in Gaza by the IDF
but also chanted "from the river to the sea" implying that all Jews should be wiped out of IL -- where's the logic in that?) but govts will give IL a pass.
Vienna police on Wednesday banned a pro-Palestinian protest due to coincide with a pro-Israel event after Saturday's attack by Hamas, citing the fact the phrase "from the river to the sea" was mentioned in invitations and characterising it as a call to violence.
www.reuters.com
- Breaking out any nukes would simply trigger a further arms race (the Saudis would want to straight up buy a few) AND would force the rest of the muslim world to wipe Israel out
even if they hated iran more. Israel would lose any moral fig-leaf they might have.
- I would believe IL would conduct a conventional first strike on Iran (which they've done plenty of times in the past) if they find justification that Iran had helped Hamas but I'm more confident they'd go after military targets vs religious or govt (like say the Ayatollah).
2) IMO, Iran has no reason to strike first even if they had nukes
and could decapitate the IL govt (say by taking out Knesset or even Netanyahu). They simply don't have enough arms to survive the resulting counter attack from the US.
3) If the US escalated things, I expect it would be with an attack on Hezbollah after a) Hezbollah tries to open up a wider attack from Lebanon on northern Israel or b) someone tries to pick a fight with the carrier groups (USS Cole's attack was done by a small fiberglass boat + C4; how far can a bunch of drones make it and how good is the US radar system anyway)?
The counter attack by the US might force Iran into the fray but IMO it would stay strictly conventional. THAT might result in the end of Iran but I doubt the other muslim countries would want in on that fight for fear of setting off crazy sunni vs shiite sectarian violence.
I'm also willing to bet that Russia stays out (unlike in Syria where they propped up Assad) because they have their own problems.
Not sure if China would give any fucks either (they'd be happy just to sell arms for oil to anyone who needs it). My hope is that the Pakistanis and Indians would also sit this one out as well.
3) If you had to ask me who would be MOST likely to set off the next nuke, I think it would be a non-state actor like say Hamas. I could see a crazy scenario where Putin or even Iran hands one over just to stir some shit with Israel.
- My doomsday concern here is that the resultant shitstorm of Hamas/Hezbollah attacking IL with a tactical nuke would then give Putin the opp to break out tactical nukes to address his own problem (Ukraine).
- The US and the west would then be forced to react to Russia and/or Iran -- my bet would be on decapitation strikes.
Finally, I dont think the DPRK has anyone they can hit with certainty so they won't even try. The only scenario I see where they might try something is if they see that the US gets so entangled in the Middle East vs Iran (or maybe even Russia) that they think they can hit South Korea. I think they are aware enough of their military capabilities though that they might try more widespread cyber attacks vs a traditiional military attack (say cripple their utilities and/or their LoL servers for exampel). I'll bet though that they are happy enough stealing crypto and keeping their ruling class trucking along. Setting off nukes for them is just a way to solicit bribes from the West.
IMO, the best thing we can do here in the US is add more solar and achieve energy independence (not 'drill baby drill'). Once that happens, we'll still need oil for plastics but these countries can go squabble amongst themselves.
www.businessinsider.com
