No one here appears to be any the wiser about the likelihood, or the timing, of an Israeli attack on Iran. And those who are certainly don't talk about it. What I did, however, hear about a year ago β from a journalist who claims to "know people" in "defence circles" β is the following:. The US State Department has resolved that it is not in America's interests to spearhead, participate in, or even to be seen to be behind, an attack on Iran. It prefers to leave the Israelis and Iranians to their own devices, to fight matters out β to the death, if necessary β between themselves ironically, the quintessentially Jewish "don't get involved" approach.
On learning of this decision, Israel β in order to force America's hand and deter it from a policy of isolationism β informed the US that, if Israel were to suffer an obliterative could there be any other for a country of this size? Farfetched, I know, but it does possess a certain cold logic.
And, if Iran were to strike first, part of me certainly would want Israel to at least take out all of those enemies that have made our lives so difficult for the past sixty-odd years. My guess is that the reality will be somewhat of an anticlimax.
But then it'll be "nappy time": Will Iran still have the capability to return the favour? Would there be a warning? And, if so, how much? Not living in a modern building, my apartment does not have a mamad reinforced room. And, despite having lived on Melchett during the Second Lebanon War, I have absolutely no idea where the nearest communal shelter is.
Anyway, given a few minutes or thirty, I would still choose to do the same thing. Being single, however, the big question would be "With whom? I mean imagine having to work through lists of past dates, flings and girlfriends in the knowledge that there is a nuclear missile on its inexorable way.
