Certainly, that's how the Iranians view it, and will respond in kind. We're not ready, and never will be for another multi-generational war, this time with Shi'ia Islam.

The hope in Jerusalem (and by some in Washington) is that some element of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards can be provoked into doing something really stupid. Then, it's game on.

It would be politically disastrous...oil speculation will drive gas prices through the roof. Everything I've read are signals from the administration saying 'don't do it'. I just don't see how or why this administration would countenance such a move by Israel.

Seems more plausible to me that the RW extremists in both Israel and the US are on the same page and both share common interests on their domestic fronts: Israel hardliners see this as a great opportunity to marginalize moderates in Israel and Republicans here figure this will derail our economic recovery just in time for the elections in November.

Obama -- under pressure from the extremists, perhaps -- just put down a line in the sand, a trip wire for war, that he didn't have to. Here's the alternative: call a White House press conference and stand there with the Sec of Defense, the heads of Nat'l Intelligence, and the JCS, with the flag behind them and announce that any party that launches a preemptive strike will be dealt with as an attack on the United States.

End of threats of war. So, he loses a few extremist votes in November. He has plenty of political capital to spare.

a nuclear arms race in the middle east would be a disaster, and if Iran continues flouting the NPT, that's exactly what will happen.

Wesley Clark has the right take on this:

http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x318636

Kudlow: wes clark, the last word. this is a
military dictatorship, the mullahs are front men.
this is a military dictatorship. shouldn't we
reckon with them and deal with them as such?

Clark: i think we will reckon with them and deal
with them as such. the president said they are
not going to get a nuclear weapon. he said all
options on the table, and i think that this
ratcheting up is going in exactly the right
direction. it's really up to the iranians to see
how far they want to take it, but the united
states is prepared to take it all the way.

the Saudis financed the Pakistani nuclear program, with the help of Bush, Sr. as CIA Director and President. Pakistan is KSA's military proxy. The Saudis (and, by extension, GCC states) are already a de facto nuclear-armed state.

No reason for the Saudis to pay to develop their nuclear capability a second time.

Non-proliferation in the Middle East, in effect, only applies to Iran. The other major regional powers already have their own.

By the way, possession of the bomb is a proven deterrent. Not having a nuclear capability has proven to be fatal.

Riyadh will build nuclear weapons if Iran gets them, Saudi prince warns

A senior Saudi Arabian diplomat and member of the ruling royal family has raised the spectre of nuclear conflict in the Middle East if Iran comes close to developing a nuclear weapon.

Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former Saudi intelligence chief and ambassador to Washington, warned senior Nato military officials that the existence of such a device "would compel Saudi Arabia … to pursue policies which could lead to untold and possibly dramatic consequences".

He did not state explicitly what these policies would be, but a senior official in Riyadh who is close to the prince said yesterday his message was clear.

"We cannot live in a situation where Iran has nuclear weapons and we don't. It's as simple as that," the official said. "If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, that will be unacceptable to us and we will have to follow suit."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/29/saudi-build-nuclear-weapons-iran


Saudi Arabia To 'Immediately' Go Nuclear Should Iran Develop Bomb

Saudi Arabia would immediately push to acquire nuclear weapons should Iran carry out a successfully nuclear test, according to a report in The Times.

Quoting an unnamed Saudi source, the newspapers said that Riyadh would launch a “twin-track nuclear weapons programme” should Tehran finally achieve their long-standing ambition of becoming a nuclear-armed power.

Since the Iranian revolution of 1979, Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia has suffered an uneasy relationship with their Shia neighbour, with religious, cultural and ideological divisions stretching back centuries.

Should Iran "go nuclear", the move would be seen by Riyadh as too great a threat, triggering an arms race in the Middle East.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/10/saudi-arabia-nuclear-bomb_n_1267571.html

is that true?

eta: It should be noted that Israel has had nukes for at least 45 years and that did not start an ME nuclear race, why would Iran be any different? I will add that SA would love to see the US and Israel 'take out its rival in the oil business Iran, in such an event SA could and IMO would plead total innocence and solidarity with it's Islamic brethren. All of which is why IMO SA threats are simply empty wanting someone else to accomplish what they can not afford to politically, and as has been already pointed SA has assisted in the development of nukes else where and so already has access to them

What a bizarre claim.

so it could be concluded that SA would have access via Pakistan

That seems a little odd.

your saying that if I do not support the US and Israel working in tandem to make some sort of preemptive strike against Iran, then I am in favor of nuclear proliferation? do I understand that right? sounds rather either or to me, however I myself prefer the middle ground of sanctions and perhaps increasing isolation. As it stands the Iranian people are already frightened and unlike Israeli's it is not fear of what could possibly maybe might happen in some unknown future but of what Israel and possibly the US could do right now this minute.
In the recent past you have seemed in favor of low level assassination and cyber type warfare, has that changed now as pressure increases during an election year? It could be taken that way?

others who feel threatened and want to join the exclusive club. It's understandable that those already in The Club and exercising their realpolitiik privileges do nasty things to exclude others. Half of the current members are, by the way, dictatorships, so nothing would much change by Iran's membership.

That sounds like Cold War hawkish philosophy. And it's not clear to me that there is any country that has been defeated or attacked simply through not having the nuclear bomb, and that would have done better if it had one. I think the fewer countries that have nuclear arms, the better, if only because of the danger of accidents. I wish all countries would get rid of theirs, but that is not likely. But we could do without further proliferation.

'Now Luxembourg is next to go
And who knows, maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next?'
(Tom Lehrer, 1964)