They haven't 'unleashed' anything until they drop those bombs,
Not yet to the Iranians, but to the Palestinians and Lebanese, they have. 1,200 Lebanese dead, a million displaced, as a result of Israel's disproportionate but deliberate use of force against "Hizbollah" but actually targetted Lebanese civilians and their infastructure, causing £13billion pounds of damage to Lebanon's infastructure in what was a prospering economy and an attractive place for tourists. Lebanon was also known as the "Paris of the middle east" before Israel invaded them in the 1980s and bombed the poor innocents in th 2006 conflict. And the Palestinians have been suffering since the creation of Israel in 1947.
The Israelis take thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners and encroach on the Palestinians' right to live in a free, soverign state, but 7 of their soldiers get kidnapped as a last resort to try and get Israel to release the prisoners it keeps
unlawfully and Israel goes beserk on innocent civilians. Is such a state trustworthy with nukes? I think not, not to mention Israel is an occupier. (Re: captured lands in 1967, UN wants Israel to end occupation.)
I do want peace in the Middle East, which i believe can be achieved if Israel withdraws from land captured in 1967 and subsequently Hamas recognises Israel's right to exist- a 2 state solution
but I would be very surprised if a plan to attack Iranian nuclear facilities didn't exist. Whether that plan involves nukes, and how likely it's implementation may or may not be are different matters.. Israeli security is usually pretty tight and I suspect such a story would only get into the papers if the Israelis wanted it there to give Iran something to ponder on.
Nobody seriously doubts the Iranian nuclear project is to develop weapons, despite increasingly implausible denials. The Israelis simply consider Iranian nukes to be too great a threat to their own security, and Ahmenijad's stated intention to destroy Israel hasn't exactly helped in that regard.
I dont agree with the statement that Israel should be wiped off the map. However, i dont think Iran would use nukes first, even average citizens know the dangers of nukes. Iran also faces a threat from Israel, and not just by words. The west did nothing when Israel was developing nukes, and now they are lashing out at Iran and N.Korea for the same thing, that is hypocrasy. Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear factories in the 1980s and plans to do that to Iran, it seems Israel is trying to be the military power of the middle east, which can have disasterous consequences for Arab and Muslim nations neighbouring it, as shown by the Israel-Hizbollah war.
Just as innocent people in Israel might die or suffer if Iranian nukes get dropped on them, and I doubt those bombs would be exploding 'deep underground'. That is the scenario the Israelis wish to avoid.
Yes, innocents in Israel would suffer if Iran were to use nukes. I dont want to see either Israel or Iran bombed. But clearly Israel, by making plans to attack Iran with nukes nonethless, is acting first, not as a retaliation.
'Allow'? Who exactly was capable of stopping them? The trouble is that Israel does not intend to have the same regrets in relation to Iran.
The West could easily have stopped Israel from developing nukes. It is rumoured that Britain actually supplied hard water to Israel. The US was pissed at first, but accepted it. Because of that, neighbouring nations may feel threatened and inclined to do the same to prevent a gap between military power.
