Cerebreus said:
Iraq. I know there's a war already going on there, but once the U.S. leaves, Iran will most likely attack Iraq. Hard feelings still persist from the war they had.
I don't think so, Iran mostly had a problem with Saddam's regime, not the country itself, and in an unprecedented gesture Iran offered to assist Coalition forces in toppling the regime. But they were snubbed, UK and US probably did not trust them and they were right as it wasn't long before Iranian weapons and training were being used against Coalition forces though there were many other groups that were active like Al Qaeda and other local insurgents.
The new liberal democratic political system in Iraq is much more suited to subversion than an outright attack, that would be foolish and probably fail from Western military might and may even open up a full scale invasion of Iran a la Iraq-Kuwait circa 1990. Iran would certainly have it's military crippled and likely lose its best men.
The danger from Iran is acute, their nuclear weapons programme, it could make Iran a wild card and effectively untouchable as everyone knows, you don't invade a country that ACTUALLY has weapons of mass destruction, only that you THINK they have them.
This means Iran can be FAR more bold in spreading their Islamic Revolution which has traditionally meant supporting terrorist groups as much as democratic processes. They would never bomb Tel Aviv, that would be stupid as before the dust had even cleared there would be ten thermonuclear missiles aimed at Tehran, either from USA or Israel or whoever.
No but this means Iran can fight an incredibly aggressive proxy war with little fear of retaliation or invasion as it would be too risky. It is true when they say their nukes would be for defensive purposes but likely to defend themselves what would likely be morally indefensible.
PS: I highly doubt they would give it or let a rogue terrorist organisation take their bomb as that negates their purpose as making them invulnerable to attack.
