posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:56 AM
The US set the modern dangerous precedent of 'pre-emptive action' against another nation in 2003.
It set that precedent, now it may live and fall by it.
I don't think Iran will launch an all-out attack on the US pre-emptively, but if US attacking Iraq can be justified, why not?
Iran could say "The US were arming and seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction to be used upon Iran and our allies. The US constitutes a
sponsor of terrorism and an axis of evil. This threat can not stand."
If Iran attacked first, it would be asking for severe destruction, it would be sticking it's head out for the chop. I think it's unlikely Iran would
But if the US attacks Iran first, Iran will be hurting, and will naturally, in it's defence, make the US hurt too, it will have nothing to lose when
considering it is already under attack. Iran will fight tooth and nail as the weaker opponent under attack.
Iran is content to wage low intensity warfare via aiding Iraq's insurgency, to shift the US off it's doorstep, the same as the US would help the
Canadians if China or Russia invaded Canada.
Yes, China, Russia or someone else could use "pre-emptive action" against the US in the future.
And then we shall all see that the seeds of this act was sowed by the US's own "pre-emptive action" on Iraq.
A dangerous precedent that can be followed, and will.
[edit on 17-9-2007 by Regensturm]