the extra-messy and clearly unwinnable war in Afghanistan also isn’t popular within the Pentagon. But it happened; Mr Obama CRANKED UP this “land war in Asia”, and it will drag on and on, if he wins re-election.

Yeah, let’s disarm in front of those homicidal maniacs and “everything will be for the better in the best possible world”.

Brilliant.

If you posses a second strike capability you have already made that decision (that you can strike) this is like ‘double-deterrence’, that you could strike. So obviously the moral thing have already been dealt with.

What matters does it make if Israel doesnt have an allied on its borders? And do you think US/Israel is a proxy to each other?

A moral state will not engage in a second strike. The logic of “I am dead, I will kill you” is not a moral stance.

If that is known, then the logic of MAD is mute. It depends on the second strike. If the second strike is mute, then MAD is mute.

Israel does not have allies that border Iran, and have historically shelled Iranian civilians.

Hezbollah has crossed the proxy threshold. They do not act independently.

The actual reality is different than you describe, and perhaps think.

MAD is about nukes, there is no such things as “limited strike” when it comes to this area – (you may be thinking of conventional weapons, which WMDs are not), MAD implies massive response which makes it no sense for 2 nuclear states to wage war, especially if one of the states have a second strike capability.

Thats not what a proxy is that is considered an allied partner if anything, likewise does Israel have allies that would help in case of war. Nothing strange about it.

Israel have threatened and argumented for an attack on Iran for decades. You could google and see for yourself how it has advanced during the years.

A humane state does not consider annihilation of another, even after a strike, certainly not after a limited strike.

It is only a successful theory of deterrence when the parties are geographically remote.

When there is any intimate violence, the theory breaks down.

Again, Hezbollah has crossed the threshold of proxy, in referring to an attack on Iran as a retaliation (implying that they are attacked).

The only extent that they are genuinely independent is very sadly because of the 2006 excessive war.

The presence of Iran and as proxy, and of active support of resistance oriented to the dissolution of Israel, changes the nature of the relationship.

They then no longer engage in remote deterrence, but in active aggression and escalation.

It is reasonable for progressives to insist on deescalation, and to oppose changes that amount to destabilization of an actual deterrent relationship.

Absent Iran developing weaponry actively defining Israel as the targeted range, Israel has not aggressed on Iran that I’m aware of.

Can you site an instance in which Israel aggressed on Iran prior to that escalation?

MAD works like any other conflict, the theory of MAD doesnt change dependent on states involved. Its fixiated.
Israel have also admit this through various statements, indicate a recognition of MAD.

Saying that Iran is the one threatening Israel with war isnt credible for one bit. You surely dont belive that yourself, I understand that you will make such an argument for the sake of argumentation debate.

Hezbollah have neither threatened Israel with a first strike, they have however repeatedly said that they could help Iran IF Iran would be attacked by Israel.

Using the word proxy is a bit repetitive too in the debate. The lebanese group are no longer a “proxy” its independent. Likewise no one wold call Israel a proxy to United States etc.