Why would the World respond to Iran's rapid "Breakout" and do what - more sanctions? Based on past "World" responses to German and Russian aggresions as well as recent Islamiic aggressions would you bet your Countries survival on Iran not threatening or even using a nuclear bomb(s)? At least the United States and China are able to restrain N. Korea although "Breakout" negotiations only led to N.Korea getting nuclear bombs and the means to deliver them on ICBM's.

... American intelligence isn't all that good. Sorry, but I don't believe this piece of sludge from the Obama administration. They couldn't see Benghazi coming. They couldn't see ISIS coming. They couldn't see a herd of elephants coming. More lies from The One and his lackeys. No, Israel needs to go it alone. What a surprise. Except Israel would not restrict itself to conventional weapons. Oh, well. That's another tidbit for Obama's CV. Right up there with evacuating U.S. troops from Iraq, while leaving advanced military materiel behind, like ripe fruit to be plucked. Which is precisely what ISIS did, isn't it?

So you are suggesting that the IDF launch nuclear weapons to destroy Iranian nukes based on intelligence? I sure hope not because there is no way the US could protect Israel diplomatically. Regarding Iraq it was boneheads Bush idea to get involved with that cesspool of a land in the first place based on intelligence endorsed by Bibi.

which is reason enough for Israel to be concerned.

ask yourself why? Why also does obama conduct secret negotiations with Iran while excluding our only trusted US ally, Bibi as Israel's PM? Why does obama make war on Israel and make nice with Iran? obama should be impeached. BUILD MORE THAT OUGHT TO DO IT !!!

I would like to know what the U.S. will really do if Iran tries to break through and acquires nuclear weapons? My guess is that more rhetoric until the entire Middle East eventually becomes a dangerous nuclear zone. So much for appeasement!

Read no further. We already know from experience that it's lying bullshit.

the emphasis should NOT be on what do "the morning after", but on how to prevent "the night before". iran has no legitimate need or bogus "right" to enrich uranium. (current levels of enrichment are 10x civilian reactor fuel, and represent over 80% of the work to get to weapons grade.) but they have managed to bluff the issue of dismantling their centrifuges right off the table. in fact, since these futile negotiations began, they haven't even stopped installing new (and improved) ones, they just refrained from turning them on. and they are continuing work on their plutonium reactor, which has absolutely no civilian use, and is only good for one thing - making bombs. none of this is on the table, as we are told to look carefully at the "agreement". bah, humbug!

Sarah has no understanding that over half the world lives down wind of Iran and would severely punish Israel if it ever used any of its nukes. Note that three of the countries directly down wind of Iran are nuclear powers that just may nuke Israel in retaliation. Note also that none of those three are the least bit afraid of the USA. Then there is the "slight" problem that all the nuclear debris from Israel nuking Iran would reach the US food production areas about 5 to 7 days after the blast, contaminating the USA food supply. Americans are so paranoid about vaccines, I am sure they will be happy with radioactive contaminated food.

Israel must destroy Iranian nukes by whatever means are necessary. Obama is full of B.S. The Arab World knows this too and Saudis, in particular, have not been shy about saying so.

nonsense. words ain't worth the paper written on. Iran will get nuclear bombs on missiles. but faces nuclear retaliation if used. goodbye Iran.

yay! spoken like a sooth sayer. Lies, lies & more lies is all we get from our dear friend over the ocean.