Iran vows pre-emptive action if they feel themselves threatened - a silly sabre rattling since they're already threatened - the only way they do something 'pre-emptive' is if they feel the resulting upheaval would benefit them - which of course it might, but not one imagines if they're the ones to start it, especially since the only way they could do something pre-emptive is through their terrorist proxies, and those assets are better used in response to a provocation, not as initiator [I discount closing Strait of Hormuz - that draws America into any conflict which Iran wants to avoid if it can - I tend to not think closing the strait a credible or likely option].
So then, why this threat? I'd say it's either a manifestation of Iran's immaturity or lack of sophistication when it comes to this kind of diplomacy - or they sense an imminent attack is on the table - in which case this threat likely reflects desperation or alternatively possibly an opening albeit clumsy it seems gambit to reset negotiations. My gut tells me it smacks a bit more of desperation, even confusion, than anything else - which of course would mean they sense a strike coming - which could actually be a good thing if it makes them more open to negotiations - but then I tend to think Iran has backed itself into a corner that it can only get out of if we give them what they want [or close to it] - which, again, is the very reason Israel would attack ie, they don't trust Obama.
The odd or interesting or disturbing thing is that whether or not Israel attacks will be based on something none of us can know for sure - do they have a plan they view as viable and do they feel confident it would address their strategic concerns more effectively than doing nothing? I find it amusing when those who oppose Israel's apparent resolve here suggest there's nothing to recommend an Israeli attack because it may only forestall Iran's plans by two or three years - sorry people, but if Israel thinks that two or three years is good enough then that's all that matters if they think they have a viable plan. Surely the people who make this absurd argument understand its limitations - so once again the idiotic rhetoric of innate bias struggles to define the issue in a most unsatisfactory way.
