For instance, I am not anti Israel, but I'm not really either a pro Israel (in the sense of agreeing always with what they do). I see this as a very risked move, because Iran has a bigger "stock" of potential troops than Israel, and considering they probably match military-wise (Israel might have more technology but don't count Iran out too easily), it would be quite of a tough one, and Israel has disadvantage to have a small country compared to Iran, it can be a problem strategy wise. Not to mention the wide support in Iran that a war against Israel has, unlike Israel population, probably less manipulated by "propaganda" (they probably dislike Iran, but they aren't into a blind hate where they would be willing to sacrifice everything for the "cause).
Now, about the posts regarding WW3 and how it would be positive, especially for economy, I wonder where the heck you get that false idea from. You think WW3 will be a battlefield in a set place with both armies fighting while investors/generals sit in cozy places drinking tea and coffee while discussing and enjoying the show? (ie: WW1)
You have several scenario, and none is "all the better in the best kind of worlds".
*You have a long lasting war, where both sides suffer alot but the leaderships don't want to give up and carry on until last troops are gone. You get this kind of war in the movie "Things to come", which I hope some of you already seen (or read book otherwise). Sure this is 75 years old, but it gave a good idea of what a long drawn war would become. Take into mind technology is less evolved in this movie than the end of WW2 which leads me to second situation.
*Side A launch two missiles both equipped with nuclear power, you get the like of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but in the start of the war (and the devastating damages would be increased due to the progress made in 65 years), due to thinking it would make the enemy surrender quickly. However, the enemy, side B, being filled with hate towards side A, will either ask for their allies, and/or strike back with deadly surgical strikes, except it wouldn't be with rockets. There, it would likely be bacteriological/electromagnetic weapons, either by their own creation or acquired from black market, striking the main cities from side A to cause deep damages.
If side B manages to get nuclear power countries in their side, these will attempt to attack side A's main cities and/or weapons factories/launching facilities as well as military bases, and you can see how the war can last differently depending on the stubborness, amount of powerful allies or ways to strike back.
The amount of material casualties, and even more human casualties would be giant. Not to mention that the weapon factories would be targeted (down goes the theory of "I will get rich from the misfortune of the others"), and if the "investors" were to live in one of the main cities from side A (or B...), they could as well die in one of the nuclearstrikeback/bacteriological attacks from strike B and its allies.
Judgement Day in Terminator, just a movie? Take a guess.
Yes movies (or fictional books) remain fiction, but you have some of these which contain some truth, if the situation or a similar one could happen. I don't think they would think about Terminator or Things to Come if they were to go for a WW3, because these would appear to be movies and thus because they are movies they wouldn't be taken seriously.
However, I agree this is unlike this orange alert news is the risk to start WW3.
[/spoiler]
