> So why hasn't Ahmadinejad been attacked? Because we're already involved in two land wars in the middle east and asia? Because Iran has at least tepid Russia

> So why hasn't Ahmadinejad been attacked? Because we're already involved in two land wars in the middle east and asia? Because Iran has at least tepid Russian support? Because Iran has a large enough army and national spirit that a war in Iran would be extraordinarily costly and long ranging? The proclivity for removing repressive regimes does not guarantee that the international community will attack, just as the renunciation of nuclear weapons isn't a guarantee that a repressive regime will not be attacked. That's why i'm so skeptical of all of these moral hazard arguments on the international stage. International politics are really complicated, and there are a lot of factors involved in decision making. > I like how you tiptoe around that last bit about nuclear weapons Well caught, but i still think i disagree. It's true that the US hasn't ever attacked or declared war on a nuclear state (well, i'm not sure what the engagement between N and S Korea last year should be called), so we're in hypothetical territory on that subject. But one could equally ask why we haven't attacked Myanmar in spite of their horrendous human rights record, and the answer is simply that China is their sponsor. It's not because of their lack of nuclear arms.