Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Their borders with Jordan and Egypt are probably in the "OK" range, if they nuked Iran (!!!) that could change.  Iran obviously encourages others to do their dirty work, which is a bit odd because Iranians and Arabs historically don't get along, at all, in fact, they despise each other.

I don't see some magical solution to any of this mess, certainly not one involving nuclear weapons (nor does anyone else).

I'm in favor of supporting Ukraine.  It's really a pretty small "donation" in relative terms and keeps them afloat.

There was a "deal" made with Russia, the nukes would go back and in return Russia agreed to leave Ukraine alone.  It looked like a good deal at the time.

Russia was starting to look more akin to a possible ally, and Bill Clinton was President.

The Trilateral Process: The United States, Ukraine, Russia and Nuclear Weapons | Brookings

Later in 1993, the Ukrainian and Russian governments signed a series of bilateral agreements giving up Ukrainian claims to the nuclear weapons and the Black Sea Fleet, in return for $2.5 billion of gas and oil debt cancellation and future supplies of fuel for its nuclear power reactors.

For some reason I thought it was W, since he did so much other damage around the world.

So, it was Clinton. Interesting.

Either way, it makes sense. The fewer countries with nukes, the fewer opportunities exist that one goes rogue and uses them. It made a small addition to Russia's nuclear stockpile, but it reduced Ukraine from "some" to "none". 

Granted, it may have led to this, but if Ukraine currently has weapons and Russia still invaded, how much more likely would it be that a desperate Ukraine uses them if they're in danger of being completely overrun? 

I don't think a first use of nuclear weapons against Iran would do anything for Israel but make things much much worse, and they appear to think the same way, which is notable.  Iran is not their only problem of course.  Making new problems seems ill advised to me.

How is attacking a country who's leaders have openly acknowledged wanting your country erased from existence cause 'more' problems? 
The Arabs don't care if you nuke Iran.  They'd understand it and understand they're not at risk.  Most would probably be happy about it.
Iran is a wart on the ass of the world.  Everything would be better if their threat-level matched their ideology:  back in the bronze age.

Israel has the world's biggest bully standing right beside it in support.  No, nuclear isn't a "good" idea, but it's better than further decades of inevitable skirmishes.  Enough with the generational fighting. 
We destroyed Germany, they're now an ally.  We destroyed Japan, they're now an ally.  Iran can get back to being a humdrum entity someday, but only if we (Israel, with our backing) press the reset button for them.

Excuse me for having a conversation.
You're right, they won't do it.  
They'll just continue to have to fight for their existence, constantly, for the next 80 years.  
That's way better.

Great post.