Sorry, I scrolled back and saw nothing directly pertinent.
I can't prove or disprove a "prediction".
Iran's missile capability I believe according to analysts is 1000 km. Beyond this, the fact the agreement will remove and pre-empt their (disavowed) ability to create deadly nuclear missile weaponry, regardless of their ballistic technology, means a prediction is hardly more than a baseless fear.
You would need to prove the contrary, no?
Fucking thank you
We've (the whole thread) drifted from my point regarding Bachmann's lunacy due to MY unfortunate analogy to Dr. Strangelove, but still it is interesting.
Now, since I can't prove a prediction wrong, I must believe it is most disproportionate and unlikely. Especially since the framework agreement stipulates the IAEA can traipse down and through and around Iranian facilities, and centrifuges have been extremely limited AND restrained to the older type (except Fordow).
Since the US is strictly out of range, and even if the Iranians might be able to carry nuclear payloads, they have fatwawed and vowed and sign non-proliferation regarding nuclear weapons... well, every aspect just begs negation of such a prediction as nuclear annihilation of any body else.
Besides, the instant Iran would launch a single ICBM, they would be erased from the world by the massively potent US, Israeli, Pakistani, and more nuclear powers. WHO CARES if they get a nuke? They would be afraid to use it; as in past cold-war ideology, it would be a deterrent/defensive measure. As they all are, unless they desire planet-wide destruction.
And Michelle Bachmann is mad, btw.
:D