I have that same kind of fear, today. With the U.S. and Israel threatening to attack Iran.
Regardless of what you think of Iran, I think one should always hear both bells, or both sides of the story. And Iran's President gave many interviews where he explained, among other things, that both the U.S. and Israel have several nuclear bombs (or weapons of mass distruction), and that both nations show some perverse hypocrisy, when they use the argument that "Iran could be building a nuclear bomb!", as an excuse for what they really want, which is to invade Iran, and gain control of its oil deposits. And all this in the name of "democracy", or the "safety" of mankind. Yeah, right...
Well, excuse my rant, I'm actually very concerned about what could happen. This is Israel's current attitude on the subject: http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/23478/Default.aspx
And, speaking of Castro, a few years ago he provided a glimpse of what would happen if the U.S.A. and Israel were to attack Iran: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TNTupjH44E
There's a big difference. Iran has publicly stated that it wants to wipe Israel off the map. The US has had nukes for 60 years and have not used them. The world doesn't need more nukes (especially in dictatorships like Iran), it needs less. The president of the US can't just decide one day to nuke a country, decisions for war have to go through congress. Iran wouldn't have to go through that process. You're not really making a good case for why Iran needs nukes.
A) I'm not making a case for Iran needing nukes, I'm saying they will be attacked because of allegedly
being building one nuclear weapon, while the countries who will perform the attack have dozens of nuclear weapons. Last time a country was attacked by allegedly
having nukes (Irak), it was a flat out lie, it costed a fortune to U.S. citizens, and Bush even laughed at those inexistent weapons in public.
B) American people didn't want to invade Irak (or for that matter Vietnam, way back then), and yet the Government found a way to do it anyway, didn't they? Yeah, they went to congress before, I'm sure you can't manipulate congress decisions. That's why both Reps and Democrats said Yes to invading Irak, in spite of the whole country being against it. You think you live in Democracy, but people who make such important decisions don't give a damn about what the American people think. That and a dictatorship are the same thing, only difference being that your dictatorship is disguised as democracy.
C) If the U.S.A. government wanted to attack Iran tomorrow, they would still do it, even if the entire country were against the idea. The government would either do it through congress (as with Irak), or by manipulating public opinion with an inside job, false flag attack (as with Afghanistan). Before you argue that point, please look for information about 9/11 on You Tube, specially about Tower 7, which collapsed all by itself, in controlled demolition, without having been hit by even a mosquito. Yeah, but the U.S. live an absolute democracy.
D) Over the last years, the U.S.A. has invaded or attacked at least four countries without a real reason, and, once again, using words like "terror" and "democracy" as lame excuses for what they really are doing: gaining control over the middle east, with eyes only on oil reserves. In the same period, Iran has attacked no-one. The line about wiping Israel of the map, I'm not sure where it comes from. Did it come from the President? What was the context? I'd like to know, if you have the original source.