Iran is the strongest state by far in the Gulf region. If the region (and I'll consider Israel out of the region for this purpose) remains non-nuclear, Iran will be the dominant local power. Throw in nukes and Iran's influence is blocked in theory. Press too hard and somebody else might lob a nuke at them.
Indeed, for all the complaints about our nukes, if we could guarantee that the world would remain non-nuclear with no cheaters, does anybody with half a brain think we wouldn't leap at the chance? We can't be touched in conventional combat and we'd jump for joy if we could guarantee a non-nuclear battlefield!
The Iranians are fools to want nukes. When you add that their leaders are nuts, we'd be fools to let them have nukes.
If the Iranians get nuclear weapons, they are likely to diminish their power rather than increase it. Right now, they are the dominant local power in the Gulf. If Iran goes nuclear, other regional states will also go nuclear and this will nullify Iran's advantage in conventional power and size.
Strategypage writes much the same today as they did a year ago when I noted their views:
There seems to be a major political clash developing in Iran. The religious leadership seems to want to avoid an outright clash with the UN/U.S. over the nuclear issue, and appears to prefer not having nukes. Apparently, they believe having nukes makes them more vulnerable to attack than not having them. This is not as unreasonable as it may seem at first – after all, they'll never be able to have enough nukes to deter the US, and so their nuclear "threat" will have little impact on American policy. Worse, even if they have just one or two nukes, it will be enough to seriously threaten Israel, which they believe would have no compunctions in taking preemptive action.
Of course, if nukes are all about embarking on the Viking funeral ride to take out Israel and perhaps America regardless of the death and destruction that Iran will receive in return, these rational analyses are pointless. Could Ahmadinejad be that nuts? You tell me:
"There is no place in the world that suffers from divisions and wars unless America or the Zionists' fingerprints are seen there," Ahmadinejad told his audience in Farsi translated into Arabic.
He urged Muslims to rally behind Iran and accused detractors of Iran's nuclear program of trying to prevent a developing country from making scientific advances.
"Our strength and the cornerstone of the victory is in our (Muslims') unity ... we have to pay attention to the devils who want to cause divisions among us," the Iranian president said.
"They want to keep science in their hands only ... they don't want the rest of the world to progress," he said referring Iran's nuclear program.Ahmadinejad arrived in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital, Wednesday in a show of solidarity with Sudan.
I realize that Ahmadinejad sounds little different from a Michael Moore or a Jimmy Carter in front of a friendly audience, but those two don't have nuclear weapons programs. Hateful propaganda films and books are annoying, but not explosively destructive.
Sure, if Iran deployed nukes and nobody else reacted, Iran would be in a stronger position. But I don't think there is a chance in the world that Iran's neighbors will fail to react. At the high end, Israel might nuke Iran to forestall an Iranian attack. At best, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia would go nuclear to deter Iran. And since we are a target, we will react. Heck, even France might react.
Iran's mullahs are a nutty lot, to be sure. But are all of them willing to take one for the Moslem team as Ahmadinejad seems to be willing to do in order to strike a blow against Israel and America? Are the slightly less nutty willing to resist the suicidal nutter?
The Iranian year will end on March 20. Just how significant is this for the nutballs in Tehran?
Yes, lovely decade we're having.
