I've written that if Iran gets nuclear weapons that Iran will have a shield behind which they can subvert the region and gain influence and control. Even if the Iranians never use nukes to strike Israel, America, or the Saudi oil fields/ports, Iran could do a lot of harm owning nukes.
But I've noticed that rather than setting Iran on the road to being a responsible and successful regional power as President Obama hoped, the deal itself rather than nukes is proving to be an effective shield for Iran to subvert the region and gain influence and control.
With all of the deal's benefits to Iran given up front, it is the West that is afraid of confronting Iran lest Iran in anger discard the horrible deal to openly pursue nuclear weapons technology, confident that they have all the benefits up front.
Many in the West would rather pretend the awful deal--that will not stop Iran from going nuclear--still provides a measure of protection by existing. And no Iranian aggression is too much to endure if it keeps Iran in the deal.
Really, Western Europeans are nearly frozen to passivity in the face of Iranian aggression out of fear that Iran will react to resistance by going nuclear. Isn't that the posture Iran wants nuclear weapons to achieve?
Which fits into my very old post that argued that Iranian non-nuclear power is potentially superior to the Gulf Arabs and so pursuing nuclear weapons is actually counter-productive for Iran's true national security interests.
Is it possible that Iran really doesn't want to possess nuclear weapons (possibly just wanting all the components ready to be assembled) as long as the nuclear deal provides Iran with the deterrence it wants to dominate the Middle East region?
Of course, if Iran wants nukes for non-security issues, the world is hosed.
