Because it would be a meaningful check against Israel
and the US which are relentlessly belligerent and the source of most of the violence in the region.
That just isn’t consistent with the behavior we’ve seen from Iran for decades. They have acted rationally over and over again, trying to avoid conflict, de-escalating when attacked (to their own detriment IMO), signing and complying with treaties. There’s a lot of anti-west sentiment in Iran, sure, but given what the west has done to them for a century, that’s very very rational. Why should I believe that such rational people would ignore the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction that’s prevented all nuclear powers from using the weapons so far?
I’ve been hearing this alarmist rhetoric about Iran here in the US my entire life and I just cannot reconcile it with what I see them do.
Iran isn’t good, but the kind of bad it does isn’t the kind nukes would have an impact on. Meanwhile a nuclear armed Iran wouldn’t be bombed by Israel year in and year out.
They would if it was only their moral integrity stopping them, but they wouldn’t because doing such a thing would destroy their international standing and immediately start a regional war with generous Western involvement if not outright belligerency. In other words: They wouldn’t use a nuke against a regional adversary for the same reason North Korea hasn’t nuked South Korea. There’s a limit to how far you can push nukes and, counterintuitively, actually using them goes beyond that limit. If anything, it’s countries with actual muscle like China, US and its allies and to a lesser extent Russia that could actually use a nuke and (comparatively) get away with it.
Oh that’s what you meant. In that case I see what you mean, but I’m not convinced. First, doing such a thing would destroy their own seat of power, as most revolts tend to start in the capital or reach it pretty quickly. Second, it would immediately spark a coup, civil war or intensify the revolution, for the same reason Assad’s gassing didn’t stop the Syrian revolution. The level of destruction a nuke can cause can be more or less replicated using conventional means, using a nuke means dealing with nuclear fallout which even the most maniacal governments wouldn’t put themselves through and using drastic violence tends to push people towards militancy rather than compliance. Third, it’d destroy their international legitimacy, give Western countries an excuse for drastic intervention and discourage their allies from helping them defend against such an intervention. Iran’s government is certainly evil, but they’re rationally evil, and nuking one’s own people is very much not rational.
They should manufacture and sell nukes to Iran. Seriously.
Why the hell would you want Iran to have nukes? Just because Israel and/or US bad, doesn’t mean Iran is good. Far, far from it.
Because it would be a meaningful check against Israel and the US which are relentlessly belligerent and the source of most of the violence in the region.
No it wouldn’t, Iran would use them immediately to destroy Israel and let themselves be destroyed in retaliation.
That’s 100% what would happen. There is no possible deviance, the second Iran gets the bomb, it will use it.
That just isn’t consistent with the behavior we’ve seen from Iran for decades. They have acted rationally over and over again, trying to avoid conflict, de-escalating when attacked (to their own detriment IMO), signing and complying with treaties. There’s a lot of anti-west sentiment in Iran, sure, but given what the west has done to them for a century, that’s very very rational. Why should I believe that such rational people would ignore the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction that’s prevented all nuclear powers from using the weapons so far?
I’ve been hearing this alarmist rhetoric about Iran here in the US my entire life and I just cannot reconcile it with what I see them do.
Wtf are you on about? It’s called mutually assured destruction, not immediately assured destruction.
Why are you implying that they have no brains and can’t reason or use common sense like all people? That’s racist as fuck.
Iran isn’t good, but the kind of bad it does isn’t the kind nukes would have an impact on. Meanwhile a nuclear armed Iran wouldn’t be bombed by Israel year in and year out.
Assad gazed Syrian rebels, so I don’t think the Guardians of the Revolution wouldn’t nuke a rebelled city. That would stop the revolt instantly.
They would if it was only their moral integrity stopping them, but they wouldn’t because doing such a thing would destroy their international standing and immediately start a regional war with generous Western involvement if not outright belligerency. In other words: They wouldn’t use a nuke against a regional adversary for the same reason North Korea hasn’t nuked South Korea. There’s a limit to how far you can push nukes and, counterintuitively, actually using them goes beyond that limit. If anything, it’s countries with actual muscle like China, US and its allies and to a lesser extent Russia that could actually use a nuke and (comparatively) get away with it.
Not against q regional adversary. But against their own population, they would.
Oh that’s what you meant. In that case I see what you mean, but I’m not convinced. First, doing such a thing would destroy their own seat of power, as most revolts tend to start in the capital or reach it pretty quickly. Second, it would immediately spark a coup, civil war or intensify the revolution, for the same reason Assad’s gassing didn’t stop the Syrian revolution. The level of destruction a nuke can cause can be more or less replicated using conventional means, using a nuke means dealing with nuclear fallout which even the most maniacal governments wouldn’t put themselves through and using drastic violence tends to push people towards militancy rather than compliance. Third, it’d destroy their international legitimacy, give Western countries an excuse for drastic intervention and discourage their allies from helping them defend against such an intervention. Iran’s government is certainly evil, but they’re rationally evil, and nuking one’s own people is very much not rational.
Yes, let’s give nukes to a theocratic regime bent on destorying the west. That will own the libs.
That’s rich, given the religious extremists that hold all the power in the US and Israel. Remind me again, which country launched this war?
Iran’s proxy.
The one resisting a violent occupation? That one?