An interesting article that eventually gets around to asking what all the concern is about a nuclear-armed Iran — pointing out how nuclear weapons hasn't allowed anyone — from the US to the USSR to China, as well as Israel and India and S Africa and Pakistan and N Korea — to actually do the various things people fear from a nuclear-equipped Iran.
It begs the issue, to some degree, of terrorists getting hold of such weapons (though it seems to me that Iranian autocracy is such that any "terrorists" would most likely be enough extensions of the Iranian government itself that nuclear terrorism would create a direct threat to Iran far greater than any hypothetical benefit).
I'm not looking forward to Iran having The Bomb (as we used to call it), and, in fact, I'd rather they didn't. But it won't be the end of the world.
"It seems to me that the American and Israeli obsession with Iran's nuclear weapons programme proceeds from a misguided messianic-apocalyptic streak in both countries' political cultures. There's a temptation to imagine the world of foreign policy as a broad extension of a Robert Ludlum novel: a desperate time-constrained race to stop evil madmen from committing atrocities. This vision is morally clarifying and inspiring. But it has little to do with reality, and it distracts the public from the actual challenges of foreign policy, which are usually messy and often involve actual sacrifices in order to achieve publicly valuable goals." #ddtb
Embedded Link
The atrocity-addicted imagination
WHO killed more people, Hitler, Stalin or Genghis Khan? The correct answer, in my view, is (d): who cares?