The hysteria over a "nuclear-armed Iran"

[markpkessinger]

There is a particular narrative circulating, mostly among Trump's supporters, but I've even seen it among some on the left -- people who may be opposed to the way Trump has gone about it, but who nevertheless think attacking Iran is a good thing -- that I really have to take issue with. It goes something like this:

"If we don't prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Iran will blow up a nuclear bomb over New York [or someother American or European city]!"

I'm sorry, but that's an utterly ridiculous narrative. Whatever Iran's sins on the international stage (and they've certainly had their share), there is absolutely no evidence that they have any designs on world domination or territorial conquest. They are interested in being the dominant power in the Middle East, but that is essentially the ancient Shia/Sunni rivalry. But launching a major nuclear strike against a Western nation would result in an immediate counter-strike, which would likely annihilate them. Iran's leaders certainly know this.

Iran is the world's oldest continuous civilization, and I don't see any signs that it wishes to commit collective suicide.

What is most disturbing about this narrative is that it echoes equally fallacious narratives we have heard in order to justify at least two prior conflicts that turned out to be total debacles, namely, Vietnam and Iraq. In Vietnam, the line was, "if we don't fight the Commies is Vietnam, we'll be fighting them on the shores of California." In Iraq, it was, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" [h/t Condoleeza Rice]

Good God, folks, how often are we going to fall for rehashes of this absurd narrative?!

And here's the thing: Iran is not some primitive backwater; it is an advanced, modern country with a highly educated populace and plenty of technical expertise. We won't be able to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon if they are determined to do it. So we had better begin figuring out how to co-exist with Iran, rather than clinging to some childish notion that there are no limits to American military power!

[leftstreet]

1. DURec

[NNadir]

2. As a person who has focused on nuclear issues for decades...

...I'm wholly unsurprised by the use of nuclear scare stories to start fossil fuel wars.

Interestingly, the only nuclear war ever observed, which took place eight decades ago, started as a result of fossil fuel access issues, specifically when Japan decided to attack what is now Indonesia in response to the US embargo on oil exports.

Pearl Harbor was designed to protect the flanks against a US response.

It is a profound aspect of mass psychological hysteria to focus on nuclear weapons issues, which have a spectacular record of not killing anyone over half a century while ignoring fossil fuel weapons of mass destruction, which never stop, functionally, killing people.

[Hey Joe]

3. Good post and excellent point

How many times will we fall for this ridiculous
narrative!
Thanks !

[Deep State Witch]

4. They Wouldn't Bomb The US

They would bomb Israel. The main reason that Iran was (supposedly) pursuing a nuclear weapon is that the Israelis already (supposedly) had them. That is the problem with nuclear weapons. One side gets them and the others decide that they need them to deter the nuclear country from dropping them. It's called "Mutually Assured Destruction."

Frankly, I would be quite happy if every country - including the US - would step up and ban nuclear weapons, period.

[Xolodno]

5. I think policy hawks in D.C. and Tel Aviv assumed we could claw Iran back...

...from being a regional power. And don't think that ship has sailed and still could get a "pacified" Iran subservient to Western Powers. Now its become obvious they can't have that unless that significant treasure, armed forces and troops are put to use. And that's still a maybe and when you add there is no taste anywhere for a prolonged Mid-East war, they are throwing a tantrum. So at some point, one has to accept diminished influence in the area, its over.

Iran developing nukes is probably in response to Israel having them and being surrounded by Sunni Nations that are backed by the West. Even if the Theocracy falls and elections are held, they still will have trust issues, nor do I blame them. As for a first strike, highly unlikely, they know the cost of such a gamble and a particular heavily nuclear armed frenemy to the north of them would be none too pleased.

Europe knows that opening up trade relations, dropping adversarial positions, etc. would probably yield better results. In our case, Iran would want a full apology which is something we almost never do.