The argument that a nuclear Iran is uniquely dangerous requires you to explain why nuclear deterrence works for every other nuclear state but would fail specifically for Iran.
https://x.com/nxt888/status/2090096348326732277
You said preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons is in your best interest as an American.
Make the argument.
Not the assertion. The argument.
Because the countries that have nuclear weapons and are adversarial to the United States, Russia, China, North Korea, have not used them.
Because the logic of nuclear deterrence, which the United States invented and which is the foundation of its own strategic doctrine, holds that nuclear weapons prevent wars between nuclear states precisely because both sides understand the consequences of use.
Because the alternative to a nuclear-armed Iran that is deterred from existential action is a non-nuclear Iran that is permanently vulnerable to the kind of regime change and military destruction that American policy has repeatedly applied to non-nuclear states, which produces the conditions for exactly the kind of regional instability and proxy warfare that you are citing as evidence of Iranian radicalism.
The argument that a nuclear Iran is uniquely dangerous requires you to explain why nuclear deterrence works for every other nuclear state but would fail specifically for Iran.
Not because Iran is Muslim. Not because its government says things you find alarming. But a specific, logical, evidence-based argument for why the deterrence logic that has held for eighty years across ideologically diverse nuclear states would uniquely break down in this case.
That argument has never been made coherently.
Because it doesn't exist.
What exists is the feeling that Iran shouldn't have them.
And feelings are not strategy.
posted by Satish Sharma at
02:14
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home