Hazards of Empathizing with Mr. Waltz's Assertions of a 'Peaceful Nuclear Iran.'

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Jun 28, 2012 at 15:36

What we have here is someone who either did not live under or understand the nuclear umbrella (how many times did you 'duck and cover' when you were a child when Khrushchev was pounding his shoe on the desk and was pushing for a nuclear Cuba for the purposes of mutually assured destruction), or are somehow convinced that nuclear equality is the real intent of the Iranian Islamist Revolutionary regime instead of projecting their stated declaration of a nuclear powered caliphate.

In any event, you will have only yourself and any others in sympathy to blame when the real deal flashes before your eyes-do you really think Oman will escape even if it 'out of the way?' The United States will not be able to stop it.

You must understand that those who really do understand nuclear capability actually do think that the use of nuclear force is not an implementation of a doomsday scenario, but a force that is controllable under certain circumstances and can point to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for proof. While even today the consequences of detonating those devices still have implications of their use visible today, they are sparks in a barbeque in comparison to the power that can be unleashed today-but even if there were ten such detonations at once, mutually assured destruction is NOT inevitable.

All Iran might be envisioning is one in the center of Tel Aviv and there goes the Jewish neighborhood. THAT is what the Israeli's are trying to avert and they are not getting any reliable help to obtain any peace of mind, let alone any other sense of peace. And if the Israelis lose their sense of peace, what makes anyone think the rest of the globalist mindset is going to be allowed to get away with it?

Read the Waltz article again, this time looking for the tactical applications that must be rationalized and realize that Iran's quest for nuclear parity does not match the nuclear threat posed against them. The nuclear powers in the region are so armed for their reasons that do not implicate Iran as a potential target. The Russians are their friends and if the United States had any reason to confront a nuclear Iran, the rest of the world would already be engulfed in the flames of a global catastrophe and Iran might catch some of then.

On the other hand, a nuclear capable Iran is provocation that could lead to a global catastrophe; and that has been expressed by many of the Iranian Islamic revolutionary regime and their supporters. Then Mr. Waltz's assertions fly in the face of a reasonable rationale that asserts otherwise, that it is not reasonable to expect the Iranian leadership to show restraint if they did get the ability to 'wipe Israel off the map' if and when they seize their hoped for opportunity.

Thinking that the Israelis will not like this is like saying if Iran annexes Oman into the world caliphate under the threat of nuclear power, would you like that?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".