If Iran gets nuclear weapons, will it de-stabilize the Middle East?

[kentuck]

As if it is not de-stabilized already. But would not nuclear weapons in the hands of any country in that part of the world de-stabilize the area? How would the other countries react to such a threat at their back door? Would it not be in the interest of the Middle East and the United States to make that a "nuclear free" area? Would it not be in all of our interests to make the whole world "nuclear free"?
Shouldn't we do everything in our power to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians?

[wakeme2008]

1. It is called MAD

And the US and the Soviets never started a nuclear war because of it.


from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy in which a full scale use of nuclear weapons by one of two opposing sides would result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash Equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome — Nuclear Annihilation.

[RethugAssKicker]

2. Why not start with Israel first ?

It has many nuclear weapons!

[mmonk]

3. No

It's not like they could match the power or present nuclear arsenal of Israel (they'll always be in a catch up mode). Also, Pakistan has nukes so I don't see how it really makes the world anymore dangerous than it is.

[noneofmybusiness]

4. Everything in our power?

how far should we go?

It's not up to us whether the Iranians have nukes. It may be in our interests that they don't. This is why why have nuclear non-proliferation treaties and use diplomacy to persuade countries not to develop nukes. This has worked well for 50 years (nuclear technology is not new). But Bush doesnt do diplomacy. In fact, America is breaking the treaties by not allowing inspections of its sites and by restarting research into new types of nuke.

[dipsydoodle]

5. Nuclear weapons in the hands

of any country in that part of the world ?

Given that Israel has already got them the precedent is already there.

[Selatius]

6. Actually, it would put the ME into a more balanced situation

Israel and the US would be forced to reconsider any potential act of military aggression on Iran or any nation allied with Iran. The presence of nuclear weapons raises the potential costs and losses resulting from war to such an extent that it may far outweigh any benefit derived from resorting to violence.

Since America's ally Israel already has nuclear weapons, it would make the balance of power in the region more stable with Iran having nuclear weapons.

Ideally, no one should have nuclear weapons in that region, or the rest of the world, but given that Israel does not listen in this case, we shouldn't expect Iran to listen as well without being prepared to adopt the position of hypocrisy.

[noneofmybusiness]

8. Exactly.

The US only inavdes countries that cant defend themselves.

Hardly a good way to dissuade countries from developing such weapons is it?

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. It stopped being a nuclear free zone when we gave Israel the bomb.

The Iranians with the bomb would be no greater threat than the Pakistanis are, less so if you consider that Pakistan is the point of origin of the Taliban and much of Al Queda.

So how do we stop the iranians from being a nuke armed power? First, talk to them like equals - don't make demands and threats. 2nd, stop the war on Islam - give them a reason to believe that we don't mean to destroy them.

If we can live with a nuclear armed Soviet Union for fifty years, a nuclear armed Red China for forty years, why should we be terrified by a nuclear armed Iran? A nuke armed Iran doesn't even bring MAD into play, because even if they did manage to hurt us they couldn't destroy us, while we could destroy them fifty times over.

A nuclear armed Iran is nothing more than a counterbalance to Israel which has, since the 80s, gotten away with bully diplomacy because no matter how much they pissed off their neighbors those neighbors have been hesitant to respond, knowing that Damascus or Tehran or Riyad could be nuked if they mobilized. If Israel knows it, too, could be nuked they might actually sit down and talk.

BTW, why do you think terrorism became the weapon of choice there? Because nation states were helpless in the face of a nuclear Israel, so they employed proxies as the only viable weapon left them.

[noneofmybusiness]

9. We seem to have lost the carrot nt

[bronxiteforever]

10. I think the more countries that have the bomb, the greater its chance

of it being used. But treaties and negotiations are the way to go but all Shrub has done has encouraged the development of bombs by every government. Mutual Assured Destruction has worked so far but I wouldn't literally bet my life on it. If Iran gets the bomb it is one more unintended consequences of the Iraq war brought to your table by the GOP. Personally I believe a nuclear free world should be the goal of all countries. Even the US (yeah I am sure that will happen)

[madrchsod]

11. no

but it will make the saudi`s pee in the pants...

[noneofmybusiness]

12. What would it do to the Saudi's pee?

[deaniac21]

13. Of course not. They seem to be very nice people.

[sinkingfeeling]

14. Why? Did we do everything in our power to stop Israel, India, or

Pakistan? Maybe Iran having a nuke would be a deterrent to Israeli aggression.