It might be splitting hair, but I do agree that if a new regime gained power that was tightly aligned with some world super power, and got some kind of serious protectorate status, then they could be totally fine without nukes.

The current regime is not safe without them. You can’t honestly believe they are unless you are totally ignorant of the history and state of the region. So the current regime will keep trying until they succeed or are replaced.

▲

ngruhn 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Egypt and Jorden are totally fine without nukes. The only thing they had to do is stop attacking Israel, stop funding terrorist organizations that do and stop threatening Israel with annihilation. Iran is the aggressor here. If they would just chill, they would have nothing to fear.

▲

HEmanZ 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Both Egypt and Jordan are US protectorates with no regional superpowers threatening their ruling regimes. Jordan couldn’t if they dreamed of it, Egypt might have but the US shows no interest in toppling its regime and mediation between them and Israel has been going about as well as possible given their histories.

You’re right, they could chill and be fine. If they trusted the US, or Russia, or China enough to protect them, or trusted Israel to leave their regime alone for the next 100 years. Do you think it’s reasonable for them (the current theocracy) to have this trust in their current position? I find it much more rational that they do not.

	▲	bamboozled a minute ago \| parent [-]
		Who needs protecting ? From what I’ve seen not even the populace really wants the current regime there, if it’s wiped out I’m not sure anyone cares but NK China and Russia (terrorist or terrorist funding countries)

▲

dragonwriter an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> Egypt and Jorden are totally fine without nukes

I don’t think the Iranian regime looks at Egypt as either totally fine or even in an enviable state, security-wise.

▲

js4ever 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

lets hope they get replaced and we can have "democratic republic of perse" that would be so much better than what iran is currently

▲

HEmanZ 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s one of the reasons I’m torn on what the US should do here. I think this intervention is the most likely way a regime change occurs, but the least likely way to stabilize the region. So some small chance of a great outcome, much larger chance of a bad outcome.

I think allowing nuclear weapons in Iran is a very small chance of a very bad outcome, and an almost guaranteed chance of a middling outcome.

How do you balance these? What are the actual risks? I’d love to read more people’s analysis on it.

	▲	js4ever 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Nuclear weapons in the hands of crazy islamist terrorists and sponsoring all other terrorists around the world (Hutis, Hezbollah, Hamas, ...), with crystal clear public plans to destroy israel, what could go wrong? I don't see how it could be worst, any other gov in Iran would be better for the world and for the peoples in Iran. Are you genuinly thinking that giving nuclear weapons to terrorists is a good idea?