> Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. It's an intolerable premise and if the price to be paid is global oil catastrophe it's a price well worth paying

Says you.

All other nuclear nations behave (even Pakistan and India, which are at each other throat all the time). What makes you think that Iran won't? It will also have Russia and China keep a lid on them, same as North Korea. And I don't buy the "Iran is different" gospel. North Korea and China have completely different mindsets than the western world and still play ball.

Additionally, if Iran really is that adamant in getting nukes, I can see them asking some enriched material to Russia as a payment to the 100s if not 1000s of drones they are giving them. They share a "land" border through the Caspian sea and smuggling a few 10s of kilos of enriched material would be relatively easy.

Finally, it is not a good proposition if the hypotethical benefits will be reaped by US/Israel while the suffering is globally spread.

> All other nuclear nations behave

Russia, China, the U.S., North Korea, Israel. These are all countries that absolutely do not behave. Each commits atrocities on a regular basis. Them having nukes makes accountability much more difficult.

Just to be clear: the current situation is a huge mess caused by one deranged leader.

> even Pakistan and India, which are at each other throat all the time

Iran is way more aggressive in spreading influence in region (hoothis, hezbollah, hamas, Syria, Iraq, denying Israel existence).

> They share a "land" border through the Caspian sea and smuggling a few 10s of kilos of enriched material would be relatively easy.

I'm not a nuclear weapons expert but from what I understand the United States and others are pretty easily able to identify where enriched material comes from. Also we probably have eyes on the material in general and can see where it is being moved. It has to be stored in places, put into a missile, &c.

But if your argument were to be taken to be correct you're also highlighting the problem with the JCPOA. Well, one of them at least.

> All other nuclear nations behave (even Pakistan and India, which are at each other throat all the time). What makes you think that Iran won't?

Because Iran's leadership is actually crazy.

> All other nuclear nations behave [...] What makes you think that Iran won't?

Iran already misbehaves, exporting violence to the entire region. How do you think they are going to act when they have nuclear weapons?

  > And I don't buy the "Iran is different" gospel.

Descriptions of the Soviet leadership basically word for word use the same apocalyptic terms used for the ayatollahs/IRGC by current neocons about Iran. Just swap in "Islamist" for "Communist" as the current ideology that makes any kind of realpolitik impossible.

"These leaders aren't rational like previous adversaries, they don't fear annihilation, in fact they want catastrophe to prove their own fatalist belief system. There can be no negotiation with this sort of enemy, their singular goal is our destruction even at the cost of their own lives."

It's always different this time, and all assumptions about self-serving human nature need to be thrown out the window. Anyone who thinks force isn't the only solution is a naively deluded suicidal peacenik. All out war right now on our terms is the only rational way to avoid world destruction.

I keep wondering about this western worldview where they keep equating a militant failed state with the largest democracy in the world. I can't fathom why they do it.

Because they'll be the first to use it to kill millions since the 1940s