Quote:
Originally Posted by astralis
we're looking at delaying or obstructing the production of nuclear weapons (with only a slim possibility of eliminating the threat altogether, given that we don't know where everything is), in exchange for completely alienating the iranian populace and driving them into the hands of the heretofore hated mullahs. THAT will reduce the chance of either 1. regime change, 2. regime reform (aka china model).
|
This assumes that either is likely in the next 20-30 years. I don't think either really is, as differing circumstances (namely a lack of the massive competetive advantage in labor that China possesses) make regime reform along the Chinese model (increasing riches followed by increasing freedom) unlikely, while regime change discounts the still substantial support that the Mullah's possess in the countryside.
Quote:
|
it's just part of the calculus here. obviously if we're dealing with a complete crazy who's just waiting for a nuke to push the red button, it's time to go in, the iranian people be damned. but if we're dealing with a rational actor who can be expected to generally follow the rules of "the game", then...
|
It depends though. While the Supreme Leader may or may not be rational, we aren't playing against solely a nation state here. Were a couple of other nations to acquire nukes within the next ten years (or were Pakistan to come apart), a "reasonable" conclusion for Iran's leadership might be that covertly giving nukes to a Shia extremist group (perhaps one not even supported by Iran) could be pinned on someone else. It is only illegal if one gets caught.