"...after it [Soviet Union] exploded its first nuke, did it massively expand its hegemony across europe or asia?"
" ...i'm not sure about "complete operational freedom"- did the USSR, china, or for that matter even NK act with "complete operational freedom" once it exploded its nuke?"
Two comments relating to the same point. I'd suggest that the Soviet Union's explosion of it's first nuclear device in 1949 gave the Kremlin considerable confidence about the NKPA invasion of S. Korea. We haven't even fully brought to light the Yalu discussions and MacArthur's crazy notion of radiating the length of the river to create a "dead zone". Not so crazy in the absence of a Soviet nuke.
I'd further suggest that we faced an assertive Soviet Union that, rationally, tested the limits of IT'S operational freedom through the pursuit of wars of national liberation via proxy forces in Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, the ANC, Baader-Meinhof, Red Brigades, Red Army Factions, PIRA, Sandinistas, and N. Vietnam as example. Only the Soviet Union's possession of nuclear weapons allowed these "struggles" to continue at the subterranean level.
All done so fully confident that the gains accrued in E. Europe courtesy of Yalta and the Red Army wouldn't be rolled back. Not even as a consideration. We won't know otherwise. So, yeah, I'd say that operational freedom is a serious consideration for Iran.
REGIME CHANGE- Astralis, you didn't answer my earlier question regarding this point. Now I have two questions-
1.) Were the Iranians to rise up spontaneously without our assistance (to which most will say "no"-
Why Iran's Democrats Shun Aid), would you be more or less comfortable with the fact that they confront a government already possessing nuclear weapons?
2.)We've argued what "regime change" means but U.S. forces invading Iran seem to be
a big part of your definition. Try not to think of simply A BOMB. Imagine, instead, many. Afterall, allowing them the means to produce and/or enrich includes all the weapons which they can make. The sooner the better from their perspective, I suppose, as you prepare your regime change.
Do you propose invading a nuclear armed nation?
Not really, I bet. So what's that leave? "...evolve the regime"?
I call that "policy-change". A philosophical shift from within. Evolution can be terribly slow. Of course you know that Iran nearly closed the Hormuz straits in 1988. That's what all of this is about, Astralis. The Soviet Union would have liked to do so. Remember that old maxim about classic Russian ambitions in Persia. It eventually evolved into the Carter Doctrine for Americans and was an integral component of our nat'l defense strategy in the late seventies. We had great fears shortly after the 1979 revolution of the Soviet Union striking south and controlling the straits. We couldn't go nuclear and we weren't at all sure that we could conventionally stop them in the Tabriz mountains. Next stop, the Persian Gulf.
What's changed besides the name of the nation? If nothing, then acknowledge the considerable leverage accrued by Iran's possession of nuclear weapons at the mouth of the most important water-way in the world.