A Point the So-Called "Realists" Might Wish To Consider

The most destabilizing action in the Middle East would be Iran getting nukes:

Passively accepting the development of an Iranian nuclear weapons arsenal will, ironically, result in the greatest misery for Iranian society. Even if the Iranian government intends its nuclear weapons arsenal for defensive and deterrent purposes, a stable stand-off, as we witnessed in the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, is highly unlikely. Much more likely is a highly unstable arms race, eventually leading to war.


The United States and the Soviet Union avoided nuclear war because both sides established large, redundant retaliatory reserve forces (especially onboard hidden submarines), forces that both sides knew would survive a first strike. Both sides also established robust command and control systems that would survive long enough to order retaliation. Deterrence was thus established.


We won't find these stabilizing conditions when a complicated, three-sided nuclear arms race breaks out among Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. In the Middle East missile flight times are too short - a sneak attack would be very effective. Early warning systems are fragile or non-existent, and retaliatory forces and command and control structures will be vulnerable to destruction in a first strike. Relatively small nuclear arsenals will result in no survivable retaliatory redundancy. Nuclear forces will have to be kept on extremely high alert, a launch-on-warning status. The slightest hint of attack, even if false, will trigger a nuclear weapons launch. Under such conditions, there would be a tremendous incentive in a crisis for any of the countries to rapidly use its nuclear forces before they were destroyed. National survival will depend on disarming the enemies before being so disarmed.


Allowing Iran to establish a nuclear weapons arsenal will result in a highly unstable arms race in the region, very likely leading to war. Containment and deterrence is not a feasible solution because each side's nuclear forces and command and control structures will be highly vulnerable to destruction in a first strike. War will inevitably result.

This instability does not even depend on a Western response. The Sunni-Shi'a tension would be sufficient to ensure a nuclear arms race followed by nuclear exchanges.

Worse, time is running out now that Iran has achieved the ability to industrialize uranium enrichment.

The storm is coming.

Why do I suspect we're not ready for it?