Scary Thought for the Day - Iran Willing to Share Nukes

President Says Iran Willing to Share Nukes. Read the article. Basically it has him saying "We don't have them and we don't want them but we'll share them with our fellow Muslims"



One response to this is not to choose not to confront them over the mere acquisition of nuclear weapons. That seems to be the way europe wants to handle it. That way leads inexorably to Iran, an intolerant theocracy run by jihad preaching mullahs, having nuclear weapons, and if the story today is to be believed, to every other Islamic nation as well. I don't object to Turkey having them, but that's about the only Islamic nation with a significant history of acting like a civilized nation in recent memory.



A second response would be active confrontation. Stop or we shoot. The US could topple the regime in Iran, and I believe the Iranian people would even be grateful for the most part. However, there would still be a twenty year civil war there that made the one in Afghanistan look mild. Europe could do the same if they had the will, which they don't. A broad alliance for the purpose would

drastically reduce the civil war, but the public in either the United States or Europe hasn't the patience to support it at this point.



Third response would be to say, "We believe you but we still want to verify that you're not creating nuclear weapons." If anybody actually believes this, I own some dry land just outside the New Orleans levees. Nonetheless, we can make it the pravda, official truth, if we and the rest of the developed world are willing to enforce real inspectors, who unlike the Iraqi ones of the last decade have a right to go anywhere any time with zero notice, upon the Iranians. Furthermore, it would take an automatic and binding agreement to undertake any necessary corrective action if violations are discovered. Cost: significant and continuing, but not as much as a war. Nor do I believe the Iranians would agree (we wouldn't), but it might be worth trying just to see if they're willing to do anything to back up their claims of not wanting nuclear weapons. Refusing this would strip away any pretensions they have.



The final option is pretend we don't see. Bury our heads in the sand and hope it goes away. The result? Within a few years, Iran has nuclear weapons, and if the article is to be believed, so does every other islamic nation. What happens then? Our options in responding to them get a lot more difficult and scary, and it stays that way forever. It is entirely within their expressed and espoused philosphy to give a nuclear bomb (or several) to terrorists, and disclaim responsibility with an "Oops! Clumsy me! They managed to steal/hijack them!" defense. It serves their expressed goals of carrying Islamic society to all corners of the globes, and weakening other civilizations who do or might oppose it.



Option two and Option three are "Right now" options. We must execute them prior to Iran gaining control of nuclear weapons - within five years at most. That I believe the Iranian theocracy is doomed unless they acquire these weapons is a side issue. If they hang on long enough to acquire nuclear weapons, they can suppress revolution with thm, or the threat of them. Unlike the people who pulled the attempted coup that killed the Soviet Union, the theocrats will use weapons upon their own people rather than give up power.



Option one and the similar option four give us some time, at the large and longer term cost of needing real defenses against nuclear weapons, either by ballistic or smuggler's delivery. Furthermore, the fact is that we are further away from a reliable defense than they are from the weapons. There will be at least a window where we have defenses clearly insufficient to the task. I'll admit that the idea of letting a theocratic state of terrorist sponsors have nuclear weapons doesn't sit well with me, either.



These are the only options I can come up with. If you think you've got a fifth option (or a sixth, seventh, etcetera), speak up.



So what's it going to be? The time to have this discussion and make this decision is now. Otherwise, we're choosing option one or four (they're differentiated mostly by nuances in our attitude) by default.