Imagine you were any of 90% of the Internet commentariat, and imagine you were a total idiot (but I repeat myself).
Irrevocable Truths:
1) Nations don't have friends, they have interests.
2) Israel has nuclear weapons. (50-100, give or take.)
3) Iran does not have any, yet. Despite trying for 40 years. (Exploding nuclear scientists and Stuxnet virus aren't coincidences, in case that thought never crossed your mind.)
4) Iran has missiles that will reach Israel, and if they get so much as one nuclear weapon, you'll know it just about the time the weather in Tel Aviv hits 1400° F.
So, knowing only those four things, does it make more sense (for the Common Core grads: "Is it in America's BEST INTERESTS...") to let things get to #4, knowing that thirty seconds after that, 50-100 nuclear weapons begin their journeys from Israel to every Arab capitol from Tripoli to Islamabad, to every oil field in the region, and every Islamic holy site, starting with Mecca and Medina, igniting a world wide jihad and a Crusade in response in milliseconds, and sending the worldwide price of oil to $5000/barrel by 2PM that day? Probably inducing Islamabad to launch all of theirs, which in turn prompts India to launch all of theirs? (We will leave aside how much this would affect the nuclear responses of China and Russia, which would then influence the nuclear responses of Britain, France, the United States, and possibly involve North Korea, or what that would all mean for the Northern Hemisphere for the next 100-1000 years, for the moment.)
Or would the world be better served (and more importantly, "Be In America's BEST INTERESTS...") if Tehran and Persian culture were returned to that delightful time when most of the country was lit by fat lamps, fed on goat meat and date cakes, and most of the population travelled by camel between desert oases?
Pick one or the other.
Show all work.
Given the choice between a world without Israel, or a world without Iran as it is now constituted, with all that each choice would necessarily entail, I vote for Iran returning to the stone age.
For but one example of the proposition, consider how marvelously a gentle nudge from civilization improved Japan's interactions with the world circa mid 1945-present, and moderated what had been centuries of militant religious fanaticism and xenophobia.
8 comments:
Imagine all of this realpolitik going on with Clamato Harris in charge, just to add to your nightmare scenario.
I wonder what Brian Wilson would think? -- https://x.com/i/status/1935833636101661002
I linked to the original yesterday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDO_xVL1lAg
Wilson was fine with it, back to 1980, as long as the royalty checks kept coming in.
The Middle East has never been a peacful region, history shows that. But oil is what makes and funds the tensions in that region for oh, the last 50 years. What would that area be like if nobody gave a damn about their oil?
We have the opportunity to do that if we wish. Fusion energy might achieve that goal. Its not 30yrs away any longer, more like 10. Sooner if we get serious about it. MIT is building the prototype SPARC reactor -- https://www-new.psfc.mit.edu/sparc Online in 2026 with net positive energy by 2027. Commercial interests are confident enough that they are already building a site in Virgina for production -- https://cfs.energy/ -- to evaluate the economics associated with it.
If the country got serious and converted every mothballed coal plant in existence we could reach the point by 2040 that we would not care what happens in the middle east. We could meet our energy needs with our own reserves. Ever the optimist.
Absolutely agreed. This has to be seen through to regime change in Iran and nothing short of it. If the mullahs can somehow hang on to power, they will know that their only path to a nuclear weapon is to purchase one. Would Pyongyang sell one?? Yikes.
Actually, I vote to a return to 1960, when Persian kids listened to rock n roll.
Just me being curious, but what if the goal was to not make a standard nuke, but material for dirty bombs ? We've certainly seen Iran as a participant in terrorism, what would stop them from doing something akin to Ukraine's attack in Russia, but with isotopes available from their reactor ? If not as a first strike, how about as a revenge strike ?
Nothing but the lack of will.
Clearly, if all they wanted was a dirty bomb, they could have done that with the first salvo.
Iran doesn't want to kill some Jews, they want to kill them all.
If they wanted to settle for a mess, they could do that right this minute.
One suspects the international response would be to greenlight blowing them and their entire nuclear program off the face of the earth in response, lest they repeat the effort in other countries.
But as always, Crazy doesn't have to follow anyone else's rules.
Post a Comment