They have an ongoing beef with Israel, as do all the middle-east Muslim countries. And Israel is a nuclear power. But it is also a small country, and one nuclear bomb on that country would have a greater relative effect than several bombs on Iran. So mutually assured destruction (MAD) is the ruling theory.

MAD theory insists that first among decision-criteria is the question: “What’s the worst that could happen.”

For Israel, one hit on their territory would cause moderate destruction, but lingering effects and the increased possibility of additional strikes suggest that non-fanatic Jews might elect to bug out. That leaves fanatics in a poisoned land, in charge of 200 nuke bombs. Aii-yi-yi !

In such an exchange Iran would be hit several times, and that nation would be badly hurt. But Iran is a classic nation with an ethnic organizing core and a long history. They don’t have safe havens to which they can escape. So they would stay and suffer and recover…and never forget.

Does all this sound unstable and horribly violent to anyone?

Finally, the US must remember that much of the non-western world is not happy with our behavior over the last couple of decades. If there is a nuclear exchange centered about Iran, we will be considered enablers. The reaction won’t be pretty. I don’t think such a war would spread; rather, the reaction (fuelled by overflowing and deep-seated anger) would be diplomatic and economic. It would be very painful…perhaps catastrophic to the US. It would definitely not be in the best interests of the average American citizen.

Do I think whipping up a nuke or two is the best choice for Iran. Actually, no. But I do understand the reasoning behind their direction.