Putting aside all the absurdities mentioned in this posting by Mr. Alan Kuperman, Iran does not see itself as a regional power only, rather as a world superpower. Therefore unless the international community is reconciled; especially the USA, to the idea that it is more profitable to go back to the age of ideological power centres (one is a student of the idea that religion is a form of ideology), as opposed to the current status quo on the international scene, then Iran with a nuclear bomb will be really a big threat to international peace, given it's threatening posture towards its Arab neighbours and Israel, as well its irredentist and expansionist aspirations.
khairi janbek.paris/france

Professor Walt makes some very good points; a nuclear armed Iran might change alot less than the Iranians think of the critics of Iran think. But Walt neglects to discuss whether a nuclear armed Iran will spur an arms race in the Middle East.

I'm not sure that it will. Developing nuclear weapons is hard. Recent additions to the nuclear club, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea had the internal expertise to develop their own programs (even though North Korea did get some help from A.Q. Kahn). I doubt that any of the Sunni Arab nations possess that expertise.

Iran is unlikely to be a proliferator; there's simply too much risk that loose nukes with an Iranian birthplace could fall into the hands of Sunni extremist groups that hate Iran more than they even hate Israel.

But if the Sunni Arab nations were to seek to obtain nuclear weapons in response to an Iranian atomic bomb, all bets would be off.

The liklihood that Sunni extremists might get their hands on nuclear weapons from one of the Sunni Arab nations would be uncomfortably high. Given the animosity between the Persian Shia and the Sunni Arabs and the Muslim states in the region and Israel, everyone in the Middle East who possessed nuclear weapons would be on a hair trigger response. Only Israel would possess a second strike capabilty which makes the initial use of nucelar weapons particularly by Iran and the Sunni Arab nations especally likely.

I'm not sure that all of this would be as harmless and Professor Walt wants us to believe.

I did not say that Iran will use nuclear weapons if it gets them. Rather it will use the fact that it has such weapons to undermine the regimes it chooses to undermine in the area. As for irredentism and expansionism, it has already claims on Bahrain as being part of Iran, an issue which is raised frequently in official circles in Iran; mind you and that is without nuclear weapons, and it already occupies the three islands in the Gulf which belong to the UNited Arab Emirates, again without coming near to having nulcear weapons.
khairi janbek.paris/france

Nukes are ruinously expensive to produce, and an economic kiss of death for any nation messing with them in earnest.

Our leaders only wish the Iranians would truly set about to spend the resources necessary to (attempt to) bring nuke weapons to bear. Such actions would surely doom Iran to the same subservient fiscal position that befell Pakistan after their very costly debt-laden dalliance with a nuke weapons program.

Hi (again), Stephen et al:
.

Thank you for the backhanded compliment in responding to Lawther’s distracting pro-Iran-nuke OpEd – while acting as if you don’t read comments to your own do-nothing FP quasi-OpEds.
.

Lawther’s analyses are irrelevant nonsense – as are your straw-man rebuttals. ‘Dumb & Dumber’?
.

Since you do understand that long-term geostrategic & geoeconomic nemeses of UK/US are Russia & China, where do they fit into your analyses about Iran, Israel & Arab nations? You don’t say.
.

In addition, you don’t respond to assertions about reasons that UK/US might be doing some of the otherwise stupid stuff that they’re doing on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel & Iran.
.

Since UK/US have semi-deftly, quasi-covertly & relatively inexpensively participated in ‘regime change’ in more than 50 nations in the last 100 years or so (e.g., in 1953 & 1979 in Iran), why didn’t we do it in Iraq against Saddam (where Daddy Bush abandoned Kurds & Shiites after promising to help after Gulf War I)? Or in Iran (where 75%+ of Muslims & non-Muslims have favored a new form of government for 20 to 30 years)?
.

GW Bush’s savvy ineptitude may have been a cover for ‘no U.S. intent’ on Iran – until now. 30+ years of savvy ineptitude and shipping arms & parts to Iran (e.g., Carter during ‘hostage crisis’ & Daddy Bush during ‘Iran-Contra’) may have covered actual UK/US intentions and baited the trap for another pro-UK/US change of regime in Iran – soon. Unfortunately, Russia & China know this.
.

If you can’t answer such questions at Harvard (especially on Russia & China – not just on Iran, Israel & Arab nations), why are you a prestigious Harvard professor? If you won’t answer these questions in your rants at CFR’s FP, why are you here?
.

Despite your choice of wrong questions to ask (e.g., Lawther’s questions) & despite agreement with your mostly correct answers to wrong questions, your magician’s showmanship in distracting most of us from the correct questions is worth the price of admission. (But where’s the popcorn?)
.

What are correct questions (you may ask, but probably won’t)? You might ask the same questions that DoD is asking about Russia & China – and how best to use Mid-East & Far-East chaos & conflict by & amongst Arab nations, Israel & Iran to advantage UK/US against Russia & China.
.

Research the old but not forgotten UK/US ‘Green Belt Strategy’: to empower populist, well-armed Muslim nations & groups in & surrounding Russia & China, with intent to cut off China’s oil & gas (eventually), and to turn China against Russia to obtain necessary energy supplies. Why? One goal may be to preserve waning UK/US global hegemony. See, e.g., “The Great Siberian War” (a 2007 DoD study), which may come sooner than most may know – if Persians don’t ‘do the right thing.’
.

What’s now happening amongst USA, UK, Russia & China (e.g., Taiwan arms sales, Google feuds, Iran sanctions & regime change, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.) may not otherwise make sense – but might be understood in the context of the Green Belt Strategy & ‘China versus Russia’ games. Russian & Chinese generals understand this context very well (unfortunately) & they’re not happy.
.

If & when you choose to ask the right questions, please let us know. Thanks, Steve.
.

Interesting how some people can come up with these crazy ideas. Do the Times not realize that the first thing I Iran would do with a nuclear bomb is blow up Israel? Are they serious in their assumptions? online casino bonus

The fact that Iran sees itself in the image of a superpower, does not mean it will be a global threat. In addition; wow or weew, Iran is a real threat to the region in which it is situated where problems are hardly solved by arbitration; with the exception of a couple of cases.
khairi janbek.paris/france

Hi, Stephen, Atheist, Pete, Jan et al:
.

Atheist: Chinese & Russians may speak more loudly with simple actions than with bellicose words (e.g., Medvedev’s initially-secret meeting with Netanyahu and China’s BRIC+ Obama-cooling actions in Copenhagen & in dumping non-Treasury U.S. securities). Act simply & carry a big stick?
.

Obama’s response? Threats to China at UN & in Paris (where Hillary implied that Israel may bomb Iran nuke sites if China doesn’t endanger $200B+ in Iran oil & gas deals by backing futile UN-Iran sanctions) and $6B+ in US-Taiwan arms sales (when China holds $2.4T+ in T-debt, dollars, etc.).
.

Endgame?: Turn China against Russia for oil & gas (possibly in a DoD-studied “Great Siberian War”); and continue the ‘surprising surprises’ of US/UK Green Belt Strategy (about which Russian & Chinese elites know well). Purpose?: Augment &/or preserve waning US/UK global hegemony.
.

Pete & Atheist: Iran may indeed nuke Israel – unless US/UK & CFR’s Haass succeed in hijacking the new Persian revolution to facilitate a more pro-US/UK regime in Iran (Mousavi/Rafsanjani?).
.

Mousavi may then recall who brought him to dance. Mousavi is not Ahmadinejad; but Mousavi is also a loose cannon. A nuke-armed Iran might then be a loose cannon that also points at nemesis Russia. Do you now better know the ‘known unknowns’ of the Netanyahu-Medvedev meeting?
.

Regarding your notion that the "mighty Soviet Union couldn't blackmail anyone" - we forget the Cuban Missile Crisis: the US was blackmailed into removing Jupiter missiles from Turkey.

Ah, how appeasers conveniently forget history.