There's a great back and forth about the significance of an Iranian nuclear weapon on the regional balance of power over at the Yale Journal of International Affairs.

Robert Farley says a nuclear-armed Iran will have no bearing on the BoP: http://yalejournal.org/2011/11/nuclear-armed-iran-and-mid-east-balance-of-power/, while Spencer Ackerman and Michael Cohen say the irrationality of regional actors in the face of an Iranian nuke will have an impact on the region.
http://yalejournal.org/2011/11/spencer-ackerman-responds-to-robert-farley-on-the-significance-of-an-iranian-nuke/

http://yalejournal.org/2011/11/michael-cohen-responds-to-robert-farley-on-a-nuclear-armed-iran/

While I usually agree with Walt on the Middle East (specifically Israel) I have to disagree on this. If I were an Iranian leader I would drag out the process for political maneuvering but I would still make the effort to obtain a viable nuclear weapons program. If anything Libya probably reinforced this. Qaddafi gave up his weapons, made an effort (for him it was an effort anyway) to make new ties with the West and he still got overthrown in large part by NATO. Additionally I have doubts as to whether or not Iran was ever serious about negotiations and its actions seem to leave little doubt that it has been serious about its program for several years at least.

From National Review Online
November 16, 2011

Zakaria’s Iran Misconceptions

The IAEA’s report confirms our suspicions, not our hopes.

By Nathaniel Botwinick

In 2009, Fareed Zakaria wrote an article asserting that “everything you know about Iran is wrong.” Following the release of a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Tuesday, November 8, it seems, rather, that Mr. Zakaria was wrong about everything. Zakaria suggested that Iran did not really want an atomic bomb; instead, it “could well be happy with a peaceful civilian program.” However, according to the IAEA report, Iran is not content with a civilian nuclear program, and is quickly developing nuclear-weapons capabilities. Iran is currently engaged in several projects that have no applicability for a civilian program, e.g., research on nuclear-payload delivery systems.

In his essay, Zakaria accepted Iranian leaders’ solemn pronouncements that they had no desire to acquire nuclear weapons. Both President Ahmadinejad and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared that atomic bombs were “un-Islamic,” and Zakaria swallowed their statements. He did not seem to consider that strategic considerations make it prudent for the Iranians to disavow any nuclear ambitions. Throughout history, most nations have denied pursuing aggressive ambitions when a confession would have brought international opprobrium.

The IAEA report depicts in stark terms Iran’s clandestine attempts to build nuclear weapons. Iran is in the process of procuring “nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals.” Iran is also developing “undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material” and has acquired “nuclear weapons development information and documentation” from former nuclear scientists. This allowed Iran’s development of an indigenous nuclear-weapons program.

But according to Zakaria, we should not worry, because “Iranians aren’t suicidal.” His proof rested on the corruption of leading Iranian officials: “Iran’s ruling elite is obsessed with gathering wealth and maintaining power . . . Many in the regime have been squirreling away money into bank accounts in Dubai and Switzerland for their children and grandchildren.” Hoarding of wealth is not a sign of peaceful intentions. The Nazi leadership was infamous for stockpiling assets, and the possible dangers to their loot did not preclude them from starting the Second World War.

The difficulty then and now is that Iran does not view development of a nuclear weapon as creating an existential threat for itself. Neither Israel nor America has ever threatened to destroy Iran. The danger lies in what Iran could do with its nuclear capabilities. President Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be “eliminated from the pages of history.” Zakaria made no mention of Ahmadinejad’s messianic beliefs, which have caused consternation in the West.

At the time, Zakaria scoffed at any worries the Israelis had concerning Iran. Rather, he viewed Israel as the dangerous state in the Middle East, quoting “one of Netanyahu’s advisers [who] said of Iran, ‘Think Amalek.’” Zakaria tried to twist the quote, interpreting the reference to the Amalekites, a group of people who were eventually eliminated in the Bible, as a desire by the Israeli leadership to eliminate Iran. It is far more likely that Netanyahu’s adviser was referencing the Jewish belief in the Amalekites, frequent adversaries of the Hebrews, as the eternal, existential threat that arises in every generation. Zakaria did not see Iran as such a threat to Israel; instead, according to him, Iran was possibly ready to make a deal with the West. Two years later, Iran rejected President Obama’s generous offer to trade enriched uranium for finished civilian nuclear fuel. It appears Iran is not prepared to negotiate in good faith.

The past few years have also not been kind to Zakaria’s other major assertion, that “Iran isn’t a dictatorship.” While he admitted that Iran is not a democracy, his equivocation that Iran is “an oligarchy, with considerable debate and dissent,” is laughable. The Iranians who were murdered or arrested during the suppression of the “Green Revolution,” just weeks after his 2009 article, or the 2011 “Day of Rage,” might disagree with his description. A leadership that is willing to fix elections and kill its own people to maintain its power seems an untrustworthy partner for negotiations. Yet Zakaria insisted that America must negotiate with Tehran.

There are times for negotiations and times for difficult choices. It seems that Israel has already begun a covert campaign to hobble the Iranian nuclear program through targeted assassinations, but only revolution or military action will halt the Iranian regime’s march towards nuclear weapons. As the world approaches the possibility of another major war in the Middle East, it may be time for Fareed Zakaria to admit that everything he thought he knew about Iran was wrong.

— Nathaniel Botwinick is an editorial intern at National Review Online.

© National Review Online 2011. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283283/zakaria-s-iran-misconceptions-nathaniel-botwinick

Excuse me but why artificially limit the options of dealing with ran to just two: bomb or contain. Why not consider the THIRD option - ENGAGEMENT. Real engagement - not the fake ruses that Obama tried for 10 minutes. After all, the US engaged China.

See, the idea that Iran is seeking nuclear "latency" is nonsense. ANY country with an even purely civilian nuclear program is AUTOMATICALLY a latent nuclear armed country. According to the iAEA and Green Peace, there are already 40 to 140 such "nuclear latent" countries today (depending on precise definition of "latent".) The only way that Iran could NOT be a latent nuclear armed country is if it gave up its nuclear program entirely. Brazil, Argentina, etc all COULD make nukes if they wanted.

BUT UNLIKE those countries, Iran has already offered to not only ratify the Additional Protocol (which allows more intrusive inspections) but to also place additional restrictions on its nuclear program WELL BEYOND its legal obligations - even including opening the program to joint US operation. Is this what a "latent" nuclear power does?

Furthermore the idea that Iran's government is unpopular is mostly wishful thinking. Not only is the Iranian economy doing relatively well (over all, the Iranians have witnessed a significant improvement in living standards since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and the Human Development Index has consistently improved there since then too) but the fact is that they do generally support their government, and massively support their nuclear program.
PROOF: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/652.php

First off I am not aware of any specific laws that preclude Iran from acquiring a bomb should they choose to. It is not without irony that the one nation that is sweating bullets over this has never subjected itself to an IAEA inspection and officially denies the fact that it has the bomb.

I say if they want the bomb, let them get the bomb after all like Israel they are Shiite in a Sunni dominated locale and Persian in a largely Arab locale. If Israel was so convinced its unique characteristics with respect to the middle east merited a nuclear weapon, then Iran which shares similar ethnographic characteristics should be allowed to get the bomb in the event the Sunni Arabs make a play.

and that they've been using the cover of the NPT all these years to secure the technology to do so, straight from the horses mouth.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007273591

Iran is rolling the die, betting on the weakness of the US political establishment.

Should they have bet right, they will win the Middle East as a lieutenant of China. It will be increasingly untenable for the US to support Israel as Israel already very vulnerable position becomes more vulnerable than it has been in decades. If Israel ever had any nuclear weapons, it will be on a hair trigger due to its lack of strategic depth as a very small country surrounded by hostile (and neutral-hostile) countries.

This will have global implications far beyond the middle east as well, the NPT will no longer have persuasive power, North Korea will be emboldened, and any thought of nuclear disarmament will be out the window with the lack of enforcement. We went from a world of 60,000 nukes to less than 30,000. That will be out the window. Some hope for some sort of 'nuclear equality' where every country has 10,000 nukes (taken to their train of thouts obvious conclusion).

These people desire to live in interesting times, times where Venezuela and Bolivia have nukes, where Greece and Turkey have nukes, where even Sudan has the ability to make its neighbors a wasteland.

Should the Iranian government have bet wrong, the toll for Iran will be far heavier than they expected, and make no mistake, the Iranian government will regret their decision in a physical capacity if such comes to pass, as will the Iranian people.

The US did more damage to Iraq in seven hours than Iran did in 7 years, that should tell you the military power difference.

He has one point worth noting. The Iranian regime is falling apart. People have been over-reacting to it.

Where he muffs it, is that he doesn't quite realize that the threat of making a nuke may be more important to them than actually having one. He fails to take into account that Iran wants the world to think they are on the road to making one. They would rather have a ME Cold war and tease out the possibility of nuclear blackmail than the expensive, messy process of being the owners of nukes.

Iran's nuclear program is far too visible at a much too critical stage to be taken as seriously as the media have been portraying it. If they were truly serious about their program, we would not be having this discussion with such a level of detail about their program. If Iran wanted to hide a nuclear weapons development program from the world, it would not be difficult to do. Others have tried and been successful. Obviously Iran is using this to play some kind of angle with its neighbors and adversaries. Just like North Korea.

No, its not Israel playing up the threat, its Iran itself. They need to create an outside conflict in order to be taken seriously domestically and internationally.

RE: "...an Iranian nuclear weapons capability means that they will automatically be suspected if a nuclear detonation takes place anywhere in the world." ~ Walt

FROM THE INTERNET, 11/14/11:

...In 1980, British PM Cameron (then a mere researcher) and David Kelly were involved in sorting out the destiny of nine nuclear warheads that Israel had supplied to South Africa. The South Africans wanted to get rid of them before the ANC took over. The US took six and Thatcher agreed to take the remaining three. To cut a long story short, Britain was double-crossed by a shady arms dealer who sold the three warheads on the black market. North Korea detonated one of them a couple of years ago, the other two remain missing...

SOURCE (in comments) - http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/11/matthew-gould-and-the-plot-to-attack-iran/

what a junk article from this supposed brainiac...

walt could not be more off base. Iran has not spent billions upon billions of dollar to turn back now...they have not built fortified installations under mountains for nothing. Walt is in essence, living in a fantasy world.

I personbally find it interesting how walty can be so cavalier with israel and the rest of the worlds safety???

anyone who thinks iran ought to have the right to nukes just because israel or others have them is just plain nuts. All of you transparent jew haters oughtt o be THANKFUL that israel has been as responsible as they have been with their nukes and their other conventional capabilities. You ought to thankful israel is as merciful as they are.

shoe on the other foot....if the arabs had the nukes and israel didnt? the ME would be irradiated.

iran is in no way the same situation as iraq....having said that, there was an article out recently stating that in 2003, saddam shipped his nuclear program to syria. regardless, iraq was attempting to acquire nukes as far back as 1981....it was a reactor located at osirak, iraq, sold to them by none other than then FM jacques chirac...hence the nickname of that facility, ochirak...which as everyone knows, israel brilliantly blew it to smithereens..hence, the reason why iran buried their program undergroud and dispersed it. The iranians did hide their program for man years until the iranian opposition outed each facility.

obama pledged in 08 to never allow iran nukes....so whats it gonna be barry?

lastly, if as someone suggested, iran wants to have nukes because they want to negotiate, what do you think iran wants to "negotiate"? its obvious...they want the US to abandon israel so they can attempt to destroy it. anyhow, it will never happen. If push comes to shove, israel can and SHOULD obliterate iran.

Saudi Arabia does not support a military strike to thwart Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, said Saudi Arabia's Prince Turki al-Faisal.

The prince said a strike on Iran would have ''catastrophic consequences''.

Beyond the human suffering in Iran, the country's leaders would be sure to retaliate, he said, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington.

That counter-attack ''is not going to be confined to one or two targets in the Gulf''.

A military strike against Iran would backfire, he said. ''If anything, it will only make the Iranians more determined to produce an atomic bomb.''

The prince urged the United Nations to tighten sanctions against Iran for its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

Walt says
" It has more people, more economic potential, and plenty of oil and gas too. If it ever had competent political leadership it would easily be the strongest conventional power in its neighborhood."

I would agree except for in the case of Turkey. It has a more mature economy, roughly the same population. It is true that Turkey is not endowed with the same natural resources as Iran but that may be a blessing in disguise. It seems a counter intuitive irony that rich natural resources impede the development of some countries. Of the three leading net-exporters of manufactured goods today, Germany, Japan and China, the two former are characterized by the possession of very few natural resources. Two other western countries one could compare them to would be France and the United States. They both run trade deficits despite being far more richly endowed with natural resources, particularly the US. The rule isn't ironclad, for example Britain ought to have been a major industrial power yet has largely become a service economy. But Iran's natural resources may not give them the edge over Turkey.

Why should we trust Israel with the bomb and not Iran? Why should we trust the US with the bomb and not North Korea? Because the aforementioned have a responsible government? Who defines responsibility in this case? The US which launched a war based on fabricated evidence against Iraq or Israel a neo colonial power? The nations placing themselves as the purveyors of global order are the same nations which have shown manifest flaws in their political systems frankly after the Iraq incident without getting into the gulf of Tonkin incident I am disinclined to believe the US or any other power has the moral authority to decide who gets what based on the whole 'we are a democratic state and are thus more responsible' argument.

The argument that Iran may have a deep rooted desire to reestablish the Persian empire presupposes the fact that they would have learnt nothing from the alleged attempts by the Islamic radicals to reestablish the caliphate. It was a Sisyphean labor that ultimately yielded no results.

No one can ask death for an extension,in the same way the old ideas of the revolution will die when those for whom they are most real pass on. The vast majority of the people in Iran are young people, many born after the revolution, a long term strategy I would think would involve engaging them.

However there is the eternal wildcard which is the Palestine Israeli conflict and the polarizing effect that it has. Unless and until Israel is seen to be acting in good faith as opposed to creating facts in the ground underwritten by the bombs in Dimona , it will be a challenge.

The freedom of action enjoyed by Israel as a result of Dimona only sends the message that force is the only source of strength. I say the aforementioned with a caveat, too many of the Arab powers have paid only lip service to the Palestinian issue. I think in a way mutually assured destruction will force a more honest discussion about all issues.

Despite the long-running campaign by the Zionist elite to exploit Jewish paranoia about an imminent second Holocaust, I cannot believe that the right-wing administration of Netanyahu seriously believes that Israel is in danger of being nuked by Iran. This continually crying wolf is just more evidence that Likud cannot bear the thought of being upstaged as regional hegemon. (I cannot think that a hegemonic Iran could f**k it up any worse than Israel has. In spite of Ahmadinejad’s bombast, Iran seems to be a more rational actor than Israel has ever been.)

If Bibi is so insistent upon disarming the not-yet-armed Iran, he only has to get rid of his own nukes, and Iran will stand down. Besides, when Iran is satisfied that Israel has cried wolf often enough so that nobody pays attention anymore, they will set about establishing a weapons program in complete confidence that it is safe to do so. That is, after all, the lesson of the wolf-cry fable.

There are compelling reasons for no nation to have nuclear weapons, and good reasons for nuclear weapon free areas like the ME. However, there are no good reasons why one nation should have them but not its neighbours, particularly when the nation in question is both aggressive and economical in respect for international law.

One problem here is that the notion of a nuclear armed Iran as a danger has become axiomatic to many and therefore something they will not question. From a variety of references to Iran over time, I have a suspicion that a dangerous, unstable, untrustworthy, anti-Western Iran is an axiom for Dr Walt and therefore a point of departure rather than something that might be revisited. This is a pity since many serious minds have concluded that insistence on Iran being in active pursuit of a nuclear weapon in order to attack Israel is unsubstantiated nonsense and the real reasons for wishing to destroy Iran are quite other. LINK

Gideon Levy writing in Haaretz yesterday about the withering of democracy in Israel referred to Israel as ‘A state with a neutered court, fearful media and illiterate Knesset - and all this without much of a civil society to speak of’ LINK and one might add to that mix youthful Zealot soldiery with fanatical antipathies towards Palestinians who are gradually progressing up the IDF hierarchy.

US/Iranian rapprochement is the commonsense answer. Everyone knows that, including the Israelis and other pro-Semites who would do anything to prevent it, even to the point of wheeling out their nuclear arsenal.

If Iran has the greatest potential as an economic power in the gulf region, wouldn't it be in their interest to NOT have a nuclear program at all? If Iran ditches its nuclear program and ends ties to terrorist groups, then that would result in no more sanctions, a full reintegration to the global economy, and no more U.S. carrier battle groups parked off their shores. How is that not a good deal?

watched part of an interview by Charlie Rose with Mohammad Javad Larijani in which Rose must have asked the same stupid question about Iran's quest for nuclear capability 20 times and got the same logical answer, which is

that the ability to make nuclear weapons comes with the territory of achieving advanced nuclear technology. Any state that achieves this level of nuclear sophistication ipso facto already knows how to make a weapon. The plans are available on the Internet. Brazil knows how to do it, and like Iran, states that it renounces the weapons.

So this is the core of our hysteria about Iran.

We demand that they remove from their brains any knowledge and advanced technological achievements they have made --- or we will -- what?