Do you trust Iran with nuclear capabilities?
No, but…
Why would human beings trust ANY GOVERNMENT having nukes, especially when governments have such a bloody history with having a monopoly on force?
Given that nukes already exist and are in possession by governments, why should we trust MORE the only government who has used them against civilians? And why should we trust the West, in general, when it’s been the West overthrowing, bombing, invading, and occupying foreign lands for centuries now?
It seems that the acquisition of nukes
internationally has an analogous effect to the widespread acquisition of firearms
intranationally. First of all, there’s the adage, “An armed society is a polite society.” The fact that the US and USSR never fought each other directly was largely due to mutually-assured destruction. Furthermore, where do mass shootings usually occur? In gun-safe zones. Similarly where do you see wars? Nuclear-armed countries overthrowing or striking non-nuclear countries. Power inequality encourages aggression by the powerful against the powerless. Deterrence is a prerequisite to international respect and peace.
Military alliances further encourage gang-like behavior by enabling bellicosity against non-member states. For instance why should Ukraine and Israel act responsibly towards their neighbors if they can socialize their defense costs to the US taxpayer? Alliances (ie international welfare) subsidize antisocial and uncompromising actions abroad just like welfare subsidies encourage unproductive activity domestically.
Lastly, the obsession about Iran is part of a psyop created by the same actors behind 9/11. The fact is, any energy spent scrutinizing Shia Iran detracts from the justified and deserved scrutiny owed toward Sunni Islam, namely the GCC led by Saudi Arabia, and Israel as the counterbalancing force in the region.
Why anyone would worry about marginalized countries like Iran over worrying instead about corrupt allies on the receiving end of US taxpayer aid and protection who have been proven to harm us, shows just how effectively the Deep State and the M.I.C. manipulates public opinion. Defense contractors thrive on alliances while perversely thriving too on instability, both real and perceived. This is what Ike and many others throughout history warned us about.
Who would be the first they'd strike?
My guess is the nearest recipient of US arms and aid who threatens them and vocally calls for preemptive nuclear strikes, as Bibi does. This is why many foreign policy experts not on the payroll of think tanks or foundations funded by defense contractors and foreign governments have commented that US aid and diplomatic immunity to Israel ironically HARMS, NOT HELPS, Israel’s long term security. Besides, the United States government is constitutionally responsible for protecting AMERICANS, NOT FOREIGNERS. Your question is akin to leftists and progressives who justify domestic spending and programs on the basis of “what if ___ happens?” You can justify any government policy or expenditure if your imagination is dark or pessimistic enough. Freedom requires courage, and peace requires trust. Cowardice and fear fuel authoritarianism and militarism.
