But actually, it is President Obama’s words on the subject that are unacceptable, and utterly so.
Unless they are decoys or time-buyers as he plots a strike or conveys serious threats to strike through back-channels.
Thursday, November 17, 2011, 11:03 AM
Carl Scott
November 21st, 2011 | 1:51 pm
N Korea’s acquisition of nuclear weapons has not changed its behavior on the Korean peninsula very much, and Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would similarly not change the power dynamics all that much in its region. The main effect would be to make an Israeli, US or other strike against Iran somewhat less likely. Iran would continue to give various kinds of support to Hezbollah, Hamas, factions in Iraq just as it is doing now. Otherwise I can’t see all that much impact. On balance, better not to have a nuclear Iran, to be sure, but the possible consequences are being exaggerated.
DPTrombly at Slouching Towards Columbia has a good analysis of all this, including specifically why a nuclear-armed Iran would not attack Israel, namely it can’t destroy Israel’s nuclear second-strike capability:
here.