Iran is certainly an enemy of ours. They do fund terrorists and they have killed Americans by proxy. So permanently reducing their power isn't the worst thing in the world.
I would prefer that it would be impossible for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. I'm not informed enough to understand if their program is actually peaceful or not, but they should just stick to oil.
The Iranian people would likely be better off if the ayatollahs were usurped. I say this because Persians are generally better behaved than Arabs and the country is firmly Shiite, so it might not be an Iraq/Lybia/Egypt situation.
All of this goes out the window if:
- The US commits direct military forces
- the strikes do not permanently degrade Iran's power
If everyone has nukes nobody can bully anyone anymore. And honestly I'd rather be someone who can curb stomp a bully than to be able to bully someone.
As long as everyone is responsible with them. The more non-white countries get their hands on them, the less likely that is.
Regardless, I feel you understand what I'm saying. In an uncertain environment, it's always better to be the stronger party.
Given the fact that only one country has actually used them and considering how unhinged large parts of the US government are... well it is an argument for why everyone should have nukes.
Besides two of the most insane shitholes on earth have nukes and never used them. India and Pakistan. Iran doesn't even come close to those two.
Sure. But you can argue that if everyone had nukes there wouldn't be an uncertain environment anymore.
That is a decent point, but the fact that a state where you can marry your first cousin no problem has made it a few decades without using nukes should not be considered probative of future behavior.
I'm not even going to say I believe you're wrong. I just don't know if I'd take that bet.
Yeah, until a state with a nuclear stockpile fails. Hence why South Africa unilaterally disarmed before apartheid ended.