Except that Israel has had nuclear capability ( approx. 90 warheads ) for over 30 years.
They have never threatened to use them; they don't even acknowledge having them.

Do you trust the religious leaders of |Iran to do the same ?
"Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian government has executed thousands of individuals, using capital punishment to suppress dissent and enforce strict Islamic law. Key periods include a surge in 2025 with over 1,639 deaths and the 1988 mass execution of roughly 30,000 political prisoners. Executions often target protesters, activists, and minorities."
According to Amnesty International, Iran was responsible for 64% of all recorded state-sponsored executions, worldwide, in 2024; with the mass protests of last year, that percentage is indubitably higher yet for 2025.

Do you really think the MAD doctrine works when a government doesn't give a damn about its people ?

35 minutes ago, MigL said:

Except that Israel has had nuclear capability ( approx. 90 warheads ) for over 30 years.
They have never threatened to use them; they don't even acknowledge having them.

Do you trust the religious leaders of |Iran to do the same ?
"Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian government has executed thousands of individuals, using capital punishment to suppress dissent and enforce strict Islamic law. Key periods include a surge in 2025 with over 1,639 deaths and the 1988 mass execution of roughly 30,000 political prisoners. Executions often target protesters, activists, and minorities."
According to Amnesty International, Iran was responsible for 64% of all recorded state-sponsored executions, worldwide, in 2024; with the mass protests of last year, that percentage is indubitably higher yet for 2025.

Do you really think the MAD doctrine works when a government doesn't give a damn about its people ?

I think that goes towards Iran as a theocratic irrational actor doctrine. I do not think that internal violence is necessarily a good predictor regarding nuclear use. The Soviet Union is a good example, to that effect. One could make a similar argument where many more lives than since the start of the Ukraine war, for no obviously good reasons. Yet they have refrained from nuking the region.

While they might have little regard for human lives, they are interested in maintaining power. Nuclear annihilation does not achieve that.

That being said, any authoritarian structure might be vulnerable to irrational actions of the leader, the question then is whether there are internal elements to stop it (a question that is increasingly relevant also for the US). The former Supreme Leader seemed to have reservations to fully commit to the final steps of nuclear armament, though with the current situation the rational calculus would actually favour a more aggressive program. However, the willingness to use those weapons are a different matter.

At least historically, expert analysts seem to frame Iran's actions as mostly pragmatic and rational, though couched in a religious ideology. Thus, based on historic evidence at least, it is more likely that WMDs will only be used if it somehow secures their power structure, but I cannot see a scenario for that. As a means of deterrent, however, it makes much more sense.

37 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think that goes towards Iran as a theocratic irrational actor doctrine. I do not think that internal violence is necessarily a good predictor regarding nuclear use. The Soviet Union is a good example, to that effect. One could make a similar argument where many more lives than since the start of the Ukraine war, for no obviously good reasons. Yet they have refrained from nuking the region.

While they might have little regard for human lives, they are interested in maintaining power. Nuclear annihilation does not achieve that.

That being said, any authoritarian structure might be vulnerable to irrational actions of the leader, the question then is whether there are internal elements to stop it (a question that is increasingly relevant also for the US). The former Supreme Leader seemed to have reservations to fully commit to the final steps of nuclear armament, though with the current situation the rational calculus would actually favour a more aggressive program. However, the willingness to use those weapons are a different matter.

At least historically, expert analysts seem to frame Iran's actions as mostly pragmatic and rational, though couched in a religious ideology. Thus, based on historic evidence at least, it is more likely that WMDs will only be used if it somehow secures their power structure, but I cannot see a scenario for that. As a means of deterrent, however, it makes much more sense.

I'm sure this is right. My assessment of Khamenei's policy was to enrich to just short of bomb grade and stop there, so that Iran could plausibly say they had no bomb ambition, but to have in reserve the capability to get there very quickly if conditions were to change such as to require it. They probably foresaw exactly the kind of pre-emptive attack by the USA and Israel that has just taken place. That would make them wise planners, not "mad mullahs".

The notion they would invite destruction of their country in a retaliatory strike by Israel, if they were to nuke Israel first is I think quite absurd. Though it is what Israel has hysterically been working on the Americans about for years. The whole notion of mad mullahs misjudges them entirely. There is no evidence the Iranian regime is irrational. Quite the contrary, as recent events have shown. Brutal at suppressing dissent, yes, of course. Irrational, no.

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The Islamic countries need a mutual pact, like NATO's Article 5.

The Islamic countries have very different histories and power structures, not to mention ethnic and religious rifts. Many have been at odds for a long time. Iran, specifically has is projecting power asymmetrically by funding terror groups and militias, which destabilize a number of Arabic countries. Also, after figuring out that you can simply bribe the leader of the Western world, and that folks do not care that much for human rights after all, quite a few Islamic countries are on pretty good terms with parts of the west now. Certainly on better terms than with Iran.

Israel is a bit of a different issue, but Lebanon is just not rich enough to pay everyone off.

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

The whole notion of mad mullahs misjudges them entirely. There is no evidence the Iranian regime is irrational. Quite the contrary, as recent events have shown.

A lot of very clever folks have been spending decades dissecting Iran's each and every action, in an effort to figure how rational the government is (or not). While there is a lot if spin, pretty much all serious papers seem to argue that the bottom goal that underpins all action is survival of the regime. Some derive rationality from there, others explain that this is irrational, though I have to admit I did not follow the logic one the first read and didn't want to invest the time to figure out all the steps how they arrived there. Of course things are not black and white, but I am pretty sure that folks invested all that effort specifically to avoid going up against a caricature (which, to be fair, has been a Western doctrine for a fair bit of history).

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Except that Israel has had nuclear capability ( approx. 90 warheads ) for over 30 years.
They have never threatened to use them; they don't even acknowledge having them.

Not correct. In the Iraq war Netanyahu threatened to nuke Saddam's Iraq if they put one missile on Israeli soil. I remember him saying that because he was basically admitting they had them. And yet, he still maintains nuclear ambiguity.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by StringJunky

33 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The Islamic countries have very different histories and power structures, not to mention ethnic and religious rifts. Many have been at odds for a long time. Iran, specifically has is projecting power asymmetrically by funding terror groups and militias, which destabilize a number of Arabic countries. Also, after figuring out that you can simply bribe the leader of the Western world, and that folks do not care that much for human rights after all, quite a few Islamic countries are on pretty good terms with parts of the west now. Certainly on better terms than with Iran.

Israel is a bit of a different issue, but Lebanon is just not rich enough to pay everyone off.

A lot of very clever folks have been spending decades dissecting Iran's each and every action, in an effort to figure how rational the government is (or not). While there is a lot if spin, pretty much all serious papers seem to argue that the bottom goal that underpins all action is survival of the regime. Some derive rationality from there, others explain that this is irrational, though I have to admit I did not follow the logic one the first read and didn't want to invest the time to figure out all the steps how they arrived there. Of course things are not black and white, but I am pretty sure that folks invested all that effort specifically to avoid going up against a caricature (which, to be fair, has been a Western doctrine for a fair bit of history).

Yes and the thinking of those clever folks informed the 2015 agreement negotiated with Iran by Obama, the UN Security Council and the EU - which Trump tore up, preferring apparently to treat Iran as a caricature. Or else just because Obama was black. Very "rational", that.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by exchemist

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Not correct. In the Iraq war Netanyahu threatened to nuke Saddam's Iraq if they put one missile on Israeli soil.

You're going to provide a citation for this ?
I could not find anything of the sort with a search, and will wait for your evidence.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

While they might have little regard for human lives, they are interested in maintaining power. Nuclear annihilation does not achieve that.

A few warheads will not achieve annihilation.
The 'regime' will survive in hardened bunkers, in both Iran and Israel.
The people at risk are the ones living close to the launch sites of the nuclear ordinances, as they will be first targets, whether airfields for planes or missile sites ( Israel has submarine launched missiles as well ).
The difference is Israel cares about its people.

Now do you see the argument ?

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

You're going to provide a citation for this ?
I could not find anything of the sort with a search, and will wait for your evidence.

I can't. It's from memory and it was in a newspaper. It was one detail in an article, a passing remark by him.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by StringJunky

47 minutes ago, MigL said:

The 'regime' will survive in hardened bunkers, in both Iran and Israel.

Regime survival is not the same as individual survival. Even if they personally survived, there would be no power base left. Or nation, for that matter. Also, leadership structures in Iran are seemingly a fair bit broader and deeper than, say, Russia.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Yes and the thinking of those clever folks informed the 2015 agreement negotiated with Iran by Obama, the UN Security Council and the EU - which Trump tore up, preferring apparently to treat Iran as a caricature. Or else just because Obama was black. Very "rational", that.

Indeed. Iran even followed the accord for about a year, possibly assuming that Trump might reverse course, which didn't happen, of course. The agreement under Obama would have halted development to about a year out, tearing up the agreement moved the timeline up to a few weeks. A magnificent win. And now a global energy crisis. I mean, that is a good example how even a democratic structure is vulnerable to erratic actions, which leads some credence to the notion that no one should have nukes.

22 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Also, leadership structures in Iran are seemingly a fair bit broader and deeper than, say, Russia.

Iran's decision structure accommodates potential assassinations and commanders can act autonomously, if necessary. It seems they have thought of the long game.

27 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Even if they personally survived, there would be no power base left. Or nation, for that matter.

I don't believe that; religious fanaticism is a powerful motivator ( even P Hegseth is trying to tap it ).

And you discount Iran's willingness to supply its proxys with weapons.
I don't believe Iran would attack Israel directly for fear of retaliation, but they could certainly supply Hezbollah, Hamas, or the Houthis with a nuke, which they would be willing to use, and give Iran deniability for its use.

Any way you look at it, Iran having nuclear capability, as Stringy previously floated, is a very bad idea.

Just now, StringJunky said:

Iran's decision structure accommodates potential assassinations and commanders can act autonomously, if necessary. It seems they have thought of the long game.

It is likely a system borne from the revolution. As you recall, the overthrow of the Shah was a deeply popular movement, which incorporated a lot of secular forces. Hence, there were a lot of promises for a path to democracy before, but then a furious power struggle after the the successful overthrow.

There are different viewpoints how that happened but in the aftermath, multiple revolutionary bodies were formed, controlling different aspects of society. I.e. one way to interpret is that because the revolutionary forces were ideologically diverse, it wasn't possible to consolidate into a unifying controlling body. Rather it took time, the formation of specific groups to counter those forces and then to squash opposition over perhaps a decade or so. These structures have largely survived and while not really autonomous as such, they present a sort of slightly decentralized organizational power that can function when the head of state is killed.

1 minute ago, MigL said:

And you discount Iran's willingness to supply its proxys with weapons.
I don't believe Iran would attack Israel directly for fear of retaliation, but they could certainly supply Hezbollah, Hamas, or the Houthis with a nuke, which they would be willing to use, and give Iran deniability for its use.

While this is likely the most likely scenario of deployment, I doubt that they are under the illusion that folks wouldn't immediately blame the Iranian government. They may officially tap dance around that a bit, but they know that everyone knows that those are their proxies. And in fact they have admitted to that a few times, including demanding the inclusion of Lebanon (i.e., Hezbollah) in the last round of ceasefire agreements.

IOW, I don't think anyone in the Iranian government thinks that they can risk deploying nuclear weapons via proxies. Also, I suspect forensics would easily connect it to their enrichment program. So no, unless their government is replaced by folks that are substantially different to what they had before, I doubt that this is a realistic scenario either.

But then again, I have gotten quite a bit of appreciation regarding how stupid things can get, so I won't make any bets on the future.

7 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I think Iran needs a nuclear capability, or for one of its nuclear-armed allies to say "Nuke Iran or threaten it with them, we'll do the same to you". That would be simplest, I think. The Islamic countries need a mutual pact, like NATO's Article 5. I think all this geopolitical bullying and resource stealing by the west is down to the glaring asymmetry in WMD's. There's no mutually assured destruction capability in the Islamic Middle East. There needs to be some degree of a nuclear capability there to restore some level of mutual military respect.

The ally thing could work, though it's hard to imagine a nuke capability from any of them that would really counter the US with a MAD. Maybe Russia, though I can't see the present Putin admin wanting to commit to a binding defense pact like that. This is the sort of fraught nuclear geopolitics I haven't given enough thought or research.

(ETA: now seeing a whole page of posts around this matter, which will now read; some days I'm in the wrong time zone...)

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

Yes and the thinking of those clever folks informed the 2015 agreement negotiated with Iran by Obama, the UN Security Council and the EU - which Trump tore up, preferring apparently to treat Iran as a caricature. Or else just because Obama was black. Very "rational", that.

Not sure how much press the story got in Europe or UK, but one theory for Turnip's animus is that, rather than being racially based, it's owing to Obama roasting Turnip at the 2011 WH Correspondents Dinner. Many who know the Turnip say he was deeply stung, found none of it funny, and was pretty much determined to exact revenge from that point on. Undoing all things Obama became the focus of that spite. One can fault Obama only to the extent that he may not have realized quite the depths of Turnip's sociopathy and humorless vindictiveness (and ability to grift his way to the WH). But really, few people outside of New York social circles and real estate biz did.

This is a bit on the side, but I think the older folks (myself included) might need to revise some of our assumptions on the power structure of the countries in the Middle East. Some (e.g. Lebanon) might still be in similar geopolitically place as they were before, but others might be in a very different position and alignment then they were decades ago.

Not that I claim to understand any of that. Just looking at the parties involved in the Yemeni war make my head spin. I think the time of clear blocks of powers might be over, especially when it comes to proxy wars.

On 4/18/2026 at 4:12 PM, CharonY said:

Also, alcoholism

The Atlantic

The FBI Director Is MIA

Kash Patel has alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences.

Patel has filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against the Atlantic.....