Iran would be destroyed if it used nukes

The military strike option has some merit, except that: total destruction of Iran’s nuclear programme is unlikely in any event; and, retaliation by Iran might be a painful scenario for everyone.

A variation of mutually-assured destruction in this  case would mean that if Iran developed a single nuclear warhead and then attacked someone with that single warhead, then the entire country of Iran would be obliterated completely and no one would get a vote before that happened. Iran would lay in ruins, the population would be decimated and there would most likely not be much foreign protest over the overcome. That doctrine worked in the Cold War, and that is the only way to deal with “rogue” countries with nukes, as no one smart enough to develop nukes would be stupid enough to use them and thereby risk total annihilation.

Chris Kaye pointed out that the third supposed option is that of strangling Iran’s economy, which could lead to a modicum of misery for everyone, but it is not an option that solves the problem, as it is only short-term.

Israel pursues the strike option because it wants to be the only kid on the block with nukes in the Middle East and doesn’t want competition from Iran. But smart Israelis know full well that a variation of the doctrine of mutually-assured destruction would prevent any nuclear attack by Iran on Israel.

Iran can be brought into accordance with the world community as the former Soviet Union eventually was, and Israel can be and is now protected completely and fully from strategic attacks, so when will smart Israelis finally admit publicly to the truth of the matter?

Guy Baker

Bangkok