The obvious answer to this is, Yes of course it does. Were I advising the Iranian regime I’d probably be pretty keen on developing a nuclear capability too. At the very least I should certainly want Iran’s opponents to think Iran has serious nuclear ambitions. And yet, I’d also appreciate that if Iran’s opponents really believe Iran is close to acquiring a nuclear weapon then the game enters a new and complicated phase that is dangerous for Iran too. So I might actually want Iran’s opponents to be unsure or confused and prefer it if the question of Iran’s nuclear desires remained ambiguous. That way, I might argue, Iran could enjoy some of the benefits of being a would-be nuclear power without taking on the risks of being so.
All this, of course, is entirely speculative. Nevertheless, like James Fallows, I was struck by this recent, woefully under-reported* exchange at a recent Senate hearing** in Washington between Senator Olympia Snowe (RINO-Maine) and James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence:
Senator Snowe: I gather we agree with the fact that Iran has not made the decision to weaponize at this point.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in