As is customary, James and I disagree about Iran. Or perhaps we merely have different ideas about what constitutes the most important Persian questions. James, I think (and I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong), places the nuclear issue above all others. I’m more agitated by the nature of the regime in Tehran.
That is, I doubt that we can prevent Iran from acquiring a nulear capability at some point and that, while it would certainly be preferable if Iran didn’t have the bomb, we might have to get used to the idea that it will.
It’s also quite possible, perhaps even probable, that a new regime in Tehran (if and/or when that happens) will also want nukes. This would make sense, given that Iran feels it is being threatened by outside, hostile powers. On the other hand, a new regime might be open to some kind of Grand Bargain that would, in return for welcoming Iran back into the international fold, persuade it to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
So I’d argue that the nature of the regime matters more than the nature of the weapons it holds.
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