Why are republicans concerned about a nuclear Iran?

[The Free North]

Its pretty clear that if Iran developed a bomb (they've supposedly been trying for 16 years) they would be less of a threat than a nuclear Pakistan is to global stability right now.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Because most of them think that if Iran gets the bomb, they'll nuke Tel Aviv the very next day. No, really.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I'm concerned with any country obtaining a nuclear bomb that doesn't already have one, but specifically a country like Iran.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

No country should have nuclear bombs. Any more nuclear bombs is one step further to disaster.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

No country should have nuclear bombs. Any more nuclear bombs is one step further to disaster.

[Suburbia]

They're worried that the bomb will attack all of US including Israel.

[Potus]

The largest concern that I hold personally about a nuclear Iran draws on geopolitics. The Middle East can be understood through a lense of Shiite and Sunni. Institutions from top to bottom are framed, by and large, in this sort of view. The internal politics of nations is discussed in a Shia and Sunni framework, too.

Same applies to the terror organizations we hear about on the news. To us, they are terror organizations. But to the two regional powers, Iran and Saudi Arabia, they are an extension of their influence. Iran backs up Shia terrorists. Some Saudis back up Sunni terrorists. They battle one another for the balance of power in the region.

Saudi Arabia has made a commitment to keeping nuclear weapons out of the Middle East. It is the world's most volatile region, after all. The Saudi also, through cooperation with Pakistan, have the capacity to quickly gain a nuclear arsenal. Some intelligence sources say they could have a bomb within a month.

A major reason they're looked upon better than Iran by the West is this: They haven't done it. The Saudis, the dominant Sunni Power, have not pursued nuclear weapons. What happens if Iran, the dominant Shia power, is successful in developing nuclear weapons? The Saudis become a nuclear state.

The theory of "balance of power" necessitates an arms race in the Middle East. The threat becomes even more concerning when you look at Iran's expressed willingness to bolster their militant allies with nuclear technology in order to encourage loyalty to Tehran. Does that bring Saudi-backed Sunni militias to the nuclear table?

A Middle East arms race coupled with an escalation in the fight for regional preeminance is what concerns me most. We see governments collapse in a matter of months in the Middle East. We see extremists take over countries. What happens when Iran gets a Libya-like rebellion against the authoritarian regime and the country is gripped by chaos? The same could be asked of Saudi Arabia. Or if Bashar Al-Assad wins in Syria, Iran chooses to bolster one of their closest ally governments with nuclear technology? Or if the Saudis strengthen shady Sunni governments with nuclear tech?

A nuclear Iran would represent a geopolitical catastrophe that could feasibly threaten life on Earth. Abundant nuclear weapons in the Middle East are a grave, grave threat to everyone alive. That's why I oppose nuclear Iran.

[King]

OP is making the war hawk's winning the argument for them. The question isn't whether a nuclear Iran is good or bad. It's bad. If you don't say that it is bad, you're going to lose public opinion. The question is whether crazy Netanyahu's plan for dealing with it good or bad and it's awful.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

It's not too high on my list of concerns.  I blame FOX News for the Republican obsession with being opposed to Iran at every conceivable opportunity.

[bedstuy]

There are a few major concerns:

-Iran using a nuclear weapon on Israel.  The obvious counter-argument is MAD.  However, that could be less successful when the two countries are closer together, IE less warning time for a nuclear strike.  We also have to factor in the religious extremism of Iran.  Perhaps, you could see the Iranian government overthrown by a more liberal moderate youth movement, which leads the religious leaders to a desperate point of wanting to go out in a blaze of glory and take the country with them.  

-A Middle Eastern Arms Race:  Iran having a nuke could inspire Saudi Arabia to develop nuclear weapons.  Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons would more more dangerous than Iran.  That in addition would introduce nuclear weapons to the intense Sunni-Shia conflict with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on one side and Iran on the other.  We've seen the atrocities that ISIS has committed in the name of fighting Shia Islam, that logic could extend to using previously unthinkable weapons.

-Iran being emboldened by a nuclear deterrent to cause trouble in the region.  Nuclear weapons can be a trump card in geopolitics.  Iran might be able to pursue their regional power aims without inference because their neighbors are cowed by their nuclear weapons.

All that said, I'm of the opinion the more engagement with Iran is the best option.  Iran is actually not our natural enemy, since they practice the minority form of Islam.  We could actually see them as a ally of convenience in fighting Sunni extremists like Al Qaeda and ISIS.  Just go back to the 70s, the US, Israel and Iran were allies.  Israel actually worked to develop a fighter jet with Iran.  That's not to say it's going to be easy or will probably work to engage, I just think it's a higher margin play than isolating them completely.

[Potus]

There are a few major concerns:

-Iran using a nuclear weapon on Israel.  The obvious counter-argument is MAD.  However, that could be less successful when the two countries are closer together, IE less warning time for a nuclear strike.  We also have to factor in the religious extremism of Iran.  Perhaps, you could see the Iranian government overthrown by a more liberal moderate youth movement, which leads the religious leaders to a desperate point of wanting to go out in a blaze of glory and take the country with them.  

-A Middle Eastern Arms Race:  Iran having a nuke could inspire Saudi Arabia to develop nuclear weapons.  Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons would more more dangerous than Iran.  That in addition would introduce nuclear weapons to the intense Sunni-Shia conflict with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on one side and Iran on the other.  We've seen the atrocities that ISIS has committed in the name of fighting Shia Islam, that logic could extend to using previously unthinkable weapons.

-Iran being emboldened by a nuclear deterrent to cause trouble in the region.  Nuclear weapons can be a trump card in geopolitics.  Iran might be able to pursue their regional power aims without inference because their neighbors are cowed by their nuclear weapons.

All that said, I'm of the opinion the more engagement with Iran is the best option.  Iran is actually not our natural enemy, since they practice the minority form of Islam.  We could actually see them as a ally of convenience in fighting Sunni extremists like Al Qaeda and ISIS.  Just go back to the 70s, the US, Israel and Iran were allies.  Israel actually worked to develop a fighter jet with Iran.  That's not to say it's going to be easy or will probably work to engage, I just think it's a higher margin play than isolating them completely.

The concern I have with what you call engagement and I call appeasement is that the worst aspects of Iran are institutional. The entire government is structured to maintain rigidity, both domestic and abroad. The religious establishment in Iran want to see the government acquire a nuclear weapon in order to advance the interests of Shia Islam.

The Supreme Leader, the country's actual leader, is not held accountable by the public. The President is theoretically held accountable, but that isn't the case in reality.

"Engaging" Iran means that we meet to pursue the government's interests beyond or besides nuclear weapons. They give up on nukes, we work together on economic development or disease eradication. The regime's interests, however, all lead to nuclear weapons. The only chance engagement has is if the West were to radically shift their foreign policy in order to tip the scales of regional power in favor of Iran over Saudi Arabia. As you said, they want a nuclear weapon, in part, to strengthen their diplomatic hand when they get caught causing trouble. The only thing that could equal the weight of a nuclear weapon at the negotiating table is a strong security guarantee from the United States and its allies.

I don't think anyone would even remotely considering providing a strong security guarantee to Iran and being on the hook when Iran's regional powerplays go bust. That leaves Iran with one option to become the predominant regional power: a nuclear weapon.

[bedstuy]

There are a few major concerns:

-Iran using a nuclear weapon on Israel.  The obvious counter-argument is MAD.  However, that could be less successful when the two countries are closer together, IE less warning time for a nuclear strike.  We also have to factor in the religious extremism of Iran.  Perhaps, you could see the Iranian government overthrown by a more liberal moderate youth movement, which leads the religious leaders to a desperate point of wanting to go out in a blaze of glory and take the country with them.  

-A Middle Eastern Arms Race:  Iran having a nuke could inspire Saudi Arabia to develop nuclear weapons.  Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons would more more dangerous than Iran.  That in addition would introduce nuclear weapons to the intense Sunni-Shia conflict with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on one side and Iran on the other.  We've seen the atrocities that ISIS has committed in the name of fighting Shia Islam, that logic could extend to using previously unthinkable weapons.

-Iran being emboldened by a nuclear deterrent to cause trouble in the region.  Nuclear weapons can be a trump card in geopolitics.  Iran might be able to pursue their regional power aims without inference because their neighbors are cowed by their nuclear weapons.

All that said, I'm of the opinion the more engagement with Iran is the best option.  Iran is actually not our natural enemy, since they practice the minority form of Islam.  We could actually see them as a ally of convenience in fighting Sunni extremists like Al Qaeda and ISIS.  Just go back to the 70s, the US, Israel and Iran were allies.  Israel actually worked to develop a fighter jet with Iran.  That's not to say it's going to be easy or will probably work to engage, I just think it's a higher margin play than isolating them completely.

The concern I have with what you call engagement and I call appeasement is that the worst aspects of Iran are institutional. The entire government is structured to maintain rigidity, both domestic and abroad. The religious establishment in Iran want to see the government acquire a nuclear weapon in order to advance the interests of Shia Islam.

The Supreme Leader, the country's actual leader, is not held accountable by the public. The President is theoretically held accountable, but that isn't the case in reality.

"Engaging" Iran means that we meet to pursue the government's interests beyond or besides nuclear weapons. They give up on nukes, we work together on economic development or disease eradication. The regime's interests, however, all lead to nuclear weapons. The only chance engagement has is if the West were to radically shift their foreign policy in order to tip the scales of regional power in favor of Iran over Saudi Arabia. As you said, they want a nuclear weapon, in part, to strengthen their diplomatic hand when they get caught causing trouble. The only thing that could equal the weight of a nuclear weapon at the negotiating table is a strong security guarantee from the United States and its allies.

I don't think anyone would even remotely considering providing a strong security guarantee to Iran and being on the hook when Iran's regional powerplays go bust. That leaves Iran with one option to become the predominant regional power: a nuclear weapon.

Well, here's the thing, engagement might not work.  But, there isn't an easy answer.  The military option has its own massive downsides and it's not a 100% guarantee that Iran will be unable to pursue nuclear weapons in the future. 

But, by engaging you can get inspections of their nuclear sites.  You can build mutual trust and you can in the long-term empower reformers.  Because, the more the US is this boogey man that they can use to whip up nationalism, the more the religious nuts can control public opinion. 

And, you can always back away from a deal if Iran doesn't follow our terms.  It's not just a matter of trusting them forever into the future.

It's easy to criticize these foreign policy decisions, but that's because some of these problems are difficult to solve.  And, for all the Neville Chamberlain talk, there are plenty of examples of diplomatic engagement working. 

[Potus]

There are a few major concerns:

-Iran using a nuclear weapon on Israel.  The obvious counter-argument is MAD.  However, that could be less successful when the two countries are closer together, IE less warning time for a nuclear strike.  We also have to factor in the religious extremism of Iran.  Perhaps, you could see the Iranian government overthrown by a more liberal moderate youth movement, which leads the religious leaders to a desperate point of wanting to go out in a blaze of glory and take the country with them.  

-A Middle Eastern Arms Race:  Iran having a nuke could inspire Saudi Arabia to develop nuclear weapons.  Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons would more more dangerous than Iran.  That in addition would introduce nuclear weapons to the intense Sunni-Shia conflict with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on one side and Iran on the other.  We've seen the atrocities that ISIS has committed in the name of fighting Shia Islam, that logic could extend to using previously unthinkable weapons.

-Iran being emboldened by a nuclear deterrent to cause trouble in the region.  Nuclear weapons can be a trump card in geopolitics.  Iran might be able to pursue their regional power aims without inference because their neighbors are cowed by their nuclear weapons.

All that said, I'm of the opinion the more engagement with Iran is the best option.  Iran is actually not our natural enemy, since they practice the minority form of Islam.  We could actually see them as a ally of convenience in fighting Sunni extremists like Al Qaeda and ISIS.  Just go back to the 70s, the US, Israel and Iran were allies.  Israel actually worked to develop a fighter jet with Iran.  That's not to say it's going to be easy or will probably work to engage, I just think it's a higher margin play than isolating them completely.

The concern I have with what you call engagement and I call appeasement is that the worst aspects of Iran are institutional. The entire government is structured to maintain rigidity, both domestic and abroad. The religious establishment in Iran want to see the government acquire a nuclear weapon in order to advance the interests of Shia Islam.

The Supreme Leader, the country's actual leader, is not held accountable by the public. The President is theoretically held accountable, but that isn't the case in reality.

"Engaging" Iran means that we meet to pursue the government's interests beyond or besides nuclear weapons. They give up on nukes, we work together on economic development or disease eradication. The regime's interests, however, all lead to nuclear weapons. The only chance engagement has is if the West were to radically shift their foreign policy in order to tip the scales of regional power in favor of Iran over Saudi Arabia. As you said, they want a nuclear weapon, in part, to strengthen their diplomatic hand when they get caught causing trouble. The only thing that could equal the weight of a nuclear weapon at the negotiating table is a strong security guarantee from the United States and its allies.

I don't think anyone would even remotely considering providing a strong security guarantee to Iran and being on the hook when Iran's regional powerplays go bust. That leaves Iran with one option to become the predominant regional power: a nuclear weapon.

Well, here's the thing, engagement might not work.  But, there isn't an easy answer.  The military option has its own massive downsides and it's not a 100% guarantee that Iran will be unable to pursue nuclear weapons in the future. 

But, by engaging you can get inspections of their nuclear sites.  You can build mutual trust and you can in the long-term empower reformers.  Because, the more the US is this boogey man that they can use to whip up nationalism, the more the religious nuts can control public opinion. 

And, you can always back away from a deal if Iran doesn't follow our terms.  It's not just a matter of trusting them forever into the future.

It's easy to criticize these foreign policy decisions, but that's because some of these problems are difficult to solve.  And, for all the Neville Chamberlain talk, there are plenty of examples of diplomatic engagement working. 

The fear is that Iran is getting very close to a bomb. There's no question that the military option would set Iran back. Of course it wouldn't completely eliminate the idea of a nuclear Iran forever. I've said before, they President is putting process over progress. The United States has seen deal after deal on the Iranian nuclear issue, but we haven't actually seen the program dismantled. Appeasement naturally takes pride in appeasing. "We're doing this without the military and through diplomacy," is music to the Coasts's ears.

The reality of the situation, however, begs a tougher approach. Striking Iran's nuclear program *and* any stockpile of ICBMs we can find will put the program back decades. Battening down the hatches on sanctions, recommitting to democracy promotion, and strengthening the hands of both the United States and our allies is the only way we're going to really end the Iranian regime's dedication to nuclear proliferation.

The President's foreign policy on Iran has been lacking in every regard. He's negotiated from a position of weakness by clearly signalling he doesn't have the stomach for meaningful military action. He's opposed tougher sanctions that have bipartisan support. He's shied away from effective democracy promotion because such programs smell of the second Bush Administration. He looked at the Green Revolution in 2009, not as an opportunity, but as a nuisance that distracted him from his domestic agenda.

While I disagree with the President's policy toward Iran, we should give credit where credit is due. I can honestly say that no one is more qualified than Barack Obama to execute a strategy of appeasement.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

did you seriously just say "democracy promotion"

[Donerail]

Saudi Arabia has made a commitment to keeping nuclear weapons out of the Middle East. It is the world's most volatile region, after all. The Saudi also, through cooperation with Pakistan, have the capacity to quickly gain a nuclear arsenal. Some intelligence sources say they could have a bomb within a month.

So your tangible policy harm here is that the Saudis go from "having a bomb on order" to "having a bomb"?

The threat becomes even more concerning when you look at Iran's expressed willingness to bolster their militant allies with nuclear technology in order to encourage loyalty to Tehran. Does that bring Saudi-backed Sunni militias to the nuclear table?

Citation needed, preferably one better than this.

A Middle East arms race coupled with an escalation in the fight for regional preeminance is what concerns me most. We see governments collapse in a matter of months in the Middle East. We see extremists take over countries. What happens when Iran gets a Libya-like rebellion against the authoritarian regime and the country is gripped by chaos? The same could be asked of Saudi Arabia. Or if Bashar Al-Assad wins in Syria, Iran chooses to bolster one of their closest ally governments with nuclear technology? Or if the Saudis strengthen shady Sunni governments with nuclear tech?

Is there any sort of Shi'a equivalent of the Islamist groups that have taken advantage of the situation in Libya? For that matter, are there any indications that the Iranian opposition includes significant Islamist elements at all? Are there any signs of instability in the Saudi regime?

[Potus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. Which is worlds apart. Saying that this isn't a huge deal is like saying acquisition of a nuclear bomb by the Japanese wouldn't cause an extremely dramatic shift in the geopolitics of East Asia. The region would undergo a geopolitical earthquake. Being able to make and having a nuke are two very different things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well this article features a direct quote from the Supreme Leader of Iran, the man calling the shots, saying that Iran will share nuclear technology with other states. Here we have a fair discussion.

To take issue with the source you cited, it is hinged on the idea that Iran would share nuclear secrets with terrorists on the basis of remaining anonymous. The Jewish Policy Center article I cited also hits home that deterrence may not work with regards to Iran. I lean toward this school of thought. The arming of terrorist groups by Iran is not done solely out of animus toward the West, though that is a big part of it. A large motivator for Iran to arm Shi'a terrorist organizations is pursuit of regional power. What stronger card is there to play than arming a cross-national shadow organization with a nuclear power?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The most well known Shi'a terrorist group is Hezbollah. Their closeness with Tehran is well known. They've received huge amounts of aid from Iran, aid provided partially for the purpose of attacking Israel. You've also seen Iran move to become the Shiite power in Iraq. It's not a difficult scenario to conceive in which ISIS controls sections of Iraq, Iran-backed Shi'a militias (which we saw after the bombing of the Golden Mosque of Sammarra) control sections of Iraq, and the Baghdad government struggles to maintain much power at all.

The Iranian opposition may include radical elements, but something even more dangerous is certain. Instability that leads to a civil war will attract foreign fighters. Some estimates say foreign fighters are the only way Assad stays standing. Those foreign fighters are shipped in, by and large, by radical organizations. If the radical element doesn't exist, they'll make sure to export one.

Saudi Arabia dodged the Arab Spring bullet with a massive cash infusion that built over half a million homes among other stimulus projects. The package was north of $100 billion, if memory serves me correctly. The low oil prices we're experiencing has drained Saudi coffers. It's also coinciding with the slow erosion of the world's dependence on Saudi oil. The Saudis do not have the cash to stave off another Arab Spring and I would imagine any potential internationally backed rescue would meet a political firestorm in Saudi Arabia and abroad.

[MaxQue]

No.

Saudi surplus is still around 800 billions and the "Jewish Policy Center" is certainly not a fair and neutral reference and is clearly funded by Likud government. Oh surprise! A Likud-funded organisation parrots Likud talking points!

[ElectionsGuy]

Because they would like for the US to be the police power of the world, therefore any threats to its interests are to be taken extremely seriously.

The whole purpose of a nuclear weapons is not to use them, its for defense to other nations to let them know that they should never hurt us/them/whoever. For Iran to use their nuclear weapons (that they don't have, ATM) on Israel and "wipe it off the map" as they say is an so mind mindbogglingly stupid it would start a massive world war, and compared to the United States militarily its a toddler with diapers. I can't imagine them doing it.

[Potus]

No.

Saudi surplus is still around 800 billions and the "Jewish Policy Center" is certainly not a fair and neutral reference and is clearly funded by Likud government. Oh surprise! A Likud-funded organisation parrots Likud talking points!

The Saudis are investing $750 billion on expanding market share in the oil market. Investments in alternative energy and the fossil fuel boom are both working against this gamble by Saudi Arabia. Their 2015 budget projections show the largest budget deficit they've ever experienced. This is also not counting the fact that the next economic stimulus will need to be larger than this, according to logic.

The JPC article stands to reason. Even when it looked as if President Bush might pull the trigger and invade state sponsors of terror like Iran, the Iranian government didn't back off. There is still, theoretically, a significant deterrent when it comes to sponsoring terror. Iran does so anyway. The Harvard report Sam cited hinged all of its claims on the notion that because Iran would be found out for nuclearizing terrorists, they don't want to risk use of the West's military deterrent.

[Reaganfan]

I liked it better when we were the only ones with the bomb.

[politicus]

Because they would like for the US to be the police power of the world, therefore any threats to its interests are to be taken extremely seriously.

The whole purpose of a nuclear weapons is not to use them, its for defense to other nations to let them know that they should never hurt us/them/whoever. For Iran to use their nuclear weapons (that they don't have, ATM) on Israel and "wipe it off the map" as they say is an so mind mindbogglingly stupid it would start a massive world war, and compared to the United States militarily its a toddler with diapers. I can't imagine them doing it.

Full scale Iranian attack on Israel is not the only problem.

1) Spread of nuclear weapons to Iranian clients and/or allies - incl. non-states.
2) Nuclear terrorism.
3) Making it extremely risky to wage war against Iranian allies (how do you ever get rid of Hizbollah if Iran has nukes?)
4) Regime change with more radical elements taking over.

[King]

Nuclear power has shown to be a dangerous and unpredictable source of energy--see Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, etc. Any Western nation with an interest in public and environmental safety should be worried about a country like Iran utilizing nuclear reactors. I imagine the safety regulations there are incredibly lax, and a reactor leak would be very likely.

All sources of energy are dangerous and unpredictable. That's what makes it energy and not just... rocks.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The fear is that Iran is getting very close to a bomb. There's no question that the military option would set Iran back. Of course it wouldn't completely eliminate the idea of a nuclear Iran forever. I've said before, they President is putting process over progress. The United States has seen deal after deal on the Iranian nuclear issue, but we haven't actually seen the program dismantled. Appeasement naturally takes pride in appeasing. "We're doing this without the military and through diplomacy," is music to the Coasts's ears.

http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/netanyahu-in-1992-iran-close-to-having-nuclear-bomb.html

Who with credibility is claiming Iran is close to a bomb? Do I even need to bring up what Netanyahu was claiming in regards to Iraq's nuclear capabilities in 2002? Are we really going down the road once more letting politicians and "experts" with obvious agendas like Bibi and Dick drive the debate and go on about not letting smoking guns turn into mushrooms clouds? Really?

The reality of the situation, however, begs a tougher approach. Striking Iran's nuclear program *and* any stockpile of ICBMs we can find will put the program back decades. Battening down the hatches on sanctions, recommitting to democracy promotion, and strengthening the hands of both the United States and our allies is the only way we're going to really end the Iranian regime's dedication to nuclear proliferation.

The President's foreign policy on Iran has been lacking in every regard. He's negotiated from a position of weakness by clearly signalling he doesn't have the stomach for meaningful military action. He's opposed tougher sanctions that have bipartisan support. He's shied away from effective democracy promotion because such programs smell of the second Bush Administration. He looked at the Green Revolution in 2009, not as an opportunity, but as a nuisance that distracted him from his domestic agenda.

The most insufferable thing about Republicans on the Iranian issue is how they pretend to be on the side of the Iranian people.  Democracy promotion....you're going to bomb their homeland, killing hundreds of Iranians at the very least, some of their top scientists too no doubt, and then you're going to promote democracy...in all due respect, what legitimate democratic reform group with any chance of success is going to accept help from the foreign country that just bombed their homeland.  I'm not trying to be a dick, I legitimately think conservatives just haven't thought this through.  I'm sure most don't even realise how much the Bush administration's efforts on this front were just a useless symbolic effort that went absolutely nowhere.  

And they may not be supporters of the regime, but how do you reconcile the fact that the people protesting and getting killed in the streets during the Green Revolution absolutely support Iranian sovereignty and Iran's right to develop nuclear energy and technology?  An attack on their nuclear program is certainly far more likely to have the effect of rallying around the flag for these people than instigating any sort of reprise of 2009.  

I personally think that Iran's leaders would be dumb to attack Israel with its nuclear weapon.  And since the US will never allow Israel to get attacked by Iran, such a scenario results in their cities being flattened.  So saying Iran will do that is simply fearmongering.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Some combination of just plain stupid or a crazy warmonger.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Some combination of just plain stupid or a crazy warmonger.

Referring to the type of Iranian leader who would do that?  I think we should look at history.  The Russians were able to use the threat of applying nuclear force.  What matters most is not the bomb itself, but the threat of deploying it.  If the Soviets and Americans never got to a situation were they actually used nuclear bombs, then I don't think Iran and America will either.