Soon to be candidate Fred Thompson [hope, hope, pray, pray!] authors a Reaganesque column about The Pirates of Tehran. Thompson clearly recognizes the danger that we face and what this moment in history means to Iraq, the region and, in the end, the wo...

Let's say, hypothetically, that the Iranians are known with 100% certainty to have nuclear weapons; they've tested a weapon and invited inspectors to see the weapons they have on hand. Farfetched, I know, but let's pretend. If Iranian President Ahmadinejad (or any other loudmouth in the regime), were to make noises about erasing Israel from the map of history or some such, the Israelis would have complete moral justification in launching a preemptive attack (including thermonuclear) against them. Knowledge of capability; reasonable knowledge of the imminence of an attack.

An Iranian nuclear weapon in the hands of the feckless Iranian regime would put the entire region on a hair trigger.

Using a nuke would assure their destruction, as Israel or somebody will turn them into a glass parking lot.

Israel would if it still could; we probably wouldn't respond with nukes to an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel.

But the real problem is that the currently rational Iranian leaders may become entirely irrational when they're on the brink of being overthrown by the Iranian people. And using a nuke then might well cement them into power, if those leaders could avoid being cemented into the green glass over Tehran.

Short of using it, conversely, having a nuke increases Iran's prestige and security.

Perversely, having a nuke makes it possible to use one, and encourages power-mad gamesmanship that might end up in it being used.

More (respectful) dissent on my own bandwidth. Thanks for the thoughtful post, though, Dr. Joyner, and the prompt response to my earlier comment here!

I suspect that Dr. Joyner's correct in his assumption that "Iran’s nuclear facilities are scattered and buried deep enough to make their destruction from the safety of a B-1 bomber virtually impossible." That doesn't mean, though, that we ought to...

Well, he first got me in the straight talkin' mood when I watched Days of Thunder last night. Now, he's blogging over at Redstate:Oil prices fell. The stock market rose. Video images of smiling British soldiers with Iranian President Ahmadinejad...

Ha! Nearly fell out of my chair on that one... you need to be more careful on Sunday mornings if you're going to slip in stuff like that in your posts...

As it happened, when I read Dr. James Joyner's thoughtful post entitled Railing Against the Pirates of Tehran, I had just added a link to Fred Thompson's blog-post yesterday on Redstate in a post of my own about Iran. I agree with several of Dr. Joyn...

Yep. Remember, Joe Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong Il, and the Pakistanis had/have nukes. Nobody has popped one off.

The mullahs may be crazy but they're not irrational. Using a nuke would assure their destruction, as Israel or somebody will turn them into a glass parking lot. Short of using it, conversely, having a nuke increases Iran's prestige and security.

A military invasion would likely have more negative consequences for the region than a nuclear armed Iran.

Surely you jest.

My working assumption is that if the Iranians get a nuke, they'll use it. I'm not just worried about them using a nuke to ratchet up their regional leverage.

You have a different working assumption?