We came close to war with the Soviets on numerous occasions, the most famous of which was the Cuban Missile Crisis. Already, Iran is staging missiles in Venezuela. But the Soviets were rational actors. Can the same be said for the radical Twelvers who want the Muslim world to be purified with fire and who chant "Death to America"? But even largely rational states make mistakes. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, the per-existing nuclear programs of Egypt and Saudi Arabia will hasten. When a nuke is used by a terrorist group using a container ship or modified jetliner, who is to be held accountable. And even if we would trace the nuke, might it still not be rational for an Iranian leader to doubt the resolve of an American president in killing Iranian civilians in the millions to respond to an attack by Lebanese Hizbullah? Under those circumstances, would an attack by Iran by proxy be less rational than say the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?
(2)we should not be concerned about the Wahabi and the Theocrats in Iran “blowing each other up” - it’s not our problem and we have no stake in backing either one; neither one are our true friends;
OIL. Notice what flows out of the Persian Gulf. And see above.
(3)if other states in the Middle East, like Egypt and Turkey behave as if they too must acquire nuclear weapons capabilities, it will be not because we have become their next threat - and therefor their arms will not be aimed at us - it will be because they want to behave as if Iran or the Saudis so armed are a threat to them - oh, gee, that is not likely in any sense, so “proliferation” will not advance by that means;
And when an Al Qaeda like group takes over Saudi Arabia from the corrupt fundamentalists, using the same excuse that the Saudi clan did to overthrow the Hashemites? When instability allows a faction of a government to hand nukes over to one of 2 dozen terrorist groups, what then?
(4)we have become experts at tracking the nuclear programs of other countries, like Iran and North Korea, and there is not much they do that escapes us; suggesting we do have the means to identify and interdict weapons technology transfers and we have the ability to vastly increase those abilities as well, should we need to; and lastly
I'm not talking technology. I'm talking about giving a proxy a nuclear device or radioactive material for a dirty bomb.
(5)just what are we developing and building anti-missile defenses for in the first place - just for show, or because we believe they can work - yes, we believe they can work.
We should have these. But what would stop a cargo ship with a hidden nuke, or even a third party cargo ship with a container hiding a nuke? What about a modified old passenger jet carrying a nuke, that has a hacked ID code?
“We came close to war with the Soviets on numerous occasions, the most famous of which was the Cuban Missile Crisis.”
Yes, “Close”; as I acknowledged, we had many such moments, yet we did not make a preemptive strike, not even on Cuba.
“OIL. Notice what flows out of the Persian Gulf. And see above.”
Middle East oil diminishes in importance to the U.S., as every year goes by. In not so many years we may not be in need of Middle East oil for U.S. use at all.
“And when an Al Qaeda like group takes over Saudi Arabia from the corrupt fundamentalists, using the same excuse that the Saudi clan did to overthrow the Hashemites? When instability allows a faction of a government to hand nukes over to one of 2 dozen terrorist groups, what then?”
When and if such what-ifs actually happen - all speculative, then we will, with confidence, have a different posture in terms of “Middle East security issues” than we do today. We cannot act today as if your speculations have already happened.
“I’m not talking technology.”
But it is with technology that we have matured at tracking proliferation of nuclear material and the proliferation of the technology to use it (and even know where it came from). The fact is that even as mature as we have become today (and we have interdicted “dirty bombs” already), and as much as we will continue to improve in this area, the scenario you portend does not need a nuclear-armed Iran to be a reality; it is in fact feasible today. Knowing that fact we may even be ready to interdict an “Iranian hand-off”. However, Iran or no Iran, we will never be perfect at it 100% of the time and some nut only has to be perfect in it once, to make a statement. But, making war against Iran on no more than our speculations of a lot of maybes can never be American policy.
For Israel, the case is different. The Iranian leaders have pledged to rid the map of Israel and Iran is already fighting Israel, by proxy via Hezbollah and Hamas. Should Israel see the Iranian nuke developments and your speculations as “proof” of an “immanent” crisis, SHE may feel obligated to act. If she does, I would support her and I would hope so to would our government. Meanwhile, my position is we should keep our powder dry.