> Their calculus just went from “probably screwed if we don’t have nukes” to “definitely screwed if we don’t have nukes”.
Or, option 3: totally fine if we don't try to get nukes.
What if they weren't working on nukes and got bombed anyway - can you imagine what kind of situation that would put them in?
The current regime is not safe without them. You can’t honestly believe they are unless you are totally ignorant of the history and state of the region. So the current regime will keep trying until they succeed or are replaced.
You’re right, they could chill and be fine. If they trusted the US, or Russia, or China enough to protect them, or trusted Israel to leave their regime alone for the next 100 years. Do you think it’s reasonable for them (the current theocracy) to have this trust in their current position? I find it much more rational that they do not.
I don’t think the Iranian regime looks at Egypt as either totally fine or even in an enviable state, security-wise.
I think allowing nuclear weapons in Iran is a very small chance of a very bad outcome, and an almost guaranteed chance of a middling outcome.
How do you balance these? What are the actual risks? I’d love to read more people’s analysis on it.
There were forces in Iranian politics who argued for making a deal with the US. They even won out in 2015. But now, they've been proven wrong, and the hardliners (who should perhaps now be called the "realists") were proven right. The US isn't a reliable partner, and is willing to rip up any deal Iran makes.
