 If Iran gets the bomb, other regional powers will pursue nuclear programs--if they are not already doing so.
| If I recall correctly, Egypt has been for decades, and Dr. Al-Baradei, now of the IAEA, was involved in the effort. |
Inevitably in a region as volatile as this, there will be a few small-scale nuclear catastrophes, probably rulers targeting their own people. Saddam gassed the Kurds and slaughtered the Shiites, Hafez Assad massacred the Sunnis of Hama, and mass graves throughout the region testify to the willingness of Arab rulers to kill their own people--in their hands, a nuclear weapon is merely an upgrade in repressive technology. Still, it's extremely unlikely the regimes will use these weapons against their regional rivals. Remember, the main reason these states support nonstate terror groups is to deter one another and thus avoid all-out war.
| Little Israel has demonstrated not one of them is any good at all-out war. Perhaps Iraq will reach the stage of competence at some point, but I imagine they'd turn their sights on Iran first. |
However, the prospect of states transferring nukes to so-called nonstate actors is a nightmare for the United States, which does not fare well against such tactics. Consider that our response to 9/11 was to use our armed forces to democratize the Middle East. Also, consider that the most convoluted reason for making war against the Taliban is to keep the nukes of a neighboring country out of the hands of its intelligence service's dangerous elements. That is to say, we cannot even deter Pakistan, our ally.
more at link |