One of the research assistants over at CATO is suggesting that a nuclear armed Iran might be a good thing for US foreign policy.
I don’t know anyone who thinks “lots of people are considering [this], but are unable to do so publicly and openly, because of think tank and foundation politics and the general aversion to radical controversy.”
As far as I can tell, people are, and have been, thinking about what happens if diplomacy fails. Given the paltry options—sanctions, military strikes—one has to ask whether the cure will be worse than the ill. But sang froid is not enthusiasm; quite the opposite, in fact.
Suggested reading:
Kori N Schake and Judith Share Yaphe, The strategic implications of a nuclear-armed Iran, (Washington, DC: Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, 2001) on-line.
Michael Eisenstadt, “Living with a nuclear Iran?” Survival 41:3 (Autumn 1999): 124-148. (subscription required)
Update:
Right, well Todd’s been a bit of a proliferation optimist lately. The optimism is evident from the goofy smile on his face in his KSG pic.
