i don't believe this, but playing devil's advocate. but i am beginning to believe we should overthrow iran. i do believe tthis argument is why john bolton should be on trump's military team.... just to have the someone willing to push this option so all options are on the table.
i dont know what the odds are that iran would get a nuke and funnel it to terrorists and then not take responsibility. but it's possible if not likely.. it's a realistic situation given the way iran currently behaves. what are we suppose to do if they have nukes after theyve been arming terrorists? mutual assured destruction only works in theory, in practice it can prevent a bad actor like iran from being stopped in that sort of situation. this means we should use force if necessary, to prevent them from getting nukes. but how much force should we use?
would bombing them if they dont let inspectors in or make too much fuel that isn't easy to monitor fix the situation? (if they won't let inspectors in or are making more fuel than they need, their intentions cannot be good) if we don't over throw them, it would probably just delay the inevitable if iran really wanted nukes. the reason it's inevitable, is because we will have weak presidents eventually, and iran will just take advantage of the situation. then we are at the point that they just funnel bombs to terrorists. as was argued for a reason to not bomb them, bombing them might just increase the odds of an attack from iran. so if that's a possibility, and if we might have weak presidents, that's all the more reason to overthrow them while we still can.
here are some tactical considerations: our military is as big as the next ten countries combined, and we have thousands of nukes and iran has no nukes and is small in comparision. that's why no one wants to mess with us. their GDP is only half a trillion whereas ours is twenty five trillion. but, their GDP is rising exponentially, which would give them the means to fund terrorism. after all, iran was doing exactly that during the treaty that obama negotiated. they were also insisting on three or four weeks notice for inspections, which would mean they have bad intentions because there's no good reason to not allow inspectors. why would we do business with iran, at the same time we are fighting terrorists? the money they get is going directly to terrorism, so we are just shooting ourselves in the foot. better to just overthrow the current regime than to let that happen, if them getting nukes and being a bad actor is inevitable.
as i said, i think iran might have decent intentions at the moment, so i don't believe the above argument is best. but if we think them getting nukes is inevitable, we should do something about it now, while we have the chance. i just dont know the odds they are going to try to get nukes so this question is my main sticking point.
