When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me . . .

I posted over at ComingAnarchy.com regarding basic assumptions being made in US policy options toward Tehran:

With the vast array of knowledge and experience I command as an undergraduate Political Science Major, I will attempt to answer these questions:

• Is Iran after the bomb?

a)I think they want to know that if they needed to make one, they could. They have the ballistic missile capability worked out (sort of), they’re going to get the enriched uranium (sort of). They’ll study bomb design, and maybe even machine the conventional parts of the weapon. I believe they’ll go for something like the Japan or Israeli approach to nuclear deterrence. Either getting them and not admitting it, or developing the capability but not assembling it until they see an unfriendly UNSC Resolution on the horizon.

• Would Iran strike first?

a)The perception that they would strike first seems to be built upon the idea that the Iranian government is too irrational to be deterred, in spite of any evidence that they have ever acted with anything less than careful planning and completely rational strategic planning. These guys invented chess, and have the luxury of strategic leadership in the government that don’t have to worry about getting kicked out of office. The mullahs are a political organization with a religious ideology, not a religious organization with a political ideology.

• Would Iran keep control of the bomb if they got it, or would it be at risk of slipping into hands of unreliable or irrational actors?

a) Iran knows who they deal with, and they want control of everything in their domain. Whether its the military, the Strait of Hormuz, or their own population. If they get the bomb they aren’t going to give it to someone they can’t control. They know that no matter how much plausible deniability they have, any nuclear attack in Southwest Asia is going to result in Tehran becoming the worlds largest parking lot. They aren’t going to give it to the IRGC, or the Hezzies, or Hamas, or their slightly inbred second cousin. Those things are all good to have around, but you can’t completely control them. I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to maintain direct control over them within the Revolutionary Council.

The fundamental assertion driving all three questions is that Iran is somehow on some kind of irrational drive for nuclear power. Iran went for the bomb because we took down the country on either side of them, and control the Gulf below them, things are scary from their point of view. The assertion of the irrationality of their government is only justified if they are indeed a religious, apolitical organization which puts ideology over the most basic concern of any organization: survival. Yet this belief is commonly held despite an astounding lack of evidence to support it. We all fear what we don’t know, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, etc . . . Not a proper basis for a policy decision.