Still no Progress with Iran

I figure I've talked enough about one psycho dictator of a third-world country, so now I'll talk about Iran.  We've all heard about how Iran is dangerous, and how Iran is gonna get a nuke and blow up Israel/the United States/Eastern Europe/everyone.  As comedian Jon Stewart put it, "The range of opinion on foreign policy appears to be 'I unequivocally support Israel and might bomb Iran' to 'I unequivocally support Israel and will bomb Iran.'"

The common theme, of course, being that everyone wants to blow up Iranians, apparently.  Unsurprisingly, the latest talks have achieved nothing.  I think, however, that we need to understand why they're failing.

Point one - we don't actually know that Iran is building a nuke.  Literally every single one of our (numerous) intelligence agencies have said that Iran either is not working on nukes, or that we can't prove one way or the other.  It apparently has not crossed politicians' minds that maybe, just maybe, getting Iran to give up its weapons program isn't working because it doesn't have one in the first place.

Point two - it IS possible that Iran is in fact working on a nuclear weapon.  We need to ask ourselves, "Why?"  The general answer amongst politicians and conservative pundits is some variation of, "So they can blow up Israel."  Well, if their leader is absolutely, certifiably bugnuts insane, then possibly.  He certainly doesn't like the country.  However, he IS a politician, and if politicians are anything, it's self-interested.  Were he to attempt a nuclear attack on Israel, he would not only bring that country's full wrath (and the Mossad - yikes) down on his head, he would also be giving the U.S. a perfect excuse to go on an absolute rampage in the Middle East.  I doubt he's that suicidal.

In addition, I think there's a larger reason they might want a nuke.  Think about this: Nobody - not even the Chinese - like North Korea's government.  As far as I can see, almost nobody would have any real issue with invading and giving Kim Jong Un the bin Laden treatment, or quietly assassinating him and starting a revolution, yet... they're untouchable.

Because they have nukes, and if they face an existential threat, they will use them.  Gaddafi - the guy who got violently overthrown recently - actually had a nuke.  At the request of the UN and NATO, he surrendered it, given that he was a "U.S. ally."  Well, look what happened to him.  He got revolutioned out of office, by way of U.S.-supplied rebels.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the real issue behind Iran's hypothetical nukes.  1953, CIA assassinates Iran's democratically-elected president, replacing him with a brutal pro-America authoritarian.  Said brutal authoritarian is then overthrown and replaced with an anti-America authoritarian.  The Iranian government - understandably - does not wish to be given the manufactured revolution treatment AGAIN.  Thus, nukes.  If they get even one weapon, they'll be effectively untouchable - sure, they won't win a war, but nobody'll try to start one, either.  They've learned from other dictators.  Cozying up to America is no guarantee of safety, but get a nuke, and you can be as violently anti-America/Israel/NATO as you please.