Real Threat Iran's Nuclear Program Poses

Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy, retired, analyses inform in prose so accessible, so interesting, and frequently so damn funny, that they ought to be required weekly readings for U.S. junior high and high schools -- not to mention U.S. military academies and war colleges.


His recent smackdown to Thomas Friedman's theoretic "U.S. cold war with Iran"

We’re no more in a cold war with Iran than we were
in a cold war for 50 years with Belarus.

To prove his point, Commander Huber notes:

Iran’s ballistic missiles, if they work, can reach Israel, but ballistic missiles, as we saw in our first war with Hussein, are little more than incredibly expensive mortar rounds unless they have nuclear warheads, and the Iranians don’t have any nuclear warheads to put on theirs.


If Iran ever does possess nukes, it won’t dare use them; it would not survive the retaliation. If terrorists want someone to steal a nuclear warhead from, they don’t need to bother with Iran.


Pakistan has plenty of the little boogers, and its government is far less stable than Iran’s is ever likely to be.


Iran’s leaders have consistently said they have no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons.


Some people say they’re lying, but the people saying that are the likes of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, whose relationship with the truth has been on the rocks for many years.

The REAL threat Iran's Nuclear Program Poses

The real threat Iran’s nuclear program poses is the very good possibility that it will grow into a viable, self-sustaining nuclear energy industry. If that happens, the big losers will be Dick and Dubya’s buddies with Exxon/Mobil and in the Sunni oil producing nations who will have lost control of the evolution of the global energy market.

The big winners will be Iran’s sponsor nations, Russia and China.

(Whom many of you will recall, from the LAST cold war)


Those who comment on his posts also analyze insightfully:

There are two other good reasons why Iran wouldn't use nuclear weapons on Israel.


1) Israel is so small the fallout would spread into the neighboring countries (or worse if the missile veers off course).


2) Jerusalem is the third holiest city to Muslims. Well, ok, might be 4th to Shiites but the point still stands, they ain't gonna nuke one of the holiest of holies. That would be like Greece nuking Istanbul (Constantinople).

Another reader notes:

"If Iran ever does possess nukes, it won’t dare use them; it would not survive the retaliation."


Spot on Jeff, there isn't a government on what's left of this planet with a suicide wish. The perks of being in power, even if you are a small nation (better to be a big fish in a little pond), are too great.

And finally, The Reality Kid said...

I do believe that you are the most well-rounded, informed and informative analyst on the "Iran situation" writing anywhere. As much as I can about this particular issue/situation, I am thankful for your insights.

What is perhaps most impressive is your refusal to view the Bush administration's middle eastern policy as comprising an incoherent series of crazy acts, but instead, as potentially a deliberate (if wanton) strategy based on military- and energy-driven objectives.

While there are a few others who accept that this administration isn't so crazy as to be pig-headedly maintaining an obviously-failing policy in the M.E., and who recognize that maybe the policy is achieving, more or less, what's intended (i.e., objectives that have little to do with liberation and freedom), your accomplishment, in part at least, lies in how broadly-framed and well-grounded your analysis is.

In sum, it makes sense. Which is what I come here for.