The U.S. military depicts Iran is as “..a fanatical regime that, once armed with nuclear weapons, would not hesitate to use them.”
I think this is a misleading and downright deceptive rationale for going to war on our part. It’s an example of a fallacy that says if something could happen, it inevitably will happen. ‘Having nuclear arms’ may be a necessary condition for their use .. but it is by no means sufficient. It fails to consider whether Iran could develop a delivery system that we couldn’t detect ..and it ignores history that shows that the prospect of assured self-annihilation is actually a deterrent. I believe this makes it less likely that Iran would dash off to use them and lowers the odds of success if they did, fanatical as they may be. Or naive as I may be. But consider this, what would be riskier: a nuclear-armed Iran or a nuclear-armed Iran that’s been attacked by Israel ..? Seems to me an attack would be more likely to diminish deterrence, remove restraint and boost the chances of retaliation once they have nuclear weapons. Like trying to put out a fire with gasoline, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that perpetuates a cycle of violence, escalation and retribution. In my opinion, demonizing Iran as a “fanatical regime certain to use nuclear weapons” is a deceptive claim that ignores conditions in the world that would greatly reduce the chances of that happening.