Iran has historically acted the same way world powers do, that is, in their own self interest. I don't see how their religion or culture impacts that.
I don't know if you mean self-preservation or national interests. Sure, I think nations generally want to keep being nations. Aside from that general desire, I think Israel and Ukraine are not similar to Iran. And, I can definitely think of examples of nations that acted counter to what we would call 'rational self interest.' WWI is replete with them.
The Willy-Nicky letters are an especially good example. Without going into a whole thing, I think they demonstrate that nations and their leaders can behave counter to their own interests (and the interests of their citizens) because they believe that they have no other choices. Nicolas says things like, " The indignation in Russia shared fully by me is enormous. I foresee that very soon I shall be overwhelmed by the pressure forced upon me and be forced to take extreme measures which will lead to war," and, "It is technically impossible to stop our military preparations which were obligatory owing to Austria's mobilisation." I think a nuclear Iran would have plenty of opportunities for national interests to override self-preservation.
I think the primary threat from Iranian nuclearization is less that Iran will first strike someone (Israel) and more that it all but requires their neighbors to follow suit. Saudi Arabia's alliance with Pakistan (and material support for its nuclear program) can be viewed almost exclusively through that lens. If Saudi Arabia and Iran both have nukes, then there's good reasons to believe that the proliferation will spread to neighbors like UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, etc. I really don't want to see what the Mid East would be like if half of the region had nukes.
I doubt Iran would first strike someone because that would be suicide. As I argued with Tausami, Iran isn't a country full of idiots. They have some religious nuts, yes, but not the kind that offs themselves. They have enemies they want to destroy, but like all countries, they want to destroy their enemies without destroying themselves in the process.
I agree. I said I don't think Iran would first strike Israel. I tried to articulate that the danger to me is the proliferation that happens in the region because of Iran. This is what I'm getting at with Pakistan. Saudia Arabia currently provides material support for Pakistan's nuclear program as a quid pro quo for nuclear arms if Iran gets the bomb. If Iran gets the bomb, Pakistan hooks up Saudi Arabia. Super clever way of achieving some measure of nuclear deterrence without everyone getting all in your shit for having a bomb yourself. If Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia all have bombs, then there's probably enormous pressure on nations like Turkey and Syria to follow suit. Syria already has a history of trying to get a bomb.
That, to me, is the nightmare scenario. A tightly packed region of complex cultural, religious, and historical alliances and hatreds. All with bombs? No thanks.
I disagree with you that history is good evidence in favor of 'proliferation=security.' I don't at all dispute that your statement is empirically true to this point in time, but nuclear weapons just haven't been around for that long, and they've been concentrated in the hands of a few states, most of which have exceptionally similar ideologies. I think it would be a mistake to draw sweeping conclusions from the very limited empirical data that exists. It's like flipping a coin 50 times and getting 25 heads/25 tails. The coin might appear to be fair, but we've haven't flipped enough times to know for sure.
"You're right, but you're not right enough!" Lol, okay.
That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that it doesn't matter how well the data fit your hypothesis if there aren't enough data points to draw any conclusions at all. Just as 50 coin flips cannot confirm the hypothesis that the coin is fair, I don't think that there have been enough conflicts involving nuclear nations to confirm the MAD hypotheses (I'd rather not test that hypothesis at all). That the coin appears fair
so far is irrelevant. For example, your statement about nukes only ever stopping wars and not starting them was just as true at the end of 1945 as it is today. By your logic we could have concluded in 1945 that history proves that nukes only end wars and don't start them!
That said, I feel like your argument ultimately reduces to, "it hasn't failed yet, so it won't, ever." That MAD has worked out reasonably well for the past 70 years isn't to me an especially convincing reason to believe that it certainly will for the next 70 years, or 100, or 500. Past outcomes do not necessarily predict future results.
When it comes to first-strike states being a bother to you, I would be more worried about Israel. They seem to be really intent on making sure they can fire off nukes in any direction and have their Iron Dome system fend off anyone who tries to fight back.
I'm not worried about Iran first striking Israel. Doesn't Israel just prove that there are easily conceivable scenarios in which MAD breaks down? MAD depends on mutuality. If Israel has nukes and a multi-layered missile defense shield, and if Iran suddenly gets nukes, isn't that a reasonable scenario for Israel first striking Iran with nukes? That makes it sound like it would be pretty bad for Iran to get nukes.