Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (31) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84350 
Subject: Re: Everybody knew that Iran wanted nukes
Date: 06/24/25 5:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 13
Totally nice guys, all on the up and up.

Has nothing to do with "nice." It's all about incentives.

A regime like Iran wants nuclear weapons because they confer a lot of power - and especially a huge defensive deterrent. If you have a nuke, it's probable that no one will ever invade you to overthrow your regime. If Iran signals that in the event of invasion the last act of their government would be to vaporize Israel, they'd be relatively safe from military force against them from either Israel or the West. They're vastly better off having a nuke than not.

However....Israel and the U.S. know this. So if the current regime were to try to actually develop a nuke, that might precipitate Israel or the U.S. overthrowing the regime pre-emptively. We don't want chaos in Iran...but we don't want them to have a nuke, either. If it looks like they're getting close in a way that we can't stop by physically attacking the nuclear program itself, then either the U.S. or Israel or both would invade to overthrow the government and stop them.

So having a nuke protects you from regime change, but pursuing a nuke can precipitate regime change. Conflicting incentives. Iran's response has been a rational one, from the regime's point of view: get far enough along so that you can move to a nuke quickly in extremis, but not so far as to trigger an invasion. The reason they don't go from 60% to 100% right now is because they don't want to get attacked.

If you make them feel like their regime is safe from direct military action from the West, then they don't have a massive incentive to rush to a nuke. Because the rush is very dangerous for them, so it's not worth the risk if they are otherwise in a stable position.

If they end up getting attacked anyway, then their incentives change. If it looks like the West is going to try to overthrow their government anyway, they now have 100% incentive to just try to race to a nuke. They only need a delivery mechanism capable of putting it somewhere between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv to guarantee their safety.

So even though they've always wanted a nuke, they faced powerful incentives not to get close enough to it for the West and Israel to decide to just take out the regime. Attacking them shifts those incentives....
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (31) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community