IRAN WITH NUKES: ACCEPTABLE?

I saw this column over at Military.com. It's by Ivan Eland, a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute. While I disagree with Eland's argument, I do find it useful in understanding why the international community (an oxymoron, if ever there was one) has been useless in dealing with Iran. The following quote sums it up:

If Iran remains intransigent, the United States will probably have to accept that Iran will likely some day become a nuclear weapons state. Although undesirable, this outcome would not be catastrophic because the United States has the most formidable nuclear forces in the world and could likely deter any strike from the small Iranian atomic arsenal. The United States successfully deterred a nuclear attack by radical Maoist China after that regime got nuclear weapons in the 1960s. Nuclear deterrence should also work in the case of a theocratic Iran.

(emphasis mine)

So, religious fanatics who believe that dying in a jihad is the noblest of acts will be deterred by threat of death? People awaiting the return of the mahdi can be counted on to react like secular westerners? What Mr. Eland has done is to superimpose his own value system on the Iranins. He knows how they would react to US deterrence because that's how he would react. My guess is that the French -- and others who are dragging their feet in dealing with Iran -- have the same viewpoint.

If this situation is going to be dealt with before it spirals out of control, it's going to fall on the US. Again. This shit is getting old.