It seems to me that the basic premise underlying the Iranian desire for the bomb is that it will discourage American Imperial aggression. It also seems as though Pakistan is the perfect object lesson in why the reality is actually the opposite case. Nuclear weapons in an unstable state seem to encourage American occupation. We cannot leave Pakistan because of the nukes. We cannot allow the Taliban to gain nuclear weapons that the Islamists might hand over to the Jihadists and then detonate in New York. So it seems to me that nuclear weapons encourage us to violate their sovereignty rather than deter that action as they are meant to.
I must have been more busy than I thought, when did the US invade Pakistan?
ISTM that the the main reasons Iran might want a nuke have nothing to with US imperialism. Those reasons are
-
to show the people of Iran that their government is powerful
-
to threaten Iraq (there’s a lot of bad blood and a million dead bodies from the 80’s)
-
to threaten Israel for being too Jewish
Not everything in the world revolves around the USA.
I think the object lesson the Iranians have in mind here is: Saddam is dead, Kim Jong Il still runs his country. And I doubt Iran intends to become an unstable country. 
Pakistan has a completely different relationship with the US than Iran. It had a fairly close relationship with the US during the Cold War and is receiving a lot of aid from the US now in return for its assistance. It has not been invaded or occupied by the US. By contrast the current regime in Iran has been hostile to the US since its beginning.
Iranian nuclear weapons would very likely deter any US invasion of Iran because such an invasion could lead to either a nuclear attack on US allies like Israel or the use of tactical nuclear weapons against US troops.
I am not sure Iran is seeking nuclear weapons actually. My hunch is that they want the option to build nuclear weapons without actually building them. But certainly they have rational reasons to acquire nukes.I don’t see how this is mutually exclusive with the premise in the OP.
Nuking Iraq would lead to fallout in Iran.
Somehow I don’t think this is THAT high up on the list honestly.
Umm…mainly it does.
Rolken I don’t think Pakistan INTENDED to become an unstable country either.
Lantern and Ale Obama has made it clear that he’d turn troops into Pakistan to secure the nukes if he had to.
I was expressing myself flippantly, but my point was that it’s not a concern that is going to factor into a rational assessment. If their country has slid far enough to have to worry about rebels taking the nukes, then they’ve lost the game anyway. The correct answer to that concern is to take steps to avoid becoming unstable, not to avoid gaining power.
And you’re assuming a lot regarding Pakistan anyway. I am not disputing those assumptions because I still think your overall premise is incorrect.
Yes, I agree, but I am not asking what Iran thinks about it, but rather what the US response to such actions will be. That the idea that Nukes make the nation safer might not actually have any merit to it. In this scenario MAD definitely does not apply. In a nuclear war scenario one side would decisively lose, in fact the civilization and nation state would be ended, but the other could survive it.
Well we are already IN Pakistan, whether we got their by invasion or not is beside the point.
The OP’s case would be more compelling if he didn’t persist in confusing Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US is not “in” Pakistan.
A crucial distinction here is that it is not in Pakistan’s interests to retaliate against US involvement because the Americans are helping to maintain stability in some measure. (I assume you mean drone attacks and that sort of thing.) For Iran, the threat of nuclear retaliation strengthens their position because they haven’t been getting anything from the US/Israel but grief.
MAD still applies because no sane US president would consider mere survival of a nuclear war to be a victory. There is more at stake than the continuity of our civilization.
No, but America is the force most likely to be willing and able to destroy Iran. They may not like Israel, but Israel is hardly going to try to invade and occupy Iran.
Yes. They don’t need to be able to destroy us; just hurt us.
America is basically a bully; you don’t need to be strong enough to beat us to fend us off, just strong enough to bloody our nose. Just look at all the wailing over a few thousand American soldiers, despite them killing more than an order of magnitude more Iraqis.
Yeah, we load up all of our logistics from the ports in Kabul. :rolleyes:
Yea, it’s amazing how effective that bloody nose on 9/11 was at getting us to stop our support for the Saudi regime. :rolleyes:
It’s funny when you stick to things that are demonstrably and provably factually wrong.
We get called a paper tiger every few years and yet people who want to fight us and people like you never learn.
I doubt it. I think Iran wants nuclear weapons because of the power they convey to nations that have them…the power (supposedly) to join the big leagues, to be a nation who’s voice is heard and who isn’t to be trifled with (in theory). Additionally, a nuclear Iran will wield enormous influence in the region…they will become at least a regional power (something I think Iran is definitely in favor of).
Deterring American (especially supposed ‘American Imperial aggression’) is, IMHO, well down the list for Iran. If anything they would want to deter Israeli aggression in the form of being able to strike at will using air power.
Well, a couple of things. First off, occupation does not equal ‘Imperial aggression’. We have occupied both Iraq and Afghanistan and in neither case has it been anything close to Imperialism (yeah, it’s a drive by link…don’t want to distract from the OP with a hijack, but you might want to look over the definition of Imperialism before tossing it about). Which brings up the second point…that being that we haven’t, in fact, occupied Pakistan. So…it’s not exactly a poster child for your OP, at least not up to the present.
Well…we can’t leave because we haven’t entered yet. Be sort of hard to leave when we aren’t in fact there. 
No…we probably won’t allow the Taliban to gain control of Pakistan. But I doubt we’ll invade to prevent it…we will probably give aid in other ways (perhaps by air support, monetary/military aid support, etc etc). Even if we DID invade it wouldn’t be because of ‘Imperial aggression’, as we don’t have Imperial type designs on Pakistan.
No…I don’t think so. I think nuclear weapons in countries hostile to the US encourages the US to be hostile back. I’m not seeing that it encourages the US to invade said countries, since we haven’t as yet done this. Frankly, I think it’s really stupid for Iran to be pursuing development of nukes (if they are)…but not because of supposed US Imperial ambition in the ME.
-XT
You mean that attack that was largely carried out by Saudi Arabians ? We certainly didn’t go after Saudi Arabia; and we largely ignored Bin Laden in order to go after Iraq. I doubt that our reaction to 9-11 is going to terrify any of our actual enemies.
Oh, please. Al Qaeda benefited hugely from attacking us; Iraq tried to avoid fighting us and was conquered anyway; and we go into convulsions over tiny casualty rates. The lesson is that America is a paper tiger against anyone who can hurt us even trivially, that whether or not you attack us has little effect on how we act towards you, and that we cannot be reasoned with. We’re only great fighters when we have a huge enough advantage that we can just roll right over people.
It seems to fit what we have been doing in Iraq quite well. Did you actually read your own link ?
Yes, agreed.
Not mutally exclusive. And I doubt deterring the US is well down the list. Maybe it’s like 3 or 4 but not ‘well down the list’.
I disagree, it was all about Imperialism. Iraq more than Afghanistan, but in both cases they were about Imperialism. Imperialism has always been about dominating other nations to keep the sovereignty intact and to make it safe for trade.
We ARE in fact there. Our supply goes from ports in Pakistan to Afghanistan, and we have entered Pakistan when we felt the need to. So we ARE in Pakistan.
I disagree.
Well if the Taliban started to make more inroads and we lost faith in the Pakistani military to regain control, I am pretty certain we’d invade for real.
Well, THERE is a shocker, ehe? The US is the evil Imperialistic power, so says Der Trihs! I’m shocked…SHOCKED…that we disagree on this!
Why yes, actually…I did. As did you I assume. I know it’s stunning, but obviously we are not in accord on what the article says or how it relates to Iraq or Afghanistan.
I know that this is hard to believe, given our past almost lock step agreement on everything else…
-XT
So does most of the world, as it happens.
Well, it’s one of those ‘agree to disagree’ thingies. I think Iran knows that the US doesn’t have the political, military or economic will/ability to invade it. They may want to deter the US from things like air strikes, but I doubt it’s a major priority for them. Though I admit it might be 4th or so on their list…I was pretty vague about what ‘well down the list’ meant, admittedly.
I don’t believe that the US has attempted to make Iraq or Afghanistan either a colony or a puppet nation…which, to me, defines the term Imperialism. YMMV of course…Der Trihs’ opinion obviously does on this point.
I disagree…even if it were true that the majority of our logistics goes through Pakistan (a point I’m unsure of but tend to doubt), it’s not the same thing as occupying a country to use it as a logistics spring board. So…no, I don’t think we are ‘in’ Pakistan, even using your definition.
Time will tell. If I’m wrong it’s not like it will be the first time.
Possible but unlikely IMHO. Again, time will tell. My guess is we will simply put in a maximum effort to ensure that the Taliban don’t gain control of the country. I seriously doubt that anyone (especially Obama) wants yet another war on the US’s plate.
-XT