The question arises, why is it so much worse for Iran to have nuclear weapons than it is for India and Pakistan to have them?

And the answer is that the reasons are not obvious. There are arguments to be made on both sides, but none of them is decisive.

Let’s backup for a moment and acknowledge that there are nine nations currently known to have nuclear weapons. 

• First, the big kahunas: the United States (5,244 total, 1,770 deployed) and the Russian Federation (5,580 total, 1,674 deployed).
• Second, China (about 500, but rapidly expanding).
• Then, the Europeans: the United Kingdom (about 225, up to 120 operational) and France (about 290).
• Then, India (about 270 warheads) and Pakistan (also about 270).
• Then, Israel (an estimated 80-90 warheads, never confirmed by Israel).
• Finally, North Korea (about 50-70 warheads).

There is also a separate question of delivery systems, but we’ll ignore that issue for now.

India and Pakistan have been in a low intensity conflict (mostly about the Kashmir region) since both of their founding in 1947, punctuated from time to time by more intense conflicts. These occurred in 1948, 1965, 1971 and 1999. Their warheads are mostly trained on each other in acts of mutual deterrence, and there is almost no possibility that either country would use their warheads against anyone except each other.

Israel has never formally acknowledged that it has nuclear weapons, but the general belief in the intelligence community is that they have around 80–90 warheads, with possible delivery systems by ballistic missiles, aircraft, and submarine-launched cruise missiles.

It’s a formidable deterrence, and could wipe out large portions of Iran.

So, why all the hysteria about Iran developing nuclear weapons?

I mean, I’m not personally excited about Iran developing nuclear weapons, but then I’m not personally excited about any country developing or possessing nuclear weapons.

Why all the hysteria about Iran?

Yes, Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapon state. So it would be breaking a treaty. Not good, but Iran is hardly the first nation in the world to break a treaty. Was there ever a treaty that the United States signed with native americans that we didn’t break? (Asking for a friend.)

Yes, Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons could trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt have hinted they might pursue nukes in response. Again, not good, but hardly unprecedented. (See India and Pakistan, above). And mostly speculative at this point. For one thing, it’s very expensive to develop nuclear weapons.

Yes, Iran has a history of hostile rhetoric toward Israel and supports non-state actors like Hezbollah and the Houthis. Also not good, but what does that have to do with nuclear weapons?

It would be one thing if Israel didn’t have nuclear weapons, or the capacity to deliver them to Iran. Israel has, in fact, been kind of dishonest about their own nuclear weapons program. It follows a policy of “nuclear opacity” where it deliberately neither confirms nor denies having nuclear arms or the nature of those arms.

If that weren’t enough, the historian Heather Cox Richardson also disclosed this morning (based on reporting by the NY Times) that Trump decided to unload the 60,000 lb bombs primarily because of how Netanyahu’s war on Iran was “playing” on Fox News.

“The president was closely monitoring Fox News, which was airing wall-to-wall praise of Israel’s military operation and featuring guests urging Mr. Trump to get more involved.”

Good Lord!

And for arranging a one-day cease fire (which did not hold for even a single day) Trump wants to be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize, something he has been obsessed with ever since Obama won a (largely undeserved) prize. (Obama won his prize in 2009 for — as some commentators have noted — “being President while being black.”)

And there it is, ladies and gentlemen, our current President at work.