Of Nukes and Nonsense: Dumb Arguments for a Nuclear Iran

Whatever one thinks of the Israel-Iran conflict — and one can think quite a lot, or, like most commentators, avoid thinking altogether — there is a particular species of stupidity that deserves specific attention. It is the argument, tossed about with casual smugness, that it’s somehow hypocritical for Israel to possess nuclear weapons while denying them to Iran; or, worse still, that since we already tolerate North Korea’s nukes, we might as well accept a nuclear-armed Iran too.

This essay is not a clarion call for war, but rather a plea for clarity, because those who cannot distinguish between Israel and Iran, between victim and perpetual aggressor, manage merely to flatter themselves with the virtue of consistency while displaying none of the virtues of judgment. Theirs is the cry of the pseudo-intellectual who believes all double standards are unjust, and who never stops to ask whether there might be good reasons to discriminate — yes, discriminate — between different regimes.

Let’s take the first bit of foolishness: that Israel and Iran should be treated the same. That’s a bit like saying a bottle of wine and a bottle of arsenic are both liquids and should be treated accordingly. The analogy might be clever enough for a bumper sticker, but it collapses under the slightest scrutiny.

Israel, for all its faults, is a rational actor governed by law, elections, and a vibrant press. It does not threaten to annihilate its neighbors. It does not export terrorism. When it acts, it does so because its very survival is threatened. And even then, it has never once threatened to use its nuclear arsenal (if indeed it has one) as a weapon of first strike.

Why that is should be self-evident: because above all else, Israel is governed by self-interest. Even if one were to take the most cynical view of Israeli policy, the calculus remains clear: to use nuclear weapons would be national suicide. Such an act would immediately sever all ties with the United States, collapse its international standing, and invite devastating retaliation. Israel has everything to lose and almost nothing to gain from actual deployment. This is precisely what makes its arsenal effective: it exists to prevent a second Holocaust, not to initiate one.

The same cannot be said of a regime that openly glorifies martyrdom, pledges to annihilate entire nations, and views death in service of religious prophecy not as a tragedy but a triumph.

Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Its regime funds and arms Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and increasingly influences militias across Iraq, Syria, and beyond. This is not a government content to wield power within its borders; it is an imperial, messianic, revolutionary theocracy. It seeks to spread its ideology by force. And it has said, explicitly, that it wishes to wipe Israel off the map.

One needn’t be a Zionist or even particularly fond of Israel to understand that giving nuclear weapons to such a regime is not merely unwise, it is criminally insane.

Then there’s the North Korea comparison, which suffers from the same rot of lazy moral equivalence. Yes, it is terrible that North Korea has nuclear weapons. But the fact that something bad has already happened does not mean we should accept it happening again. On the contrary, the North Korean example is precisely why we should not allow it to repeat.

North Korea’s nuclear arsenal has rendered it virtually untouchable. It starves its people, murders dissidents, kidnaps foreign citizens, and tests missiles over Japan, and we do nothing. Why? Because any meaningful intervention could trigger nuclear war. This evil nation enjoys massively outsized leverage, and near-total immunity to violate human rights at home and threaten global disaster, because of its arsenal. The regime uses its nukes not as a shield but as a cudgel, extracting aid, defying sanctions, and laughing in the face of international law.

Now imagine that same impunity, only backed not by an isolated hermit kingdom, but by a nation with global terror networks already in place. Imagine Iran with nuclear material to share, not just to launch. The portability of nuclear weapons — the dirty bomb, the suitcase nuke, the shipping container — makes this a vastly more dangerous prospect. It wouldn’t be Tehran that launches a nuke. It would be Hezbollah. It would be Hamas. It would be the Houthis. And Iran would deny involvement, smile, and dare the world to do something about it.

And here, I must emphasize what too many in the “hypocrisy” chorus ignore: deterrence works only with rational actors. Mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent for those who actively welcome martyrdom. Iranian leadership has a well-documented theology of apocalypse. Its leaders speak often of the Mahdi, the end times, and the glory of death in the name of Allah. One cannot deter a suicide bomber with the threat of death. Nuclear weapons in the hands of such a regime are not stabilizers, they are accelerants.

We must also recognize the strategic irreversibility of nuclear proliferation. Once a regime has nukes, regime change is virtually off the table. North Korea proves this. So does Pakistan. Once the threshold is crossed, it cannot be uncrossed. That regime gains leverage, immunity, and longevity. If you thought the Iranian Revolution was bad, wait until it’s armed with weapons that render it immortal.

Let us finally dispense with the delusion that all regimes are morally equivalent. Israel, again, is no saintly polity, but it does not execute gay people. It does not hang women from cranes for removing their hijabs. It does not fund suicide bombers as state policy. It does not celebrate genocide. Iran does all of this and more, and brags about it on state television.

If you cannot tell the difference between these two nations, then the problem is not with their policies. It is with your moral compass.

To be consistent is not the highest virtue. Sometimes, it is the lowest refuge of the shallow thinker. Far better to be right than to be symmetrical. And in this case, rightness demands a simple recognition of the grave and obvious consequences attendant to Iran joining the ranks of nuclear powers. Not because of hypocrisy, but because of history, because of morality, and because of common sense.