If Iran goes nuclear
According to James Robbins, the State Department is floating the absolutely terrible idea of letting Iran go nuclear, in the hopes of creating the weird stability of our own Cold War, this time in the Middle East. (Let's ignore the fact that, as Mark Steyn repeatedly points out, the "stability" created during the Cold War was the kind of stagnant pond that bred the worst and foulest things.) Jerome Robbins makes no bones about the fact that this is a terrible idea. It gives Iran carte blanche to take over all Middle Eastern oil (apparently it has its eye on Saudi Arabia), with a response absolutely impossible from the U.S., which will be scared to start a nuclear war. You see, the U.S. will be hampered by the fact that this isn't really a cold war, since the loonies running Iran, who subscribe to an apocalyptic form of their own religion, will have no theological or ethical problem with being the first to press the button. Robbins spells out several scenarios if Iran goes nuclear, all bad. I didn't know until I read the article that Iran is a threat to Saudi Arabia. All one hears, of course, is Iran's repeated promise to extinguish Israel (and, as I said, that apocalyptic thread is strong enough that Iran won't have any problem with the millions of Muslims who are also extinguished). This is one of those weird situations where Saudi Arabia and Israel have a common enemy -- and we know that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This joint threat alone could be enough to do a lot to shake up alliances in the Middle East -- assuming S.A. is able to recognize that Iran, much more than Israel, is its real enemy.