TightWind is written by Kyle Baxter. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

A writer on the Pileus blog wrote today:

In my view, the United States can live with a nuclear Iran, just as it currently lives with a nuclear Pakistan, a nuclear China, a nuclear Soviet Union Russia, and so on.

Perhaps in a vacuum the U.S. may be able to live with a nuclear Iran, but Arab nations can’t and thus we can’t, either.

Let’s just think about what a nuclear Iran would mean for the Middle East. Iran sits along the Persian Gulf, next to Iraq and Kuwait, and is just a short distance from Saudi Arabia. Those three countries account for an incredible percentage of the world’s proven oil reserves—Saudi Arabia has the largest reserves in the world and Iraq and Kuwait have the fourth and fifth-largest proven reserves, respectively.

A nuclear Iran would make the Middle East its plaything. Iraq and Kuwait would be theirs for the taking, Saudi Arabia’s oilfields would be just a short jump away, and the other Arab nations would be subject to Iran’s will. By controlling those oil reserves, the Persian Gulf (where it flows out of to the rest of the world) and taking the rest of the region into its sphere of influence, Iran could dictate to the world.

Arab countries are just as, if not more, afraid of a nuclear Iran than the west is. They would lose control of their nations, and they do not want that to happen. A nuclear Iran would set off an arms race across the Middle East—they will try to develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible to eliminate Iran’s advantage. This may be enough to keep Iran in check, but tensions would be terribly high. The last thing we want is a nuclear Middle East.

Those are the options presented by a nuclear Iran, and none of them are acceptable to the U.S. or the world. This isn’t as simple as pointing to other nations who have developed nuclear weapons without threatening the U.S.