> Would the world be safer (or more endangered) if Iran had a nuclear weapon
A nuclear Iran would mean a nuclear KSA, UAE, Qatar, Turkiye, Egypt, and Oman.
We literally had a war between two nuclear armed states barely 1 year ago (India-Pakistan) [0], and a standoff [1] that almost became a war [2] between two other nuclear armed states (India-China) barely 5 years ago. Additionally Iran and Pakistan had a border conflict barely 1 years ago [3] as well that also almost spiraled
The world is already crazy enough as it is - more states with nuclear capabilities would dramatically increase the risk of an actual nuclear war.
Edit:
> Not sure if North Korea is a good example, but is that not a detente? Bad for the NK people, but not a geopolitical crisis.
The PRC has committed to denuclearizing North Korea [4] in order to unlock a trilateral FTA between the PRC, SK, and Japan, which led NK to become closer to Russia in order to build second strike capabilities against both the US as well as China.
At some point, this will force SK and Japan to seriously consider going nuclear, which incentivizes Taiwan and potentially even the Phillipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam to join the scramble - and would cross multiple red lines for the PRC.
India-Pakistan only ended because the US and the Gulf intervened after India struck PAF Nur Khan which is located barely a couple hundred feet from the Pakistani Army's GHQ as a warning about decapitation strike capabilities after Pakistan launched Fatah-IIs.
India and China didn't go to war because Gen Naravanne unilaterally decided against firing artillery at Chinese positions in Rechin La and Russia intervened to mediate between China and India.
MAD is truly mad. What can happen will eventually happen, and the more countries have nuclear capabilities, the harder it becomes to push back against their use, becuase at some point someone will decide to press the button.
Nor does it actually reduce conflict - it instead incentivizes proxy conflicts between states, as can be seen with Myanmar (India and China both meddling), Afghanistan (India and Pakistan both meddling), Syria (Russia versus NATO+), Libya (Russia versus NATO+), etc.
A nuclear Iran would mean a nuclear KSA, UAE, Qatar, Turkiye, Egypt, and Oman.
We literally had a war between two nuclear armed states barely 1 year ago (India-Pakistan) [0], and a standoff [1] that almost became a war [2] between two other nuclear armed states (India-China) barely 5 years ago. Additionally Iran and Pakistan had a border conflict barely 1 years ago [3] as well that also almost spiraled
The world is already crazy enough as it is - more states with nuclear capabilities would dramatically increase the risk of an actual nuclear war.
Edit:
> Not sure if North Korea is a good example, but is that not a detente? Bad for the NK people, but not a geopolitical crisis.
The PRC has committed to denuclearizing North Korea [4] in order to unlock a trilateral FTA between the PRC, SK, and Japan, which led NK to become closer to Russia in order to build second strike capabilities against both the US as well as China.
At some point, this will force SK and Japan to seriously consider going nuclear, which incentivizes Taiwan and potentially even the Phillipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam to join the scramble - and would cross multiple red lines for the PRC.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_co...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%...
[2] - https://theprint.in/defence/nearing-breaking-point-gen-narav...
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Iran%E2%80%93Pakistan_con...
[4] - https://english.kyodonews.net/articles/-/53131