Why we can’t have a nuclear Iran

A recent letter titled “A nuclear Iran” asked the question, “Should Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons?” That is an important part of the question but not the complete question. The complete question is, “Should Iran be allowed to turn the Strait of Hormuz into a blackmailer’s tollbooth?”

Prior to the U.S./Israel attack on Iran, Iran had already deployed hundreds of fast attack boats with anti-ship missiles on them, mini submarines, mine layers and drone and missile launchers to control the strait. They had seized ships passing through on occasion. “Ultimate and complete” control of the strait was unequivocally their long-term strategy. Achieving that would permit them to blackmail all Gulf oil-dependent countries to do their bidding, including gulf oil producers.

The only piece missing from Iran’s plan was a working nuclear weapon and estimates say they have enough material for 11 of them. A nuclear Iran could not be dislodged from the Strait. Oil-dependent countries can’t survive without oil, so, this would be an existential threat. WW III would be the likely result, and Iran being unflinching about using nuclear weapons in service to their demonic, fanatical cause would necessitate others to also use atomic weapons.

The U.S./Israel attack of Iran was long overdue and was unavoidable. This action may not prevent an eventual WW III, but it likely has delayed it by a couple of decades at least.

Brian Van Dine

Glendale Heights