I disagree with this line of thinking. If this were true, then Pakistan (an even lower IQ shithole) would have already nuked the shit out of India for complete mutual destruction of both countries.
For the record however I don't think any Middle Eastern country or third world shithole should have nukes. But if jeets, pakis, and North Koreans are smart enough to not suicide themselves with mutual nuclear destruction, I'd say it's fair game for Iran to have them too. Even if Iran does do what you're saying they will, it's not my problem
I think we're in agreement. Iran having nukes would basically take regime change attempts like Iraq off the table, which is why Israel doesn't want that to happen. It means that Iran exists, forever, as a state intransigently opposed to Israel. The idea that Iran is going to just nuke Israel is a complete canard if they weren't even willing to empty their missiles into Israel as they went hog wild on all their proxies for two years.
Personally I think that this actually strikes at the core of the conflict between ideal American foreign policy in the Middle East and Israeli foreign policy. From a Western perspective, you want the Middle East fractured along ethnic and ideological lines both internally and between national blocks. The Shia/Sunni split is ideal for these purposes - irreconcilable differences, centuries-old blood feud. Stoking that feud will stop the region from ever uniting and posing a threat. Iran's continued existence as the keystone of any Shia faction is crucial to this.
The Israelis are interested in a Middle East populated by nations which are divided enough to manipulate against one another but which
does not include a block which is opposed to the existence of Israel as currently constituted and any expansion which it decides to undertake. That is the Shia block. It was the original Sunni block as well, but that faction was all but eliminated by secularization, military coups, the Saudi takeover of Arabia, and the transformation of Jordan into a neutered lapdog. So Israel's primary policy goal is to undermine and eliminate Iranian power, to basically take one of the best cards in our hand and burn it so that they can continue to play house in their supposed 'homeland'.
They are an albatross around our neck. We get locked into alliances with one side when we should be playing both sides against one another. They are eroding the lovely ideological divides that make the region so fractious by trying to make 'begrudging acceptance of anything we do' universal in the region. And how do they repay us? By selling our military tech to our greatest geopolitical rival? The alliance exists as far as I can see because they blackmail and bribe our politicians and because our defense contractors use them to launder taxpayer money into their own pockets. It's a shitty deal.
From a pure geopolitical perspective having Iran and the Saudis (they will demand to have them the second the Iranians do) both have nukes would mean you'll never have another caliphate or Ottoman empire. In my mind that's a fantastic outcome. This idea that Israel will eliminate Iran and then we'll all sing kumbaya because the big baddie is dead is just... retarded. You'll end up with a
more unified Middle East. Without Iranian influence in Iraq you will quickly have Saudi influence spread into that vacuum, tying in with their newfound Syrian influence. The Saudis smile at us now and nod, but they have bigger ambitions and are quite ruthless.
