This might be one of the daftest takes I’ve seen in a while, and thats saying something - the logic is fundamentally flawed. You’re basically arguing that the solution to instability is… more instability. That giving nuclear weapons to more countries in one of the most volatile regions on earth somehow creates peace. That’s borderline insanity. Mutually assured destruction only barely worked between two superpowers with tight control systems - not a region full of proxy wars, militias, and governments that openly fund armed groups. Iran isn’t Switzerland - It has a long track record of backing and arming terrorist organisations across the region You want to give nuclear capability to a state that already funds groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and others - and just hope none of that influence ever spills over into something far worse? IMO thats gambling with civilisation. MAD relies on rational actors. Terror networks aren’t rational in the same way states are. Even analysts point out that nuclear proliferation increases the risk of nuclear terrorism or loss of control over materials So not... perhaps is not a good idea to take region already full of proxy wars, ideological conflict, and instability… and add multiple nuclear arsenals into the mix. What could possibly go wrong ??? Your argument / logic does not support peace - its simply delays a bigger disaster.
