Rob and I got into a Twitter debate over the significance of an Iranian nuke a couple weeks ago. Yale's international journal asked us to expand it into a short series of essays. Rob's entry, arguing that an Iranian nuke is no big deal and everyone should calm down, is here. Mine is here. The gist:
Once you concede that hysteria over an Iranian bomb is a “well founded” concern, you’re forced to confront one of two alternatives. You can either believe that regional and international decision-makers (governments, security apparatuses, terrorist groups, dissidents, the media, etc.) will react in unpredictable ways, with geostrategic implications. If you do that, then you refute Farley. Or you can believe that regional and international decision-makers will become more rational then they already are in the face of an Iranian nuke.
That is a debater’s rhetorical tact, not a serious policy option.
For the record, I would never write "serious policy option," since I have an allergy to the word "serious" -- I tend to find DC pseudo-intellectuals use it in inverse proportion to their actual seriousness -- but that was the rewrite I got back, and it seemed like a fun little irony to leave it in.
Our friend Michael Cohen also tweeted himself blue in the face about Rob's argument, so Yale made sure he joined the party too. Rob will have the last word in the coming days.