<<< It is completely irrelevant to whether we should stop U.S. nuclear terror policy that Iran is "isolated." It is also irrelevant to what we should do about U.S. nuclear terror policy, that other nations might fall in line with the U.S. >>>
I am not trying to take sides in your debate with Ulhas, but the above passage caught my attention for a different reason. What is it exactly that "we" (be it "we on this list," "we the American people" or "we the community of nations") can do about US nuclear terror policy, other than cursing and stomping our feet? In the good old days of the cold war, the bastards had a reason to believe that if they did something stupid, they would likely face a retaliation from the USSR. But now, they do not face such a threat anymore, and they feel they can do whatever fuck they want. And they are right. What exactly would happen to them if they decided to bomb or nuke Iran? Or, in the spirit of the widely quoted Stalin's remark about the Pope's armies (or rather lack thereof), how many armies capable of inflicting substantial damage on the US or its military do "we" have?
I do not mean to be flippant, but I cannot escape the conclusion that all that people in this or other countries can do vis a vis the US military machine right now is talk or yell or blow themselves up, and that does not account for much. Sorry to be such a vulgar materialist, but I do not believe that a pen is mightier than a sword - never has been and never will - unless of course it is backed by gunboats, tanks, and fighter jets.
Wojtek