"2) And it is to the interests of humanity that Iran achieve nuclear weapons. That and only that would make peace in the Middle East probable."
I can see how it is in the interests of humanity that Iran should have the *right* to make nuclear weapons (because our collective implication in a system of nation-based discriminatory rights undermines the principle of equality);
and that Iran having nuclear weapons is certainly no more of a threat than Britain, Pakistan or Israel having them, nor even would I concede an increase in the overall danger;
but that Iran's putative nuclear arsenal would lead to peace or justice in the Middle East seems like nuclear fetishism to me.
Is the absence of Iran's nuclear weapons the source of conflict? Or is it the domination of western power in the region?
Are we to take seriously the implication that the Iranian government could act as champion of the oppressed masses of the Middle East? The Iranian elite seem a lot more interested in making money, and establishing political room to manouevre than liberating anyone else. Does anyone seriously doubt the Iranian government's willingness to make an alliance with the West, were that to suit its interests?