Just fomenting anarchy.
Pakistan has ginormous turrrrrrr'ism links, but being a nuclear power, the US doesn't seem to want to invade them and spend 12 years trying to change a 1500 year old social structure.
Iran, on the other hand, has approximately the same amount of ties to turrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrism, just a different flavor of it. However, they're not a nuclear power, so the US is more belligerent against them.
I'm wondering if things will die down to Paki-levels of diplomacy with Iran once they do go nookyoular. Because Obama is not interested in stopping them from releasing the genie.
Or, if our outlook on Iran is more tailored towards Cold War policies, since Iran is mostly armed by Russian weapons. The US military has had about 12 years to shift its mindset from MAD and spheres of influence, to international Stateless guerrilla warfare. I am wondering if the nuclear strategists in US policy circles have adapted their philosophies in regards to this, or if it's mostly the combat units that have adapted to new warfare while the MAD gang is still happily wargaming in their Colorado caves.
Wondering if the dog wags the tail or the tail wags the dog when it comes to military doctrine and its approach to Iranian diplomacy:
-Do we not want them nuked up because they represent a customer/ally/whatever of a Russian-centric worldview?
-Do we not want them nuked up because they represent a threat to the petrodollar and IMF policies?
-Do we not want them nuked up because they are a force behind Syrian terrorist strikes against an ally in the Middle East?