Another thought: With Iran and North Korea having or trying to build nukes and testing ICBM missiles of one type or another, it makes you consider the US efforts to build anti-ballistic missile systems and all the people who were opposed to that.
This.
Consider this:
1. no one, and I mean NO ONE builds a missile that can reach any farther than it NEEDS to.
2. No one needs, wants, or builds a missile that can reach to a country it DOESNT want to deter or attack
(Both of the above because missiles get exponentially harder the farther you want them to go)
3. Both NK and Iran ALREADY HAVE missiles that can loft a nuke (or conventional) warhead to anywhere in their neighbors, or even regional potential enemy's countries. (Eg anywhere in the ME including Israel for Iran, anywhere in Japan or Okinawa or SK for NK)
4. Both NK and Iran are building AND TESTING a missiles with a range to hit BEYOND a anywhere in Europe (for Iran) and beyond anywhere in Russian, China, or SE Asia (for NK) and to a range that hits the US.
Therefore, the country they either want to attack or deter from attacking, is the US. PERIOD. And deter us from attacking is the BEST POSSIBLE CASE.
Considering BOTHA countries have expressed desire to expand their territories by force, AND both are currently being suppressed from doing so by various international (mainly US) efforts, it is not just reasonable, but also obvious that the one and only reason both countries are building long range missiles AND ANY SORT OF NUCLEAR PROGRAM is to deter the US from enforcing continued suppression or responding to their agression via conventional or nuclear means. PERIOD.
Iran in particular wants, IMHO, long range missile and nuclear weapon for the same reason South Africa did...to be able to effectively blackmail the USA. Think about this one, if they have the ability to hit the USA, if Israel started messing with them, they don't need to deter Israel (who might not fear a single nuke, and be willing to trade one part of one city for ALL of Iran) they can threaten the USA with a single one (since we would be absolutely UNwilling to trade one part of one city for all of Iran).
This is the problem with these agreements, the purported result is: 1. Absolutely not what the target country wants (thus, incentive to cheat), 2. Doesn't provide any negative consequences to cheating (other than extension of the current status quo), and 3. Provides a positive benefit -until- cheating is discovered.
So if you assume Iran is irrational, they would obvious sign, then cheat, AND if you assume they are rational, they will sign, and then cheat, because WORST CASE the cheating is discovered BEFORE a they get a bomb, and they then revert back to the current status quo, after a period of "better". And that is the absolute worst case.
Next worst, and LEAST worse (for them)they cheat, and get bomb, and it's discovered after the fact, at which point, the status quo becomes difficult to revert to as now they have a deterrent.
So basically, there is ZERO incentive for Iran to do anything not on the path to a bomb, and this agreement REGARDLESS of their actual behavior at present or future, is a benefit to them, and bad for us.
