Agree, but it kinda jibes with my thesis. I contend that they generally wont attack the U.S. directly, and when they do, it wont be the kind of aggression that they fear would provoke significant military response. Both Iran and N.Korea want us to think they are war-crazy and unpredictable, so that they can do things like seize a Panamanian oil tanker, or fire missile tests over the sea of Japan. They both want nuclear capacity on par with the West so that they can get away with more aggression inside their region, skirt sanctions, and gain power, all protected from full escalation because they will have nuclear deterrence, or so they believe.
I know that Iran pulls stuff like the taking of hostages they did within recent years, but events like that seem more like outliers. What they really want is to be able to operate with aggression in their region without outside interference.
This is why most people think Israel would never allow Iran to have nuclear capability. It’s not just because they could be crazy enough to nuke Tel Aviv. I’m not saying they’re not that crazy but I think it’s less likely than what they really want is to be able to operate with conventional military aggression as well as asymmetric aggression (terrorism) while being shielded because of the fear of nuclear escalation.
Agree, it’s a matter of Cui bono? when we look to figure these things out.
I still think there is a sizeable number of Americans who feel Iran has not suffered, or suffered nearly enough for our embassy hostages or the copper sheathed IEDs they supplied against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the Iranians step on their d*cks when the right people are in charge here there will be consequences beyond whatever that moment in time calls for. Just sayin’.