22:37 into the video
And here the dangers are qualitatively greater. With Iran,
you have a very different situation from North Korea. North Korea, Kim Jong-Il , Kim Jong-Un,
they are radical, they are extreme, they are unpredictable, and yet both father
and son fundamentally are megalomaniacal
narcissists. Which means there’s some
degree of rational deterrence that’s possible. Both father and son understood that if they
ever actually use their nuclear weapon – that instant their regime would
end. What makes Iran qualitatively more
dangerous is its leadership, Khamenei and the mullahs are radical religious zealots
who embrace death and suicide, which means ordinary cost benefit analysis doesn’t
work the same way.
That’s why understanding what it is we are fighting is so
important. If you assume these are rational
actors then the Obama administration’s policy, which I believe is facilitating
Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability, I wouldn't even go so far as to say
makes more sense, a little sense, at least if you misunderstand who you are
dealing with - there is a possibility of deterrence, but when you understand
religious extremism , it changes the balance.
In my view if Iran acquires the nuclear weapon, the odds are unacceptably
high they would use that weapon in the skies of New York or Los Angeles or Tel
Aviv.
