Thats a whole other argument... he's saying why not allow Iran nukes with the intent of stabilizing the region. That's downright silly.
Israel needs nukes, to deter another "7 day war" and the likes... they've often been ganged up on. I clearly said they weren't in the right, but not the most in the wrong. Nukes in one of their enemies hands throws things way off balance again.
what makes you so sure the Iranian govt would commit suicide by using nukes? nukes are nothing more than a deterrent, everyone knows that. the insistence that Iran is irrational is based on on one, disinformation to demonize the enemy, and two, it is based on a lack of understanding of how they operate.
Comparing nations generally with Iran, one finds two different approaches to foreign policy that are guided by two different principles. In most nations, policy is constructed on the basis of rationality, where all options are weighed, whether in ideological or practical terms, and whatever seems the most feasible while still offering security is what will be followed. In contrast, for the leadership in Iran, policy is constructed on the basis of jurisprudence, and through rationality is utilized to arrive at that jurisprudence, it is marked by a subservience to ideology, even when the result does not seem to be the most 'reasoned' approach. Limits are set God, the abrogation of which is outside the authority of man, and so matters of Divine principle are not flouted for the appeasement of others. Outside observers unfamiliar with Islamic ideology will then view portions of the foreign and domestic policies of Iran as inherently flawed and illogical, delusional even, but within Islam these same policies have their own logic.
The fundamental principle that guides the leaders of Iran is that they are an Islamic nation, not an Iranian nation, and national interests are equated with what is best for Islam. Any change in the status quo of Iranian policy will come about only if those changes are presented in such a way so as to offer guarantees that Islam is secure.
A case in point of where Iran is atypical of other nation states: In the nuclear industry, it is generally agreed upon that if nuclear-armed regimes find themselves existentially threatened, on their way out they would use those nukes to either give a big F-you to the world, or use them to try to stop their downfall (eg, if Israel were in a conflict w/Egypt and found themselves to be irreparably losing ground, the general notion is that Israel would start nuking Egypt right and left; internal revolutions i suppose might be an exception to this). If the Iranian regime were existentially threatened, based on its own principles, it would have to weigh the use of those weapons against what it would achieve, and there is no guarantee the Ayatollahs would conclude instigating a nuclear war would be Islamically justified, even for the preservation of the Islamic state, as Shia Islam has existed outside the confines of government on its own now for 1400 years.
As an example of such reasoning, after the revolution, Iran initially halted its nuclear program until the mujtahids could decide whether or not nuclear technology, given its potential devastating uses, is Islamically justified. As of now I think it is justified on the basis of nuclear energy being more efficient and cleaner than fossil fuels (reference TheDervish's picutre of Tehran above) and on the basis that nukes are a deterrent force, although I need to check that further.
Another example, it took several years to retaliate against Saddam's [western supplied] missile attacks against Iranian cities--only out of desperation did the ideology allow for the conclusion that saving the Islamic state was a great enough good to counter the good of not killing civilians by bombing Iraqi cities with missiles; again there is no guarantee nuclear bombs would be looked at in the same light, as the devastation they cause to innocent life is immense.
Allowing Iran into the regional discussion of things means accepting that they as a nation have self-imposed restraints that no other nation has. to the US this means giving up control of the discourse shaping that the US is trying to secure and maintain, which includes relegating Islam to the private sector. In practice this means that on an international level more so than found in other governments Iranian officials are less corruptible and less likely to give up national sovereignty and policies of national security for for individual gain. This includes the Iranian insistence of not using euphemisms to describe Israeli and American activity in the region, even when the discussion is aimed at an international audience as opposed to a domestic one.
Domestically things are different, as corruption is a real problem there, but it is corruption that happens at lower levels by officials who are less driven by the Islamic cause. Up to this point higher officials have not done a whole lot to counter this, as to counter the lower corruption would have to include a major economic reform, and the resources that would be required for this undertaking are not currently available; imo Islam itself is the best weapon that loyal oppositionists have in Iran to combat this corruption which is generally economic in nature--economic corruption was one of the main drivers of revolution in the first place). Khomeni was the man with the popularity and the vision, and rest in peace he is dead now, and so until someone comes along to replace and add to that vision of the Islamic state, it seems Iran might be bound to faltering in the short term.
ATM, US strategy in the region is based less on negotiation on more on strong-arming and bribing its policies through. And so until and unless the US is willing to negotiate as opposed to dictate, the stand-off and tension between the US and Iran is destined to continue.
). The US is the only nation to use nuclear weapons so far, and they were used to tell the Japanese that they couldn't win, not as a deterrent. 
