Matthew Yglesias, who once applauded a stalker’s web site that featured a picture of my head photoshopped onto Eva Braun’s body (funny stuff!), makes the argument even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won’t attempt: Iran Should Have Nukes. (Hat tip: Daniel Freedman, who spends more time answering Yglesias’ ridiculous post than it’s worth.)

The freaky and unpredictable Iranian regime has actually been in power for a very long time. Since before I was born. The regime is not only long-entrenched, but quite corrupt. Mightn’t this lead you think it’s being run by reasonably comfortable men who enjoy the fruits of power, intend to stay in power, and know a thing or two about maintaining their power rather than by irrational lunatics who’ve been waiting in the wings for 27 years preparing to spring their bid for world domination upon us without first having acquired so much as a single modern tank?

And then there’s the small matter that our purported would-be Hitlers in Teheran were trying to reach a comprehensive peace agreement with the United States as recently as 2003. Their proposal was rejected by the Bush administration. Not rejected, I remind you, because the Bushies found the details of the proposal inadequate and Teheran refused to compromise further. No! It was rejected without any effort at negotiation because, at the time, the administration was busy threatening to overthrow the government of Iran as the second or third item in an ambitious plan to overthrow every government in the region.

So, here’s Iran. Outgunned by its two leading religio-ideological antagonists, Israel and Saudi Arabia, in the region. One immediate neighbor is Pakistan, with a larger population base and a nuclear arsenal. Another immediate neighbor, Afghanistan, is occupied by soldiers under the command of an American president who has spurned peace offers and threatened to overthrow the Iranian government. A second immediate neighbor, Iraq, is occupied by a larger number of soldiers from the same country. The Iranian military’s equipment is outdated and essentially incapable of mounting offensive operations. So Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. Under the circumstances, wouldn’t you? Don’t you think a little deterrence capability would serve the country well under those circumstances?

UPDATE at 8/30/06 2:05:25 pm:

And about those nonexistent Iranian tanks:

The IIGF operated almost 1,000 medium tanks in 1986. Although a large number were British-made Chieftains and American-made M-60s, an undetermined number of Soviet-made T-54 and T-55s, T-59s, T-62s, and T-72s were also part of the inventory, all captured from the Iraqis or acquired from North Korea and China. There was also a complement of fifty British-made Scorpion light tanks. Several hundred Urutu and Cascavel armored fighting vehicles from Brazil joined American-made M-113s and Soviet-made BTR-50-60s. An undetermined number of Soviet-made Scud surface-to-surface missiles were acquired from a third country, believed to be Libya. And in November 1986, the United States revealed that it had supplied the Iranian military with Hawk surface-to-air missiles and TOW antitank missiles via Israel.

In 1989, Iran bought armoured personnel carriers, multiple rocket launch systems (MLRS), and 100 T-72 MBTs. In 1993, Iran went into negotiations with Russia for 400 T-42 MBts, and the necessay training and equipment, and 500 BMP-s Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicles (AIFVs). During FY92, Iran procured 150 BMP-1 AIFVs and 30 Chinese 152mm Type 83 towed artillery.

Iran has become the third country in the Middle East to build main battle tanks (MBTs). Until recently, Israel was the only country in the area able to build an MBT, with its Merkava. Egypt has also begun building the US General Dynamics Land Systems M1A1 MBT.