Now that Joe Biden has generously given Iran another six billion dollars to fund their nuclear program and the IAEA has proven completely toothless in their efforts to stop them, some of Iran’s neighbors are getting nervous. That’s especially true of Saudi Arabia, a longtime rival of Iran’s. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman gave an interview to Bret Baier on Fox News this week and he addressed the subject. He’s very “concerned” over the prospect of Iran having a nuclear weapon, but what would he do about it if it happened? Well, obviously… he’s going to need a nuclear weapon also. The nuclear club may be getting a lot of new members soon at this rate. (NY Post)

If Iran is able to obtain a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia will seek to acquire one as well, the kingdom’s crown prince declared Wednesday.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman expressed “concern” about the possibility of a nuclear Iran, a longtime rival of Saudi Arabia, during a wide-ranging interview with Fox News host Bret Baier.

“Well, we are concerned [about] any country getting a nuclear weapon. That’s a bad move,” Salman said. “You don’t need to get a nuclear weapon because you can’t use it even if you can get a nuclear weapon.”

The argument that Salman was trying to make sounds rational enough at first glance, but it was also rather self-defeating. He said that Iran shouldn’t bother trying to develop a nuclear weapon because “you can’t use it” even if you have it. If Iran did launch a nuclear attack, he predicted that they would immediately be “at war with the entire world.”

That may be true, though I’m not sure the entire world would attack them. Russia, China, and North Korea would probably keep their powder dry. But a lot of other countries would likely consider it. So if that assumption is correct, why would Saudi Arabia pursue the same thing in that scenario? Wouldn’t it be just as pointless?

In any event, the world is a far less stable place today than it was ten or even five years ago. And we have more countries talking about obtaining nuclear weapons. That sounds like a recipe for disaster and America is no longer engaging in the strong global leadership role that once assured at least a reasonable amount of stability on the world stage.

You know, America used to believe in a thing known as nuclear nonproliferation. We even crafted international treaties based on the concept. That’s because it seemed impossible to eliminate weapons of mass destruction entirely, but we recognized they needed to remain in the hands of the larger, more stable and developed countries who might at least be responsible enough not to use them. (Yes, yes, we hear you complaining, Japan. And we know how ridiculous we sound saying that.)

It is currently believed that nine countries have nuclear weapons. Some of the members of the club are already problematic. That’s particularly true of India and Pakistan, with both nations being perpetually at each other’s throats. We’re not supposed to talk about the fact that Israel has nukes, but it’s probably the only reason one of their neighbors hasn’t seriously tried to invade them in recent decades. The point is, the club membership is full and we really shouldn’t be taking any more applications.

Iran is essentially the world’s largest and richest state sponsor of terrorism. They have a history. If there’s one country that can’t be trusted with nukes, it has to be Iran. So if they won’t abandon their program voluntarily, somebody needs to preemptively shut it down for them. Who will take that responsibility? Saudi Arabia? That seems unlikely. Israel would probably do it and I’m guessing they’ve got a plan in the works already. But that could trigger a regional war. The entire situation is a mess and better leadership is required to walk us all back from the brink.