The Western approach to Iran is deeply flawed. It fails not only as strategy but also as morality. And not just advanced morality—no, even common morality is violated. Iran’s regime is irrational. That is beyond question. It has crushed its own population, it has sponsored violent militias abroad. And it mixes politics with apocalyptic theology. It ignores internal dissent, censors reason, and suffocates reforms. But recognizing the regime’s insanity does not excuse our own double standards. Quite the opposite: the irrationality of the Iranian regime demands a higher level of moral consistency from the rest of the world.
Total utilitarianism – the only morality that works
Common morality collapses under pressure. It is too limited, too tribal, too easy to bend. It shifts with alliances, fears, and propaganda. What we need is not a morality based on tradition or custom—we need a system that scales. One that serves all humanity, not just one nation. And that is total utilitarianism. It does not care about flags or religious excuses. In my view, it cares about conscious experience. In a world of billions—and a future of trillions—it focuses on maximizing ecstatic, meaningful, flourishing moments for as many beings as possible. Pain must be minimized. Joy must be amplified. Consciousness is the unit. And morality must be about outcomes, not identities.
This matters more than ever when we talk about nuclear weapons. Because nuclear war does not just kill people—it annihilates conscious possibility. It is not just destructive; it is anti-moral.
An irrational regime seeking the most rational weapon
Now let us return to Iran. The regime is not sane. It is not reliable, it is not even practical. And it engages in risky escalation. It uses martyrdom as policy. It feeds off grievance, paranoia, and identity politics. Such a regime should never be near nuclear weapons. That part is not controversial. Nuclear weapons are tools of last resort. They require cold logic, long-term thinking, and measured restraint. Iran has demonstrated none of that. Its domestic repression, external adventurism, and internal contradictions make it fundamentally unfit to wield such power. The risk is not theoretical. It is real, daily, and growing.
If Iran gets the bomb, others will follow – unstoppably
And yet, the problem goes beyond Iran. If Iran gets the bomb, the entire region will change. The Middle East is already the most volatile region on Earth. Fragile alliances, ancient hostilities, sectarian divides—it is all there. Now imagine nuclear weapons added to the mix. Saudi Arabia will not sit back. It will build its own. Turkey might follow. Egypt may reconsider its nuclear restraint. Once Iran breaks the seal, the entire domino effect begins. No one will be able to stop it.
Furthermore, it is not just regional. It is global. If a theocratic dictatorship can defy the West and succeed, what stops others? What message does it send to Myanmar? To North Korea? To Algeria or Venezuela in the future? The message is clear: acquire the bomb, and you cannot be touched. It turns irrationality into immunity. And that makes the world permanently unstable.
US: The problem is global hypocrisy
But here is the contradiction. Nuclear weapons already exist in the hands of irrational states. The U.S. tolerates some of them. Pakistan, with military coups and radical elements, has the bomb. Israel, undeclared but armed, refuses inspections. North Korea is already armed. The U.S. punishes some regimes, forgives others. It applies pressure based on interest—not principle. That is the core problem. It makes deterrence untrustworthy. It makes diplomacy look like manipulation. And it makes the moral argument fall apart.
If we had applied one standard to all nuclear aspirants—no matter their politics, religion, or alliances—things might have been different. We could have built a system where nuclear acquisition meant total global isolation. But we did not. We built a system of favoritism, we allowed some. We stopped others, we enforced morality only when it served power.
What should have been done—what still could be done—is that every single country, without exception, should ostracize Iran completely. No trade, no diplomacy, no tolerance. The international system should treat nuclear ambition by irrational regimes as a total red line. That kind of universal isolation might still work. It is harsh. It is difficult. But it is morally superior to hypocrisy—and far safer than escalation.
Can the U.S. still deter proliferation?
Here is the remaining question: can the United States still deter nuclear proliferation? It depends. It can—but only under certain conditions. First, it must offer real security to its allies. Second, it must not humiliate or back regimes into corners. Third, it must apply moral pressure universally. Fourth, it must stop exploiting every crisis for domestic politics.
Iran will not be deterred by threats alone. It must be contained, yes. But also, it must be given options. Because even irrational regimes are made of humans. And humans, like all agents, seek survival. If the U.S. and the international community can construct a future where Iran survives without nuclear weapons—economically, politically, diplomatically—it might change course. But if there is no escape route, then the bomb becomes a shield, not a weapon.
Iran: War or diplomacy? I don’t know the hidden 98%
At this point, you may ask: should the U.S. bomb Iran? Should it strike first? Should it sabotage their facilities? Or should it return to diplomacy, restore a deal, offer sanctions relief, try to calm the game?
Can’t all countries just ostracize Iran? No, so my answer is this: I do not know. I am not an insider. I do not see the intelligence. I do not attend the secret meetings. I do not read the classified reports. Ninety-eight percent of geopolitics happens in the dark. To pretend otherwise is delusional.
Yet that is not a weakness. That is moral honesty. It means I cannot recommend war lightly. Nor can I embrace appeasement blindly. What I can say is this: every decision must be judged by one question—does it increase or decrease the total joy, depth, and flourishing of consciousness on Earth and beyond?
And here is the terrifying risk: bombing Iran, even if justified, might trigger something uncontrollable. It could escalate rapidly, it could pull in other powers. It could unleash regional alliances, secret treaties, and global polarization. In other words, it could spark World War III. That is not an exaggeration—it is a documented scenario. And that is why we must tread with extreme caution.
What I know is this – morality must be higher
Iran’s regime is dangerous. But our world is fragile. And unless we elevate our morality—beyond nationalism, beyond revenge, beyond utility for the few—we will never stabilize the system. Only total utilitarianism provides a usable blueprint. It cares not who holds the bomb—but what the bomb does to future minds.
We must stop all irrational regimes from gaining ultimate power. That includes Iran. But it also includes others. It means no more hypocrisy. No more exceptions. No more convenient allies. Total consistency or total collapse.
Conclusion: Deterrence must be moral or it will fail
In conclusion, the West must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Not because it is the enemy. But because it is irrational. Still, we must not fall into the trap of using immoral means to prevent immoral outcomes. We must build a new standard—one that all countries, all peoples, and all futures can trust.
If morality is about reducing suffering and increasing ecstatic experience, then our nuclear policies must follow suit. We must remove emotion. Remove tribalism. Remove arrogance. And construct a rational deterrence system grounded in the value of conscious existence itself.
If we fail to do so, then Iran’s bomb will not be the last. It will be the first of many. And what follows may not be war or peace—but something worse: the permanent hostage crisis of humanity itself, staring down its own extinction with nothing but pride to show for it.
This article was published on janbryxi.com and freethinkersinternational.net
Leave a Reply