Iran & Nuclear "energy"

This week (or weekend?) an Iran nuclear physicist was assassinated.  By who we do not know.  Some publicly claim Israel is behind the attack, but the truth about international relations is we don't know with 100% certainty.  I lean towards the theory that Israel used our intel, but we have an interest in keeping that quiet.  Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was the nuclear scientist killed, and I'll elaborate a bit on this action.

Why didn't this get more attention? Well, it definitely could have gotten plenty of news coverage, but I've been super busy this week not watching TV, I just came across it Monday on a tweet.  See, The Obama Administration wanted to "proliferate" Iran with nuclear "energy."  Thus the hubristic phrase used by many liberal political scientist scholars "Nuclear Proliferation."  This phrase carries a lot of significance in global Liberalism, but not to Realists.  The basic idea of Realists is that if a country is enriching uranium for "power" it will eventually create a nuclear weapons program; the incentives on the global stage are just too good to ignore.  And liberals ask us to look past this, accept the truth that they will adhere to guidelines like those laid out in the Iran Nuclear Deal (which Joe Biden will definitely strike back up) and refrain from creating weapons, at least within 20 years.  But I, and many others, have a problem with this.  The only country that utilizes Nuclear energy (which I firmly believe to be the most efficient way of energy production) at a rate of net exports is France.  If it is so small of a percentage of our total production and so heavily regulated in our country why are we pushing it so hard elsewhere?  Of all places Iran?  Why is it so important they utilize nuclear energy if we don't?  Oh right, because it will make them feel better if they have a nuclear bomb.  You just won't say it.

Now, the reactions by public figures to this killing are quite entertaining.  Ben Rhodes, top Obama Admin aid, is quoted by theblaze.com saying ""This is an outrageous action aimed at undermining diplomacy between an incoming US administration and Iran. It's time for this ceaseless escalation to stop.”  Okay, I’m going to break this down how I see it, from my lens: First of all, there is no diplomacy with Iran, and there never will be.  The “incoming administration” would like to give countries who chant death to America nuclear capabilities.  Ceaseless escalation is questionable.  So, paradoxical to say the least.  I feel like Mr. Rhodes is trying to hold on to his one, or perhaps his only, bit of legacy. 

Here’s a good one, former CIA Director John Brennan is quoted, “This was a criminal act & highly reckless. It risks lethal retaliation & a new round of regional conflict. Iranian leaders would be wise to wait for the return of responsible American leadership on the global stage & to resist the urge to respond against perceived culprits.”  Same analysis: Criminal and Highly Reckless is laughable.  Aaaand there is no risk of lethal retaliation; this is my personal opinion, I’ve never felt safer and more unity with my middle eastern colleagues.  Regional conflict huh, yeah, probably when the halfass, dementia-ridden Biden Admin empowers a terrorist regime and ignores Israel will there be more conflict.