Did you disappear on me?

I am going to preemptively guess the next post that will be made by either BW or Flint:

@Skoe

Oh?  So you agree that badmouthing a politician's family is bad?  You mean like when the Dems MOCKED Palin's daughter for not ABORTING her hild?  Or how about when they ATTACKED Bush's daughters for drinking during SPRING BREAK?

Hypocrite!

Just a guess. 

That was possibly the dumbest thing ever uttered on the Internet.

Okay, on number 2:

1: I would question whether economies that fall ALWAYS rise again.

A: For an economy to rise again, the resources must be available to rebuild those sectors of the economy that have fallen.  This is variant from one situation to another.

For example, let's take the 72 stagflation crisis.  The oil embargo raised the price of oil, creating a recession and inflation at the same time.  To get out of the recession, oil needed to be put back into the economy.  Especially in this scenario, there was no alternate way to fix the economy: Any economic growth would be offset by inflation in the oil market, negating growth.  Thus, action would need to be taken to ensure that oil was put back in the market.  In instances such as the above, the private sector isn't adequately able to fix the issue because the reason for the crisis was purely political.

B: Government action can serve a greater purpose than the action itself: Even a token economic policy can have symbolic meaning, which is of critical value in economics.  When the government takes action that is widely believed will help the economy, or when the government at least looks like it's "on the ball" regarding the economy, it helps out both investor and consumer confidence.  Without these two, any economic policy will fail because, regardless of how much money the government puts in the economy, if confidence is shot to hell, individuals and businesses will hoard money rather than spend it.

Let's take another example: The current economic crisis.  Now, I am not going to get into the issue of the bailouts or the stimulus package.  Rather, I want to take a moment to discuss HOW Obama has sold the packages to America.  We hear over and over on the news that America is in an economic crisis, that we're in a recession as bad as the Great Depression, etc.  Now, it can be harmful to confidence when economists and stock market analyzers on the news say that the economy is bad.  But when the President says things like this, it becomes uniquely bad because a huge amount of people listen to Obama, and he is seen as the leader of the nation.

As a result of this, along with the general atmosphere among economists and pundits that the economy is really bad, confidence is shot.  Banks are scared to loan out money right now, even when the Fed is injecting huge amounts of capital into their accounts.  People reduce their buying habits on non-essential items, which hurts retail sectors of the economy.  People are just scared shitless.

Government action can create the perception that, however bad the economy is right now, the future will be better.  This instills the consumer and investor confidence necessary for economic growth.

2: There is also the question of HOW the economy rises again.

A: Recessions are usually times when the economy gets rid of the fat and works to become efficient.  Sounds good, right?

WRONG!

Let's take the current banking crisis as an example:

Okay, pretend there were 20 major banks in the pre-crisis economy.
During the recession, 15 go out of business.  Each of those are bought out by the other 5.

After the crisis, we now have 5 financial institutions that have nearly monopolized the banking industry.  Whenever there are less competitors in the economy, these businesses will be able to better predict each other's price changes, and they can, in effect, coordinate their prices without any interaction between businesses.  This, in effect, causes a monopoly effect: Businesses can start to raise prices without any added value in their goods.

B: Then there's the social issues associated with the post-recession society.  Immediately, there will become a mistrust of the institutions responsible for the recession.  For example, many people who lived during the Great Depression still keep their money under a mattress, even when the government has created the FDIC, and a host of other safeguards against that person losing the $500 they would stick in the bank.  But after this, it becomes the issue of stopping the ripple effect.

Let's take the Great Depression as an example.  The Depression caused the bank industry to start foreclosing on homes to regain capital... including the Midwest farms.  The result?  The Dust Bowl made a huge farmland region unusable for a long time.

C: Then there's the simple final issue which needs little explanation, but for which I will give a giant explanation: Stopping economic crises is a reflection of confidence in the government.  The ability of the government is reflected in the actions visible by the people.

Let's take a couple examples.

What is everyone's opinion about US counterterrorism efforts in the Philippines following 9/11?
I'm willing to bet that most people would say "Wait, what?  What people in the Philippines?"  Exactly: We have no opinions about issues we don't know about.  Now, if you are from the Philippines, if you know someone from there, or if you were specifically paying attention to the area, you may know about it.  But aside from that, it's unlikely.

Now how about Iraq?  We get tons of information on the news.  Some of us may have directly felt the effects of the war.  Thus, it's easier to form an opinion.  However, for most people, the war is an abstract idea: We are told about it like we are told about Angelina Jolie adopting a baby or the finale of Battlestar Galactica.  While getting information is important, people can much easier set aside the issue as unimportant if they are not affected.

Now what about the economy?  Bullshit.  You can't escape the economy.  Even if I turn off the news, stop talking to anyone, and only buy things online so that I don't hear anything about the economy, I will still be affected by the economy.  Unless I live in a spinning solar powered tree house with crops grown by robots and a system for turning my urine back into water, I'm affected directly.  And even in that tree house, there may be external influences (people coming to my spinning tree house and stealing a solar powered radish).

It's simple: We don't hear about the war in Iraq anymore on the news, except for little blurbs, because the public is more concerned with the one issue that is directly harming their personal lives: a bad economy.  The only issue that could possibly attempt to overshadow an economic crisis in significance would be a war... a BIG, WW2-esque war where most men were sent to war, most women were building missiles, and there was the risk of a foreign occupier within a nation.

When the government says "screw it, let the economy fix itself," it is seen as a failure of government.  The government is perceived as a tool to better the lives of the people.  When it takes a hands off approach (in this case meaning "I don't care," not "it will do better if I don't touch it"), the government is seen as a useless tool.

Even outside the economic sphere, assuming we got out of the recession, there will still be the lingering, "well, why should we trust _________ with this issue?  They sure showed how much they care during the recession!"

Now I want to take a moment to flag some of the problems with this:

First of all, some of the most radical groups in history have taken over nations, including industrialized nations, during periods of economic turmoil.  Prolonged turmoil is often met with a feeling of desperation combined with the feeling that society has rejected you despite your skills.  Radical groups are able to utilize this by saying, "no, it's not your fault.  It's the fault of the current government.  Let's get them out of here."

Here's some examples for you:
Nazi Germany took over after the prolonged economic collapse in the 20's and early 30's, blaming the collapse on the West, the Jewish people, and democratic society.

The Bolsheviks took control of Russia in World War 1 as the Russian military increasingly militarized the economy, forcing farmers to sell grain at cheaper than market prices, and with little goods that the people could actually even buy with the money earned from farming due to the militarization of the industrial sector.  (Note: Not saying that the Bolsheviks were extremists necessarily because I don't want to get in that debate.  My argument is just that people lose confidence in the government in power when it neglects the economy).

Palestine: The Hamas government refuses to pay its employees for a few weeks due to financial problems.  Oops, they just lost the people's support!

I could also cite examples of terrorist recruitment in various regions of the world as a result of economic crises.  Poor Iraqis placing an IED in the road because some terrorist offered them $500?  Afghani farmers forced to produce opium instead of wheat because most granaries have been destroyed?

3: The people who you think should be valued over the economy... are hurt by the economy.  If you care about those people, getting out of the recession is a prerequisite issue.

I also want to disagree on #11:

Yeah, there's a bad reputation on warning labels after the hot coffee incident.  However, that's definitely an extreme situation.

There are people allergic to various nuts that they WILL die if they are even near an open container of nuts.  Now, it is obvious that a bag of Planter's peanuts "may contain nuts."  However, what about ice cream?  Yeah, you can check the label of ice cream to see if it is peanut butter ice cream.  But often, even a little bit of powder from some nuts in the machine that made a batch of non-nut ice cream can have enough nuts in them to start an allergic reaction.

It may seem like a small annoyance for you, but it's a matter of life and death for thousands of people.

I'm not even debating the issue.  I'm just suggesting another possible tactic.

> DPS wrote:

> "Example: Iraq.  No, not talking about the current war.  I'm talking about the 92 war.  Saddam was warned by the international community that if they stayed in Kuwait, we would kick their asses.  They said "bullshit."  The rest is history."

That wasn't an example of one nation starting a conflict with another of vastly superior firepower it was Saddam calling the international community's bluff.  Unfortunately for him they weren't bluffing.

Fair enough, but that highlights a major point:

Small states can still "start" a war via antagonizing larger powers.  Now, I'm not talking about nations doing things like human rights abuses that piss off people.  I'm talking about nations doing exactly as above.  Other examples would include 9/11 and, arguably, the Vietnam and Korean wars.

> sKoE )= wrote:

> > Um... this decade.  The decade in which Russia is making a huge pile
> of military investments in response to the Poland missile shield.

That wont be relevant until next decade...lol.

Answered below. 

> Trusting them to do what?  You really think France would use nuclear
> weapons when it still has a conventional arsenal, and other nations,
> especially ones in the EU, that would help it if need be?

Under war with the Russians, the first thing the French will do is use nukes.

Based on what?  France has a capable military, and has NATO on its side, so the US, UK, German, Spanish, Italian, Canadian, and other military forces are all there to back them up.  Diplomacy needs to also be calculated here.

> If Iran were to fight the US, there would need to be some way the nation
> believed it could win the war.  If it resorted to conventional warfare, as my
> argument suggests, it would get its ass kicked by the US.  Remember, a
> military is only effective if it could adequately defend itself against its enemies. 
> Otherwise, it's useless.  Iran's conventional weapons, when brought up against
> its enemy, is useless.  Therefore, they'll resort to nukes.

Iran wouldn't initiate a war against any major power. That'd be stupid.

If the U.S. were to (attempt to) bomb Iran they would simply covertly move a nuclear
device onto U.S. land and detonate it.

That's exactly my argument.  If in a defensive war, Iran's gut reaction WOULD be to use its nuclear weapons because its conventional weapons are useless.

As for Iran initiating a war against a major power, um... there have been lots of stupid nations that initiated wars against major powers.

Example: Iraq.  No, not talking about the current war.  I'm talking about the 92 war.  Saddam was warned by the international community that if they stayed in Kuwait, we would kick their asses.  They said "bullshit."  The rest is history.

But I don't need to say that X nation will go to war with Y nation.  Rather, it's an issue of preparation for war.

I want to use a video game as an example: Have you ever played C&C Generals: Zero Hour?

Alright, so each playable nation has 3 different sub-factions, each enhancing different weapons for benefits.  This, in turn, changes the way you play the game.

When I play as the US subfaction with laser-armed tanks, I'm pretty much plotting to overrun the enemy with my new shiny tanks.
But when I play as the subfaction with air force bonuses and weak tanks... my opponent had better have lots of anti-air units.

Now, in just the same way, when I play against an enemy, I ask myself what that nation's "bonuses" are, and work to counter them.

So when I play as the China group with a bonus to its nuclear capabilities (moderate bonuses to tanks and aircraft) against the US laser-armed tank group... I'm using a slow siege with artillery-launched nukes.  A tank rush is too risky.

But when I play as that same group against the US air force group... I'm tank rushing them.  Screw it, there won't be any opposition.

It's just the same way with real warfare.  Here's a couple examples:
Toward the end of World War 2: The US military strategy for island hopping required the ability to transport large forces overseas, requiring large navies to go across the Pacific.  Japan's resources were dwindling, but it still had the devotion of its people.  Thus, the kamikaze air strategy was planned, as it was theorized that one plane crashing in the right spot could take down a US warship.

World War 1: The Western Front saw both sides dig massive trenches as defensive barriers.  Each side thus had to modify their strategy to get around the other side's defenses, namely trenches.  Both sides tried massive, yet unsuccessful, infantry assaults.  Overwhelming artillery was attempted.  The tank was created specifically for this task (but it went 2 miles per hour... seriously, they were taken down by direct hits from artillery.  That's bad).

Now, let's bring it into context of Iran.  If Iran were to fight the US, it would have some deterrence.  But a number of American tools give it an overwhelming advantage against Iran.  Considering Iran's political enemies are Israel and the US, those are who you weigh its power against.  A direct assault would be like if, playing a game of C&C Generals, the US air force player decided to tank rush China nuke.  Bad idea. 

Here's the important thing, though: Iran knows this, and they know it right now.  They don't have to fight a war against the US to know that a conventional war is a bad idea.  However, there is the possibility for victory using unconventional methods, such as terrorism.  Knowing this, the logical national leader would redraw their military strategy to enhance their capabilities in the areas that enhance their chance of success most effectively.

As a result, since terrorism would become Iran's strategy for stopping the US and Israel, it will spend the pre-war period preparing that force, at the expense of the other forces, since those forces are useless (In the case of Iran... its conventional deterrence may be enough to stop a small-scale Israeli or US assault, but not a massive campaign.  Consider it the difference between someone taking a planet in IC using their entire fleet vs. a one-trannie, 2 infantry attack force).  Thus, Iran becomes dependent on its nuclear and terrorist weapons as its defensive weapon, and a war with Iran is infinitely more likely to see these forces come into play.

> Iran's conventional weapons, when brought up against
> its enemy, is useless.  Therefore, they'll resort to nukes.

No, actually. Russia is helping to arm Iran.

1: You argue that Iran's conventional weaponry against the US is not useless because it is being assisted by Russia.  That means Russia DOES have the military strength to use conventional force as an adequate deterrent.
2: However, I can still argue it the other way due to simple numbers: Russia is NOT giving Iran more weapons than it has itself.

> sKoE )= wrote:

> > Now, let's go nation by nation:
> Russia: Huge freaking military, sophisticated, etc. 
> They've got it down pat.

What decade are you living in? :S.

Um... this decade.  The decade in which Russia is making a huge pile of military investments in response to the Poland missile shield.

> France: Part of NATO, so they're pretty safe.  Plus a
> sizable military.  Don't need to resort to nukes.

Trusting the French government is like trusting an Irishmen with the last beer in the pub.

Trusting them to do what?  You really think France would use nuclear weapons when it still has a conventional arsenal, and other nations, especially ones in the EU, that would help it if need be?

> Britain: Same story as France.

Same.

Same.

> China: No major military conflict has occurred since they obtained their nuclear weapons,
> so we can't accurately analyze this issue.  However, there is still a pretty damn big military
> there.

China is smart. That doesn't mean their Tech is any good though...

Um... is that a denial?  Want to back it up or something?

> India/Pakistan: Not going to say shit.  If there was one other place on the planet where we
> needed to get rid of nuclear weapons, it would be these two guys.  (Mainly due to Pakistan,
> but only because of their political instability.  However, a nuclear India without a nuclear
> Pakistan would be vastly unstable... the region is just damn scary)

Tis.

Huh?

> Israel: Advanced conventional military, thanks in no small part to US assistance.

They aren't the best, and against a real army (not hillbilly extremists without much
more then a shirt on their back) they would get squished pretty quickly. (E.g. against
Turkey).

Here's the trick, though:
I don't need to defend that a nation needs the #1 military in the world to not resort to nukes, because nations don't normally plan to go to war except with nations they have unfriendly relations with.

Israel may not be able to take down Turkey.  But Israel is friends with Turkey, as was pointed out earlier.  That means the likelihood of a war with Turkey is extremely small.  Israel's main enemies today are nations that resort to the "hillbilly extremists."

You don't go to war with nations you like.  Pretty simple.

> Now what about Iran?  Alright, Iran is arming its conventional military.  But here's
> the problem: Its enemy is the US.

And? lol.

Okay, I'll lay it out:

If Iran were to fight the US, there would need to be some way the nation believed it could win the war.  If it resorted to conventional warfare, as my argument suggests, it would get its ass kicked by the US.  Remember, a military is only effective if it could adequately defend itself against its enemies.  Otherwise, it's useless.  Iran's conventional weapons, when brought up against its enemy, is useless.  Therefore, they'll resort to nukes.

> Unless you can argue that Iran can safely say it can beat the US in a head-to-head
> conventional war, the risk is extremely high that Iran would use nuclear weapons as
> its primary weapon of defense.

Since Israel couldn't beat Turkey, and Pakistan couldn't beat China, and France couldn't
beat Russia, and ... etc, etc ... Its no different to Iran.

That's above.  Nations don't plot to destroy their friends.
In addition, diplomacy plays a part: France, for example, has military strength through calling up its allies.

> Econamatrix wrote:

> The US is the Chrisitian extremist version of Iran. 80-something% of American's believe that the world will end in some kind of judgement day. A similar number (higher?) number of Iranians think that if they kill themselves in a Jihad they will go to paradise with 72 virgins. These are not the kind of people that I believe should be in charge of nuclear weapons.

BIG difference.  The vast majority of Christians (granted, there are a couple terrorist Christian groups in the US who would disagree) do not believe that the individual should work to speed up that judgment day.  The issue is more of "okay, this day is coming... just be prepared, be without sin so you don't get your own ass kicked."

Now, there are some Christian groups that are quite extreme, saying they should deliberately try to screw up the world to bring about Judgment Day.  Hell, Napolean actually had a campaign to bring Jewish populations to Israel to speed it up... (wait... maybe not Napolean... shit, I'm not sure, and I have to go back through my books to find out.  Crap!)

Now, this is also true of most Muslims.  There are some branches (including a very large contingent in the US) that believes the so-called "jihad" is an internal struggle, rather than an external struggle, against evil.

However, here are three things to note:

A: Problems with Iran having nuclear weapons are primarily based on the issue of who is in the GOVERNMENT, not who the people are.  Honestly... if Iran was run by a moderate government that was integrated in the global trade system... I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever with them having a nuclear bomb.  If the government was integrated in the global trade system, they would have a greater cultural and economic link with the rest of the world, making it all the less likely that they would actually use the bomb.  In addition, it would at least provide some balance against Israel, just in case shit ever hit the fan with Israel's government.

But Iran is isolated, impoverished, and, by your own admission, religiously fanatical.  Um... that doesn't sound safe.

B: Nuclear weapons as a percentage of overall defensive capability.

Put yourself in this situation:

You're in your home.  Someone breaks into your house, and starts walking toward your bedroom.  You need to defend yourself.  The only weapon you have to defend yourself, however, is a flamethrower.  It becomes an issue of using the flamethrower, and risking huge overkill plus damaging the surrounding area, or you risk dying.

Now picture you in that same home.  Same situation.  But this time, you have a flamethrower and a handgun.  You would probably take the handgun.

That's the issue here.  The US has nuclear weapons.  However, it also has some of the most advanced conventional weaponry on the planet.  As a result, there is no need for the US to use nuclear weapons, because conventional weapons are a useful deterrent.

This is empirically proven by the fact that no nation has used nuclear weapons against enemy nations since the US during World War 2, when military forces were strained anyway, even into the end.

Now, let's go nation by nation:
Russia: Huge freaking military, sophisticated, etc.  They've got it down pat.
France: Part of NATO, so they're pretty safe.  Plus a sizable military.  Don't need to resort to nukes.
Britain: Same story as France.
China: No major military conflict has occurred since they obtained their nuclear weapons, so we can't accurately analyze this issue.  However, there is still a pretty damn big military there.
India/Pakistan: Not going to say shit.  If there was one other place on the planet where we needed to get rid of nuclear weapons, it would be these two guys.  (Mainly due to Pakistan, but only because of their political instability.  However, a nuclear India without a nuclear Pakistan would be vastly unstable... the region is just damn scary)
Israel: Advanced conventional military, thanks in no small part to US assistance. 

Now what about Iran?  Alright, Iran is arming its conventional military.  But here's the problem: Its enemy is the US.

Unless you can argue that Iran can safely say it can beat the US in a head-to-head conventional war, the risk is extremely high that Iran would use nuclear weapons as its primary weapon of defense.

C: PALs!

Yes, every nuclear nation wants PALs!  What's a PAL?  It's a failsafe security system that prevents unauthorized detonation of the device.

Now, these things are a PAIN IN THE ASS to make.  As a result, it takes a while for new nuclear nations to get their missiles PALed up.  But right now, most nuclear nations (there's some skepticism about India and Pakistan, which is another reason the region makes me cringe) have these placed on their weapons.

What does that mean?  Without a PAL, it becomes extremely easy to have an accidental launch.  Something like a simple technical malfunction could send a ballistic missile smashing into the city of another nuclear nation, causing a nuclear war over a simple technical error.  Oops!

> Einstein wrote:

> Ok sorry bout that, I had some vacation time visiting family... my lil brother my mom adopted is nearly 8 years old, and was the first time I had met him...

Congrats!

> Now for my arguments on this to continue.

Iran has a deep deep history, and as we know the history of nations has a large impact upon how their society acts in modern days, especially in sheltered societies.

Iran has a multitude of histories, but one of the deepest is the merchant history of their past. Persia used to be one of the most affluent of trading nations in the history of the world.

Then Islam came, and there were changes.

Of course I mentioned that Terrorism essentially started here, as well as another important factor.

The first usage of drugs to effect deliberate changes in the persons brains. In this case it was to make them more dangerous to others, to give them hallucinogenic visions, and to make them last longer under 'damages' to their body.

Iran still has those who use drugs to effect others in manners they want. In this case it is heroin to reduce stability of other nations. While Islam is counter to this, Islam cannot alone squelch this history.

Um... just making sure... how does this relate to my argument?  Does the distribution of drugs OUTSIDE Iran somehow stop people INSIDE Iran from rising up against the government?

> Islam cannot also significantly effect their mercantile society either.

What Islam can, and does, effect is the older generation, those old revolutionaries.

These people built a structure which leaves them in power regardless of what happens with society.

This structure has a lot of different levels that can give and take on a political level.

The intent of this structure is to give the appearance of letting change happen, when in effect little change will happen. The oppositions focus their energies on these positions they can go for, using a great deal of energy doing so, and then think they can truly effect change, and they can do some change, but in truth they are still fairly rigidly held.

The truth is that power is imbued in exactly 1 person to a level even the common man will not think of trying to challenge unless the orders are 'extreme'. Then there is a further group that acts in the interests of the old guard, these imams making up the council have the power to shape the nation to meet the powers that be's intentions.

Therefore though I know the President of Iran has some power, he is shaped and pushed, he is a figurehead for most intents and purposes, though one who gets celebrity status, immunity to a lot of things, and a lot of luxuries. Therefore the current President will push what he is told to push, or he will be told a set of objectives, and he will work to those.

Okay, first of all, let's go back in history a little bit.  I'm not going to bring everyone back a thousand years.  I'm only bringing you back to two periods in time: The US-assisted coup in Iran and the 1979 coup in Iran.

This empirically denies your argument.  These revolutions don't preserve the power in the hands of one person.  They tear said power away from that person, and give it to a different person with different ideals.  These two examples prove that, despite a thousand years of historical social engineering, the Iranian people are still willing to rise up and take down a leader.

We both agreed that hyperinflation would probably result from the economic crisis.  Therefore, under my story, a revolution would result.  The revolution, in addition to being empirically shown to be possible within the history of Iran, can actually be a solution to the cycle of totalitarianism.

> Iran has this history and they feel they are the 'center of the world'. This is steeped in religion, history, and they also feel they can push for a new leader, one who will place them back on the stage as the most important of nations. One who can conquer all, who can do all that they see needing as being done.

You need to separate the Iranian government from the various generations of Iranians.  This may easily be true of the middle-aged Iranians who were part of the 79 revolution.  But what about the 20 year old Iranians of today who don't know the ideological glory of Iran and are only aware of the economic oppression?  The revolution created a sort of "generation gap" between those who view the world as you described it, and the moderates who just want to get an education, get a good job, and be financially successful.

> I feel that the financial crunch will force Iran to stop with some of the more expensive self defense systems, such as that coastal range artillery which has a severely fast firing rate, the submarine program they have, and some of the direct cash to terrorist payments that they have done. In exchange they will run down some of their explosive, rocket, and missile inventories as aid to these terrorists, increasing the carnage, and reducing the empire building.

1: This is a shift from advocacy from earlier.  Unless you are saying that Iran will also print money, you are dodging your advocacy in order to shift out of arguments, which would both justify me doing the same and it makes debating you useless.
2: Iran's got a hell of a financial mess.  Unless you're saying military spending is... um... HALF their budget, it's just not enough.  Something else has to be done in addition, which causes the revolution to occur anyway.
3: Good shit!  Frankly, I'm more worried about those high-tech weaponry than simple missiles and shit.  Here's why:
A little missile barrage can take down a building.  Those coastal artillery systems and submarines could take down our ships.  Any reduction in their hardcore homeland defenses only makes the threat of an attack easier, which makes negotiation that much more powerful.  "Fine, Iran can launch a bunch of missiles into Israel.  But Iran will be blasted into the stone age."

> The best example I can give about their nuclear program is to call it the "I win the game" to them. Their force fed propaganda says they have no program, and the common Iranian does not know to think better, or may not even know that a program exists at all. However the hardliners in power know, but these very same hardliners feel this is the game ender, the one that saves them from the slow breakdown of their own society as well as one which renders the old west as their slaves. They have Allah, we have nothing, they will feel they can push and we will fall to our knees and the fulfillment of prophecy will then happen and the newest Caliph will walk out of the clouds to give Iran supremacy.

1: The citizens know about the peaceful nuclear program.  Ahmadinejad has blatantly made it clear to his people that he was defending Iran's "right" to have a nuclear program.  Remember those giant protests in support of their nuclear program a couple years ago (Yes, probably set up)?  They definitely know.  There may be rumors of weapons programs, but I won't speculate.  However, they are definitely aware that, as a result of this nuclear program, the international community is pushing sanctions on Iran.  Spark for the revolution, and it denies your argument.
2: I'm conceding your argument about hyperinflation.  That means it's a race for Iran to build its nuclear program while the people starve and die.  The economic collapse created to fuel the nuclear program only further sparks the revolution, because it shows Ahmadinejad's words on the economic crisis as utterly hollow, and it shows a giant disconnect between him and the potential revolutionary Iranian.  In addition, as I said above, the economic collapse slows down the ability to produce the nuclear weapons, giving more time for the revolution to occur.

It definitely isn't an excuse in the US, unless you're forcibly intoxicated. 

I know you-

Ah, hell, it's getting too old.