Without any possibility of outside intervention, the theocratic dictatorship would be free to treat its populace in any manner whatsoever. It could lock things down, no info out and no info in. It could starve minority and disliked populations. It could ignore any semblance of labor, civil or environmental rights. It could pour its money into proxy wars to the detriment of the population at a scale unseen in modern history.
I'm not saying Iran isn't capable of doing these things, but I have to question: why?
Yes Iran has ethnic tensions, but none of them have thus far demonstrated the level of intensity to warrant the kind of existential crisis that would seriously undermine the Iranian state. The Azerbaijanis, the largest minority group, are largely Shia Muslim and contribute regularly to the IRRGC and the Iranian military. They are not entirely happy but against a foreign aggressor it's hard to see them really splitting with the rest of Iran.
And while I do a view Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon as a very bad thing for the region and a threshold for potential action against Iran, I don't think it's relatively speaking the definitive point of no return. Iran is already a nightmare to invade; it's a large, mountainous country with a sizeable population, and as already mentioned it has no where near the level of ethnic instability that Iraq possessed, which was only held in through Saddam's iron grip and military dictatorship.
The Iranian Government it relatively popular, and it's population has demonstrated thus far a general commitment to it. Iranian people are not horribly oppressed; they can partake in democratic elections, have access to Western television, and can organize protests on Twitter. While not wholly popular I think it's a stretch to assume that it would crumble under a foreign invasion.
Iran is also a state that has since inception, been preparing itself for just such an invasion, by preparing in depth defenses beyond just conventional capabilities. It's the exact kind of irregular, asymmetrical situation that is the nightmare that makes Afghanistan or Iraq look like a cakewalk. It's more akin to Vietnam than anything. The US and it's allies are surely aware of this.
Currently, the only thing preventing the theocracy from going whole-hog is the threat of invasion and regime change.
I oppose Iran getting nukes not because nukes might be used on someone. I oppose Iran getting nukes because of what that will do to the population. Iranians deserve a better government, not generations of darkness.
I do not want Iran to get a nuke nor do I approve of the Iranian government, however I think we must also accept the reality that the strategic situation has changed. Iran is not the isolated, hated-by-everyone theocracy of the Cold War. Iran has demonstrated itself to be a fairly rational actor relative to it's neighbors, certainly more so than Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. It's increasing ties to Russia and China have shown that Iran is growing more and more influential and less isolated, even more so following Russia's reintroduction to the Middle East.
I do not believe, given Iran's increasing international ties, that it can be assured that sanctions alone will stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. And given that the only way to stop such a thing otherwise would be an extremely costly invasion, I cannot help but endorse this deal. I do not like Iran nor do I like it's government. But I do not believe our commitment to Iranian isolation and subversion will yield good results. Therefore I think taking steps towards normalization of relations is the best bet for securing a peaceful future.
