There is much discussion in Western political discourse of the “threat” of Iran, spoken of as though it is a self-evident truth, an assumption that underlies the entire spectrum of debate. To question such an obvious truism is something that disciplined intellectuals understand is not proper of them to do. Most likely the thought doesn’t even cross their minds, thanks to dignified university education and the values instilled from it; there are some things not suitable for a respectable intellectual to discuss, after all. Former US Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters went so far as to say that “Iran is building a new Persian Empire.”

Furthermore, in order to slow down Iran’s progress towards a bomb, Netanyahu has threatened to launch an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Threats which are credible, according to officials from the Obama administration. Obama, over the years, has used such threats by telling other world leaders that toughening sanctions on Iran is the only way to forestall an Israeli attack. Obama himself has argued that a nuclear Iran poses a “profound” national security threat to the US.

Given this ubiquitous rhetoric, there is an obvious question that arises, one which is seldom asked: what exactly is this “threat” that a nuclear Iran poses? What exactly is such a grave and existential threat that Western leaders would risk escalation and military confrontation by threatening the Iranian republic with an attack? Fortunately, we have an authoritative answer to this.