There are two different assumptions here. Two 'models', if you prefer.
One: Realpolitik. We're assuming that states (or governments) are essentially rational. Regardless of religion or ideology, they are basically motivated by the same concerns - security, power, holding on to their autonomy...and so on. This assumes that culture and ideology doesn't matter - governments are all basically the same, and make decisions based on pure power considerations.
Two: Alternatively, here we assume that governments can be irrational (at least from the perspective of realpolitik). That is, decisions are made based on culture, ideology, or religion...or even just the whims of a single absolute dictator.
Which is correct? Both can be. To use classic World War II analogies, Hitler was an example of the second case. He seemed okay at first - before the war, he was considered someone the Allies "could do business with". Of course, now we know he was a crackpot, and steered his nation accordingly. Then there's Stalin. Bad as Hitler - or worse. But he worked with the Allies, and after WWII...the Soviet Union was mostly a realist government during the Cold War. They didn't want all-out nuclear war either. So, first case - the Soviets were rational.
I don't know enough about Iran to really tell, but...an Egyptian guy I know insists they're totally controlled by Islamic extremists. Fine. That seems to be the assumption held by the US. But, of course, there's compelling arguments against that. And what is the US. itself? Sure, the US claims it's a rational, reasonable entity, but many other nations - certainly the Muslim ones - don't view it as such. To them, the US is either a Godless or Christian state (opinions vary) out to crush Islam. Or at the very least, out to gain power and security at the expense of Islamic states. So...what's the truth? Hell, I dunno.
It's really not clear. Even when it comes to North Korea. From the US point of view, Kim and his government are a bunch of dangerous nutters - God knows who they're gonna point a missile at. But oddly enough, the South Koreans (and Japanese, and Chinese) seem far less alarmed about the situation than the US. Sure, they're worried, but not nearly as much. They don't seem to really think the North Koreans will use their nukes (and even if they nuke anyone, it'd be the US and not anyone in Asia).
Also consider...the South Koreans are basic believers in reunification. The two Koreas will come together, it's only a matter of time. Is that an unrealistic hope? Not really - look at East and West Germany. Thus, for many in the South...North Korea isn't really the enemy, more like a crazy relative. Crazy. But still a relative. Some folks in the South don't see it as a North Korean nuclear bomb, but a Korean bomb. So their perspective is rather different.
Interestingly, the situations with Iran and North Korea are pretty direct clashes between them and America. The surrounding countries which would presumably be under a more immediate threat from a nuclear neighbour...countries near Iran and North Korea, in the Middle East and Asia...aren't really being very vocal about this.
Wonder why? (No, that's not sarcasm. Seriously, I really do wonder why)
-- Acyl
One: Realpolitik. We're assuming that states (or governments) are essentially rational. Regardless of religion or ideology, they are basically motivated by the same concerns - security, power, holding on to their autonomy...and so on. This assumes that culture and ideology doesn't matter - governments are all basically the same, and make decisions based on pure power considerations.
Two: Alternatively, here we assume that governments can be irrational (at least from the perspective of realpolitik). That is, decisions are made based on culture, ideology, or religion...or even just the whims of a single absolute dictator.
Which is correct? Both can be. To use classic World War II analogies, Hitler was an example of the second case. He seemed okay at first - before the war, he was considered someone the Allies "could do business with". Of course, now we know he was a crackpot, and steered his nation accordingly. Then there's Stalin. Bad as Hitler - or worse. But he worked with the Allies, and after WWII...the Soviet Union was mostly a realist government during the Cold War. They didn't want all-out nuclear war either. So, first case - the Soviets were rational.
I don't know enough about Iran to really tell, but...an Egyptian guy I know insists they're totally controlled by Islamic extremists. Fine. That seems to be the assumption held by the US. But, of course, there's compelling arguments against that. And what is the US. itself? Sure, the US claims it's a rational, reasonable entity, but many other nations - certainly the Muslim ones - don't view it as such. To them, the US is either a Godless or Christian state (opinions vary) out to crush Islam. Or at the very least, out to gain power and security at the expense of Islamic states. So...what's the truth? Hell, I dunno.
It's really not clear. Even when it comes to North Korea. From the US point of view, Kim and his government are a bunch of dangerous nutters - God knows who they're gonna point a missile at. But oddly enough, the South Koreans (and Japanese, and Chinese) seem far less alarmed about the situation than the US. Sure, they're worried, but not nearly as much. They don't seem to really think the North Koreans will use their nukes (and even if they nuke anyone, it'd be the US and not anyone in Asia).
Also consider...the South Koreans are basic believers in reunification. The two Koreas will come together, it's only a matter of time. Is that an unrealistic hope? Not really - look at East and West Germany. Thus, for many in the South...North Korea isn't really the enemy, more like a crazy relative. Crazy. But still a relative. Some folks in the South don't see it as a North Korean nuclear bomb, but a Korean bomb. So their perspective is rather different.
Interestingly, the situations with Iran and North Korea are pretty direct clashes between them and America. The surrounding countries which would presumably be under a more immediate threat from a nuclear neighbour...countries near Iran and North Korea, in the Middle East and Asia...aren't really being very vocal about this.
Wonder why? (No, that's not sarcasm. Seriously, I really do wonder why)
-- Acyl