Michael Cohen worries about the consequences of Romney's apocalyptic rhetoric on Iran:
Some might just dismiss this over the top language as the usual sort of alarmist fare of the campaign trail. But, these words have an effect – they convince Americans that the world is a far more dangerous place then it really is. Case in point: this new fascinating survey from Dartmouth University on the foreign policy attitudes of Americans. When asked if they agree of disagree with the notion that the United States faces greater threats now than it did during the Cold War . . . 63% either strongly or somewhat agree. SIXTY-THREE PERCENT! … More Americans die every year from lightning, drowning in bathtubs and furniture falling on top of them than terrorism and yet a strong majority of Americans think we are in greater danger now then when thousands of nuclear weapons were pointed directly at the United States.
Meanwhile, Paul Pillar assesses an argument by Ken Waltz (gated) that an Iranian bomb would actually be a good thing for Middle East stability:
The issue at hand is not whether an Iranian nuclear weapon would be on balance good or bad, any more than the issue is whether Iranian leaders are nasty or nice. The important policy issues instead involve the relative costs, risks and efficacy of different possible postures and actions toward Iran. In this respect Waltz's insightful comments about the costs and risks—or lack of them—from Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon are important to heed even if one does not go as far as Waltz (and like most of the mainstream, I do not go that far) in arguing that an Iranian nuke would be a net positive. Paying attention to Waltz's analysis is all the more important because the topic of what effect an Iranian nuke would have on Iranian behavior and on security and stability in the Middle East is the aspect of this issue that is most often subjected to unquestioned conventional wisdom rather than any analysis at all (a gap I have endeavored to fill).
The Dish 