Could Middle East peace process speed-up after Iran gets nuclear weapons?

When US Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul suggested that Iran should be allowed to have a nuclear bomb during one of his campaign speeches, his fellow Republicans went crazy,

Paul said it is natural for Iran to want a bomb as it is surrounded by countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel which all have one and with China, the United States and Russia all involved in the region. He said the U.S. should not get involved in the country’s internal affairs.

He reminded his audience that during the Cold War  the US still spoke to the Soviet Union, and the US should also dialogue with the mullahs. “Our present posture  is likely to lead to a war,” said Paul. "Iran can’t reach America, they don’t even have an air force. Iran also can’t even make enough gasoline for itself.”

Ron Paul probably has a point. Let us also remember in this context that it is Israel which is the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons — indeed, many of them.

"Iran has a long and esteemed culture. It has also suffered from the invasive maneuvers of the West. At the end of the 19th century, it was the British; by the next century, the Americans. Do we not to have to remember the CIA overthrow of a legitimately elected government of the nationalist Mohammed Mossadegh? What if such intrusion had taken place in our country? We would have been furious and unforgiving. Why expect better from Iran?"

Nevertheless,  once Iran has nuclear weapons wouldn't it also create a Status Quo between Israel and Iran in the Middle East, just like it did between India and Pakistan, or Russia and the US ?

Maybe the bottom-line of all this is that once opponents have the means to annihilate each other with weapons of mass destruction, they would certainly rather be inclined to talk and make compromises with each other instead of destroying  each other?

EU-Digest
.