Elite "news magazine" claims Russia doesn't want a nuclear Iran??

I've written about the "profoundly unserious people" in the chattering classes--the so-called "elites" who run the so-called "mainstream media" and rotate in and out of government.  And here's an example:

There's apparently a dead-tree "news" magazine called "Time" which seems to be read by the elites.  A writer there named Michael Crowley recently noted that the Russia's deputy foreign minister threatened to cause trouble in the Iran nuclear talks if the U.S. continued sending strong notes about Russia's annexation of Crimea.

Crowley then asks, “Could the crisis in Crimea spoil Barack Obama’s nuclear diplomacy with Iran?”  But of course he then goes on to show why this is absolutely un-possible.  After all, Time doesn't print news critical of the emperor's policies.  Cuz if they did they might risk losing their A-list part invitations.

Crowley uses his brilliant intellect to deduce that the Russians wouldn’t dare test Obama on the Iranian talks, for two reasons:

The good news for Obama is that Russia probably won’t derail an Iran deal. A nuclear Iran isn’t in Russia’s interest. Neither is a potential U.S. military action to prevent it if diplomacy fails.

Reason one is that a nuclear Iran would be bad for Russia as well as America. … Reason two is that the failure of diplomacy with Iran would likely lead to the thing Putin hates most: American-led military action.

Wow.  And to think this guy actually gets *paid* for "reasoning" like this.

First, if I were Putin I'd be perfectly happy for Iran to develop nuclear weapons, since there are only two places Iran would use 'em--and neither would be on Russian territory.  Why?  Because Iran's leaders--whether religious nuts or hard-headed realists--know, beyond any doubt, that if they hit Russia with a nuke they'd all be killed--probably by multiple thermonuclear detonations on Iranian cities and mullah hidey-holes.

The mullahs know this--again, beyond any doubt--because they know Putin is a profoundly serious man--one who understands that when it hits the fan, force--and the willingness to use it--matter.

Second:  Russia has a strong interest in getting the U.S. to continue the charade of endless talks and "great diplomatic deals" between the U.S. and Iran because when the Iranians--just days after the "great breakthrough" that ended sanctions--openly broadcast that they made no concessions at all and will continue to develop nuclear weapons, it demonstrates to everyone who's paying attention that Iran has conned the U.S.  This helps Russia because it shows that U.S. leaders are both naive and weak.  This helps draw more nations into abandoning alliances with the U.S. (or simply leaving them in place but with no intent to honor them).  Eventually such nations are more likely to gravitate toward the Russians.

Third:  Crowley's assertion that "the failure of diplomacy with Iran would likely lead to the thing Putin hates most: American-led military action" is utter nonsense.  It's self-delusion, whistling in the dark.  Putin has no reason whatsoever to be concerned that Obama might order military action, because Obama is desperate to retain his dwindling support from his base--Leftists and "low-information voters."  Has Crowley forgotten that Obama was actually awarded the Nobel Peace Prize after a whopping three weeks in office?  Do you think he wants to take flak for being the Peace Prize winner who started a war?  Not on your life.

One can't read the stuff people like Crowley--indeed, everyone who works at Time and the NYT and WaPo--write without coming to one of two conclusions:  Either they are all profoundly unserious--children playing at being adults--or else they know exactly what they're doing:  committing the U.S. to a policy of not intervening as the world slides toward Soviet and Chinese domination.

Neither conclusion is pleasant.