Both Russia and the United States are nuclear equipped states that have avoided direct military engagement with each-other, thus mitigating the possibility of a nuclear exchange between the two great powers. Nuclear nations (as you know) tend to not get into conflagrations with one another for obvious reasons, MAD and all that jazz...
Russian use of conventional Ballistic Missiles such as the Iskander (conventionally armed) would be limited against non-nuclear armed nations making the implementation of such weapons viable in a tactical use case, the same way Iran wants to use their arsenal of ballistic missiles. In the argument I made for Iran I was specifically talking about Israel and how Iran's conventional arsenal would become useless because any coordinated large-scale missile attack by Iran will be (most probably) met with a nuclear counter-attack due to Iran's newly acquired nuclear weapons status. The policy of MAD applies from that point moving forward, there's little arguing against this as Israel already views Iran's conventional missile arsenal as an existential threat of sorts, so Iran putting into service nuclear weaponry will only solidify Israeli's immediate use of nuclear weapons against Iran proper as a first option when an exchange of fire happens. We've already had rather concerning rhetoric come from Netanyahu's moth himself insinuating the use of nuclear weapons in any future conflict, granted that is up for interpretation though lol.
There's a good reason why Iran has opted to go with a massive conventionally armed Ballistic Missile fleet instead of a nuclear tipped one and that's so that they can actively use BMs (whatever shape or form they come in) in a tactical manner as to not push their aggressor (Israel) to use nuclear weapons in return. The real crux of this issue lies not within the weapons themselves but escalatory options both sides choose to use when responding.
Simply put, The Israelis aren't going to risk not responding to a potential nuclear attack, by launching just a conventional attack of their own.
Thats some real mental acrobatics right there. Lots to mental acrobatics to justify why nukes are bad for Iran.
Iran should not get nukes because it will render their conventional missile force useless. lol this is great!!!
Medieval knights should not have guns because they will make their massive arsenal of swords useless. Brilliant. truly brilliant.
America should never have developed the het fighter as it made their huge arsenal of propeller planes useless. Bravo!
Iran houd not get nukes as its massive missile arsenal will be obsolete. yay!
A CIA operative reading this has just chocked on his doughnut from laughter. They will blame you for his death. Please.
If Iran gets nukes they won't have to launch any ballistic missies. If they do, the regional nuke powers will have the option to immediately nuke Iran and kill 50 million people. And 20 minutes after that watch their whole nation of 7 million wiped out in a nuclear holocaust. OR wait to see what sort of. missile it is and act rationally.
You think this is realistic scenario?
Imagine reading a history book in 100 years, and it reads, "there was once a country called Israel, so paranoid that once the Iranians launched a missile/s, they responded with a massive nuclear first strike, leading to a brief exchange of nuclear weapons and eliminating most of the population of both countries. now the exclusion zone of Israel is a memorial to the 7 million victims, and the exclusion zone of Iran is a 50 million person graveyard and national park."
please. Countries don't end their existence on some military commander taking a bad guess.