Actually, no, not tongue-in-cheek at all. I would say the same thing, re: Ted Bundy. Or re: Hitler being a powerful orator.

http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Personal/Americas-Future-Bill-Gates-Thomas-Friedman

Jump to min 9:45 in the video if you want to get to the meat.

My point in our podcast is that a 3rd party candidate IS viable, BUT only if he’s super famous/rich, like Gates/Bloomberg/Zuck. If so, he could beat the Dems and Republicans. Perot got mighty close!

2) The NPT’s idea is that the 5 weapons states (let’s leave non-members Israel, India and Pakistan off the list for the moment) agree to gradually disarm and the rest of the world agrees not to proliferate. Four of the 5 original states (China is the exception) have reduced their stockpiles. Four of the five (Russia is the exception) have excellent command and control. None of the five have used their weapons in the decades they’ve had them since the original atomic bombing in 1945. However, further proliferation to unstable small-to-midsize states and the further proliferation risks that entails is highly irresponsible.

(Sidenote: You raise one legitimate point about Iran’s existential security threats. That’s one reason I’ve always argued that the Bush Administration’s doctrine of regime change would yield nuclear proliferation. It’s no coincidence that as soon as Iraq began to go south, North Korea and Iran ramped up their programs as fast as they lickety-split could. Iran, I would argue, is the most irresponsible country now that the Bush Administration no longer has a country to run.)

3. I understand Iran’s interests, but if they’re going to fuck things up at home and abroad, at least it should be to the regime’s benefit, right? But the regime is far more unstable than it was in 2003, when it had suspended enrichment and was negotiating with the Europeans. No one is benefiting from their stances on nukes and Israel at the moment except a few hardliners in the government, and even their situation is more tenuous by all this geopolitical uncertainty. It’s a dangerous and irresponsible game they’re playing, even if they have their reasons.

It’s not like Iran ‘asked’ for sanctions. Those are being imposed on them. As stated above, Iran is a country that has faced a reliable threat from the U.S. for the last few decades. While I’m not thrilled about their pursuit of nuclear technology, I can hardly blame them and I don’t think there’s much evidence to suggest their people oppose the procurement of nuclear technology (which can be used for both power and weaponry).

Additionally, the Iranians face several nuclear neighbors and are surrounded on all sides by United States military bases. Attempting to fortify one’s country in the face of existential threats is hardly irresponsible…just ask Israel (as that has been their justification for a whole host of ‘exceptional’ behavior)

2) This is hyperbole.

Plenty of things are more dangerous than violating a non-proliferation treaty. Like having nukes in the first place, just to name one.
Netanyahu said that Iran was the most irresponsible power in the world, not the region. Two different arguments entirely. This is ‘moving the goalpost’.
A failed state in Pakistan would be much more ruinous to the Middle East. By that metric, is having a policy of ‘nuclear opacity’ (as Israel does) a stabilizing force?

3) You’ve essentially conceded that they’re not acting irresponsible in their goals, they *are* being/acting/moving in accordance to self-preservationist (not self-destructive) tendencies…it just that you think their tactics are poor. Even if this is ‘irresponsible’ the idea that this is the MOST irresponsible one could be is laughable. If you’re Iran, what would be much more irresponsible would be dismantling the military.

Pretend you’re Iran. What would you do? All of this seems pretty logical when you take the facts, in totality. You’ve been either the puppet of or enemy of the U.S. since 1950. You’ve watched your antagonistic neighbor acquire nuclear weapons (with the help of the U.S.) The U.S. has built bases around you, used international pressure to place sanctions on you to coerce you to do what you want.

1. Its people. Iran’s behavior vis-a-vis its own citizens is irresponsible insomuch as it has mismanaged the economy, trampled women’s rights and brought economically ruinous sanctions from the UN Security Council upon itself.

2. The international community. Iran’s behavior vis-a-vis the international community is destabilizing as well: nothing is more dangerous than violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and nothing is more likely to destabilize the Middle East than using proxies to provoke Israel.

3. Its own ruling government’s political interests. Iran’s behavior suggests a regime that cares only about staying in power and strengthening its international hand. Fine, but the tactics it has chosen have been, well, irresponsible.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/people-against-dogs-against-romney/2012/02/13/gIQAX8XPDR_blog.html