Israel - Iran and regional players | Please post respectfully

AfonsoAlves

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2023
Messages
220
They have existed for a *long* time. Much of the initial period of time, as far as I'm aware, they were a purely religious group, as opposed to political or military.

This changed as time went on, in response to both local and regional events.

Which think tank exactly are you basing this on? Particularly as American defence politicians have stated that Iranian influence over the Houthis is greatly exaggerated?

The houthis were fighting the government as early as the early 2000s and were winning some victories and controlling some land from even back then, despite the involvement of the Saudis, who of course perceive any contrarian Shia activity near them as impossible to tolerate. This increased in the chaos following the Arab Spring revolutions.

Nobody has denied that the houthis receive some support and weapons from Iran.

As to your other point, yes I (and I imagine most reasonable people) would condemn a similar attack on a CIA operative in Tobruk? Surprised you think most people would just consider it part of the game, especially if the country undertaking the strike is another sovereign country.
The reality is hundreds of western spies in geopolitical rivals countries have been caught and summarily executed in the 21st century without a single peep or protest from the respective Western governments.

Everyone at the state level accepts this is how the 'game' works. In the West, captured spies are usually jailed for life but the really egregious ones doing some really unsavory stuff just get disappeared.

I understand that what Israel did was highly unorthodox and they're playing stupid games, but imo the standards are difficult to apply for IRGC because they're an official declared Terror Organization in the view of the West + Israel.

I think the best way for me to sum it up was when I was stationed at Lask they flew a guy over from DSTO to do SERE training which, for our specific roles, basically amounted to, "If you ever find yourself in a position where you are captured, this training will help you survive for as long as possible because we will not help you."
We were a bunch of mid-level paper pushers :lol:
 

africanspur

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
9,154
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
The reality is hundreds of western spies in geopolitical rivals countries have been caught and summarily executed in the 21st century without a single peep or protest from the respective Western governments.

Everyone at the state level accepts this is how the 'game' works. In the West, captured spies are usually jailed for life but the really egregious ones doing some really unsavory stuff just get disappeared.

I understand that what Israel did was highly unorthodox and they're playing stupid games, but imo the standards are difficult to apply for IRGC because they're an official declared Terror Organization in the view of the West + Israel.
Can you list some western spies who were bombed in their country's consulate, by another country?

I'm not sure that you're getting the fact I'm focusing on the what and where of what happened, as opposed to the who?
 

AfonsoAlves

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2023
Messages
220
Can you list some western spies who were bombed in their country's consulate, by another country?

I'm not sure that you're getting the fact I'm focusing on the what and where of what happened, as opposed to the who?
But it wasn't the consulate itself? It was the building a few blocks opposite hired explicitly by an IRGC shell company?
 

africanspur

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
9,154
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
But it wasn't the consulate itself? It was the building a few blocks opposite hired explicitly by an IRGC shell company?
I think you need to go back and reread the news reports.

Unless I'm going insane, it isn't even ambiguous. The word consulate is literally in the headline of basically every single major news outlet in the world.
 

AfonsoAlves

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2023
Messages
220
I think you need to go back and reread the news reports.

Unless I'm going insane, it isn't even ambiguous. The word consulate is literally in the headline of basically every single major news outlet in the world.
"The attack was not carried out on the building of the Iranian embassy, but in a building adjacent to the embassy that served as the military headquarters of the Revolutionary Guards.

All those killed in the attack are Iranian military personnel, who carried out military activity there for a long period of time. No Iranian diplomats were injured in the attack."


I don't fully know the technical definition of a consulate though, if it includes just the embassy or all buildings wholly or partly owned by a diplomatic mission.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
33,006
Writer for the intercept

Is Iran actually doing a military buildup along Israel's borders? First time I heard about it.

As for going nuclear, I think that may very well be the next step.
 

2cents

Historiographer, and obtainer of rare antiquities
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
16,294
Is Iran actually doing a military buildup along Israel's borders? First time I heard about it.
I’m sure you’re aware Israel has been bombing Iranian assets in Syria and Lebanon for years now? Including right up on the Golan frontier?
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
33,006
I’m sure you’re aware Israel has been bombing Iranian assets in Syria and Lebanon for years now? Including right up on the Golan frontier?
Sure but is the context here that Iran wants to increase its regional influence or is Iran's intent to initiate a war with Israel at a time of its own choosing?
 

africanspur

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
9,154
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
"The attack was not carried out on the building of the Iranian embassy, but in a building adjacent to the embassy that served as the military headquarters of the Revolutionary Guards.

All those killed in the attack are Iranian military personnel, who carried out military activity there for a long period of time. No Iranian diplomats were injured in the attack."


I don't fully know the technical definition of a consulate though, if it includes just the embassy or all buildings wholly or partly owned by a diplomatic mission.
Can you provide the source for that quote? As I've put it in google word for word and can't find it.

Meanwhile some sources from across the political spectrum, all mentioning the consulate/ ambassador's residence being bombed:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/senio...ry-guard-corps-reportedly-killed-syria-strike

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ith-strike-on-consulate-in-damascus-2wwgvg8mp

https://www.lemonde.fr/internationa...s-gardiens-de-la-revolution_6225456_3211.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-68709133

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hjd3sudyr#autoplay

https://english.elpais.com/internat...at-the-ambassadors-residence-in-damascus.html
 

2cents

Historiographer, and obtainer of rare antiquities
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
16,294
Sure but is the context here that Iran wants to increase its regional influence or is Iran's intent to initiate a war with Israel at a time of its own choosing?
The Israel-Iran conflict has been brewing for 45 years in the context of the aftermath of revolution, if Iran is directing forces to the Golan and elsewhere then it’s surely an aspect of the latter which is an element of the latter.

(edit): what I mean is you can’t really separate Iran’s bid for regional hegemony from its confrontation with Israel.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
33,006
The Israel-Iran conflict has been brewing for 45 years in the context of the aftermath of revolution, if Iran is directing forces to the Golan and elsewhere then it’s surely an aspect of the latter which is an element of the latter.

(edit): what I mean is you can’t really separate Iran’s bid for regional hegemony from its confrontation with Israel.
Most publications say that Iran doesn't want outright war though, as Murtaza Hussein seems to suggest.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
33,006
Her argument is that Israel is seeking to draw the US into war directly. Though I guess her assumption is that Israel did it without US agreement.

 

2cents

Historiographer, and obtainer of rare antiquities
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
16,294
This is not the first Israeli operation targeting Iranian diplomats in Damascus. In 1984, at the same time that Jerusalem was offering various forms of military aid to Tehran in the context of the Iran-Iraq war, the Mossad sent a book on the Shi’i shrine cities of Iraq and Iran that was rigged with explosives to the Iranian ambassador to Syria, Ayatollah Mohtashamipur, regarded as one of the driving forces behind the founding of Hezbollah. The subsequent explosion maimed but did not kill him; Covid-19 got him in 2021.
 

AfonsoAlves

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2023
Messages
220
Maybe disregard what I said, the source is Doran Kadosh....not the most reputable or erm non-biased actors in the geopolitical reporting realm.
 

the_cliff

Full Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
5,627
Not seen it mentioned here but tonight is the 9th night of riots, demonstrations and unrest in Jordan over what's happening in Gaza. The people are demanding the severing of relations with Israel and to remove all US air bases and personnel from the country.

Probably the reason why there's been no press on it in the UK and the US. They're usually the first to report on unrest in the Arab world.
 

Hanks

Full Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
484
Location
Poland
Some in Regime media and supporters are in meltdown as Israel once again shows what a so called paper-tiger the Islamic Republic regime in Iran is.

I can post clips but they are in Persian. but translation of a heated debate.

"They killed Suleimani, we didn't do anything. They killed Razi Mousavi, we didn't do anything. Now they've killed Zahedi by bombing our consulate with our "holy" flag on it, basically our soil....and here we are talking about how MARTYRDOM was their dream and Martyr Zahedi had always dreamt of being martyred on the anniversary of Ali (Shi'a imam) death. People aren't stupid, strategic patience until when? What is our actual red line?" :lol:......The regime knows they have maximum 10% support within the country and in case of a full-out war, there won't be any public support for it, so they just harp and bark and keep getting their asses handed to them by Israel. I was passively listening to an X space of regime fans and I really felt some of them have finally come to the same conclusion about the regime's impotence and paper-tigerish as well ... hopefully it'll mean they'll lose even some of the remaining 10% as a result.

That POS Zahedi was one of the very top guys of Tehran IRGC in 2017 and 2019, and one of the main butchers, when the Islamic regime cut down internet in Iran in November 2019 for one full week and murdered close to 2,000 people in a few days. Rest in hell !
 

That_Bloke

Full Member
Joined
May 28, 2019
Messages
2,879
Location
Cologne
Supports
Leicester City
I personally wish that Iran manages to acquire the nuclear bomb, by any means necessary. And if Saudi Arabia gets it too, all the better.

It's the only way for the region to get a semblance of stability.
 
Last edited:

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
33,006
I personally wish that Iran manages to acquire the nuclear bomb, by any means necessary. It's the only way for the region to get a semblance of stability.
If they do, then the Saudis will too.

Not saying that's good or bad, but it'll create a chain reaction.
 

That_Bloke

Full Member
Joined
May 28, 2019
Messages
2,879
Location
Cologne
Supports
Leicester City
If they do, then the Saudis will too.

Not saying that's good or bad, but it'll create a chain reaction.
I know. I edited my post while you replied.

I believe in MAD. Not that I'm a fan of and I'd rather see all nukes destroyed, but that's the only way humans with diverging interests found to avoid major conflicts. And to listen to each other.
 
Last edited:

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
31,831
Location
Ginseng Strip
I personally wish that Iran manages to acquire the nuclear bomb, by any means necessary. And if Saudi Arabia gets too, all the better.

It's the only way for the region to get a semblance of stability.
I mean my preference is the Israelis are held to account for countlessly violating the airspace and sovereignty of neighbouring countries and for the US to reign in it's interventionist fetish. But since that isn't going to happen maybe it will take a nuclear armed Iran for them to start behaving themselves. I hate the idea of it but I'm also sick of the US-Israeli axis constantly destabilising the region and perpetually causing immense suffering.

Yes the Iranian regime are heinous cnuts and yes I'd prefer they disappear into the ether for the benefit of the Iranian people and countries like Iraq where they hold a suffocating grip. But they're being emboldened by the US and it's proxies, and unfortunately serve as the only counterbalance to their toxic and destructive presence.
 

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
31,831
Location
Ginseng Strip
If they do, then the Saudis will too.

Not saying that's good or bad, but it'll create a chain reaction.
The Saudis are currently pushing for a uranium enrichment program for 'civilian purposes'. Read what you will into that but the cynic in me suspects they're angling towards nuclear armed capabilities irrespective of Iran's own nuclear ambitions or the success of that endeavour.
 

That_Bloke

Full Member
Joined
May 28, 2019
Messages
2,879
Location
Cologne
Supports
Leicester City
I mean my preference is the Israelis are held to account for countlessly violating the airspace and sovereignty of neighbouring countries and for the US to reign in it's interventionist fetish. But since that isn't going to happen maybe it will take a nuclear armed Iran for them to start behaving themselves. I hate the idea of it but I'm also sick of the US-Israeli axis constantly destabilising the region and perpetually causing immense suffering.

Yes the Iranian regime are heinous cnuts and yes I'd prefer they disappear into the ether for the benefit of the Iranian people and countries like Iraq where they hold a suffocating grip. But they're being emboldened by the US and it's proxies, and unfortunately serve as the only counterbalance to their toxic and destructive presence.
That's the gist of it. The one with the biggest stick will always take advantage of any given situation.

It's been like this since the apparition of humankind on this planet. The only way to keep people in check is to give them an equally big stick.

Iran knows very well that they're the next on the list and it's only a matter of time. They've kept quiet until know but when someone bombs your embassy (which is literally a part of your country on the soil of another one), it's a declaration of war and they will retaliate. They can't afford to not to. Which was the point of the Israeli strike in the first place.

Israel has one simple rule: "There's no rules". I'm kinda astonished to see the apathy towards or even the approval of what Israel did. People truly don't believe in any kind of international law anymore.
 
Last edited:

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
31,831
Location
Ginseng Strip
That's the gist of it. The one with the biggest stick will always take advantage of any given situation.

It's been like this since the apparition of humankind on this planet. The only way to keep people in check is to give them an equally big stick.

Iran knows very well that they're the next on the list and it's only a matter of time. They've kept quiet until know but when someone bombs your embassy (which is literally a part of your country on the soil of another one) it's a declaration of war and they will retaliate. They can't afford to not to. Which was the point of the Israeli strike in the first place.

Israel has one simple rule "There's no rules". I'm kinda astonished to see the apathy towards or even the approval of what Israel did. People truly don't believe in any kind of international law anymore.
I mean this has always been the case. The Gaza war and this act of terrorism on foreign soil has only just spelled it out more clearly. The Western world seems to forget the norms and standards they supposedly adhere to when it comes to the topic of Israel, and it appears the rules don't apply to them.

Iran gets a lot of (often hyperbolic) condemnation directed their way for their use of proxies (including the US' hilarious and hysterical categorisation of being the biggest sponsors of terrorism), but if they were constantly invading other country's airspaces, assassinating diplomats, genociding a native population, and enforcing a systemic occupation and apartheid in the name of some ethno-fascist doctrine, there will have been a global taskforce immediately mobilising to neuter them with extreme prejudice.

The contrast to Russia's aggression in Ukraine also casts a very damning light on it. Not just in terms of rolling out sanctions and offering military assistance to the opposition, but also in regards to 'cultural' sanctioning. Almost overnight the Russians were kicked out of UEFA competitions, barred from Eurovision etc, but to even suggest the same should be enforced on the Israelis is considered unspeakable, and often you're lured into this trap of being an advocate of anti-semitic sentiment.

Its utterly infuriating, and damning of the West, and completely chips away at their credibility for whatever virtue signalling standards they claim to set and enforce. Its essentially akin to the ultra rich's relationship with the law versus the average person.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
33,006
Millions lost internet service after three cables in the Red Sea were damaged. Houthi rebels deny targeting the cables, but their missile attack on a cargo ship, left adrift for months, is likely to blame.
 

Giggsyking

Full Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
8,541
I mean my preference is the Israelis are held to account for countlessly violating the airspace and sovereignty of neighbouring countries and for the US to reign in it's interventionist fetish. But since that isn't going to happen maybe it will take a nuclear armed Iran for them to start behaving themselves. I hate the idea of it but I'm also sick of the US-Israeli axis constantly destabilising the region and perpetually causing immense suffering.

Yes the Iranian regime are heinous cnuts and yes I'd prefer they disappear into the ether for the benefit of the Iranian people and countries like Iraq where they hold a suffocating grip. But they're being emboldened by the US and it's proxies, and unfortunately serve as the only counterbalance to their toxic and destructive presence.
The people of Iraq do not want neighboring Iran with nuclear weapons on top of their intervention in the countries politics. But they also do not want nuclear Israel either, so what choices do they have? They are just tired of being in the middle of this fecking conflict.
 

Giggsyking

Full Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
8,541
Israel has one simple rule "There's no rules". I'm kinda astonished to see the apathy towards or even the approval of what Israel did. People truly don't believe in any kind of international law anymore.
They only believe in international law only when non western countries break it.
 

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
31,831
Location
Ginseng Strip
The people of Iraq do not want neighboring Iran with nuclear weapons on top of their intervention in the countries politics. But they also do not want nuclear Israel either, so what choices do they have? They are just tired of being in the middle of this fecking conflict.
My Iraqi relatives often joke that the best scenario would be for Israel and Iran to have at it and destroy one another, much to the benefit of everyone in the region.

Though the reality is countries like Iraq will inevitably get sucked into the mess, no thanks to influential religious leaders, their followers, various politicians and some paramilitary factions who are more loyal to Khameini than their own flag.
 

That_Bloke

Full Member
Joined
May 28, 2019
Messages
2,879
Location
Cologne
Supports
Leicester City
I mean this has always been the case. The Gaza war and this act of terrorism on foreign soil has only just spelled it out more clearly. The Western world seems to forget the norms and standards they supposedly adhere to when it comes to the topic of Israel, and it appears the rules don't apply to them.

Iran gets a lot of (often hyperbolic) condemnation directed their way for their use of proxies (including the US' hilarious and hysterical categorisation of being the biggest sponsors of terrorism), but if they were constantly invading other country's airspaces, assassinating diplomats, genociding a native population, and enforcing a systemic occupation and apartheid in the name of some ethno-fascist doctrine, there will have been a global taskforce immediately mobilising to neuter them with extreme prejudice.

The contrast to Russia's aggression in Ukraine also casts a very damning light on it. Not just in terms of rolling out sanctions and offering military assistance to the opposition, but also in regards to 'cultural' sanctioning. Almost overnight the Russians were kicked out of UEFA competitions, barred from Eurovision etc, but to even suggest the same should be enforced on the Israelis is considered unspeakable, and often you're lured into this trap of being an advocate of anti-semitic sentiment.

Its utterly infuriating, and damning of the West, and completely chips away at their credibility for whatever virtue signalling standards they claim to set and enforce. Its essentially akin to the ultra rich's relationship with the law versus the average person.
True.

Not only Israel, but anytime it is convenient for them. To be fair, Russia and China do exactly the same, albeit on a much smaller scale.

Iran uses proxies because they do not have any other means to defend themselves and their own interests in the region. They've been under economic and military embargo for and under attack from West and its proxies for 45 years. No real Army no real Navy and no Air Force to speak of thanks to the embargo. They cleverly invested in drones and lots of long-range missiles but the latter belong the last resort kind of weapons.

It's not only about Israel. There's a deep-rooted, institutional racism toward Arab and/or Muslim populations, massively exacerbated and encouraged after 9/11 with all major Western media fully complicit in it and a notable part of the Western populations being either indifferent or actively supporting it.

From the selective reporting which almost never fail to paint Arabs and Muslims as mustache twirling villains to anything related to putting whole Arab/Muslim countries under embargo with the catastrophic consequences it implies for their populations, starving them, bombing them, invading them, killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of them. Everything is is simply glossed over and only talked in matter of numbers, if ever talked about.

By reading some of the comments here, you can feel how this decades long hammering and biased reporting affects the mind of people who've been subjected to it. It's not to say that all Arabs or Muslims are saints, they by far aren't, but the level of dehumanization and the amount of bigotry and racist discourses allowed is absolutely mind-boggling. And it's only growing.

I've seen a brilliant documentary on YouTube from an independent French media which meticulously dissects how the French mainstream media covered the current Israel-Palestine massacre, as well as in the previous decades. It's bone chilling. I can provide the link for French speakers. It's sadly not translated nor has English subtitles.

It is but the West was always damned by the ones on the receiving end of its foreign policies. Things will only change when the Western populations do the same.
 
Last edited:

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,319
Location
Hollywood CA
The Iranian street doesn't believe proxies are as effective as a direct confrontation.

 

That_Bloke

Full Member
Joined
May 28, 2019
Messages
2,879
Location
Cologne
Supports
Leicester City
The Iranian street doesn't believe proxies are as effective as a direct confrontation.

That's a good thing, since proxies were never meant for a direct confrontation.
 

MadMike

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
11,619
Location
London
I believe in MAD. Not that I'm a fan of and I'd rather see all nukes destroyed, but that's the only way humans with diverging interests found to avoid major conflicts. And to listen to each other.
Nuclear weapons reduce the chance of conflicts but increase the chance of a catastrophic nuclear war. I don't really believe in MAD, or maybe I should say my belief in MAD is conditional and with some limitations. Mainly, MAD deterrence requires rational actors. But as we see with guns, if almost everyone gets one you can't be sure that all the persons in possession of them will act rationally or with restraint. Or that the guns won't end up in the hands of people who aren't supposed to have them (for example children or people with mental health problems).

If many countries get nuclear weapons then if their government or regime falls, the weapons can end up in the hands of warlords and other rogue figures who might not be rational actors. If a religious fanatic is willing to strap explosives to himself and detonate it, what makes you think they would not launch a nuclear strike? What are the chances that a group like ISIS might get their hands on them?

Would you really feel safer if all 195 countries in the world had nuclear weapons? I personally definitely wouldn't.
 

maniak

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
10,044
Location
Lisboa
Supports
Arsenal
I get the sentiment but it's far more complicated than that isn't it. If we start measuring countries just by buying and selling weapons from other countries - Israel in this case - we can blame a lot of other countries - like an India to name another. We just know a lot more about what the US does because of the exposure given to it.
It's not just weapons, it's diplomatic cover for all the terrorist acts israel commits.
 

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
31,831
Location
Ginseng Strip
Nuclear weapons reduce the chance of conflicts but increase the chance of a catastrophic nuclear war. I don't really believe in MAD, or maybe I should say my belief in MAD is conditional and with some limitations. Mainly, MAD deterrence requires rational actors. But as we see with guns, if almost everyone gets one you can't be sure that all the persons in possession of them will act rationally or with restraint. Or that the guns won't end up in the hands of people who aren't supposed to have them (for example children or people with mental health problems).

If many countries get nuclear weapons then if their government or regime falls, the weapons can end up in the hands of warlords and other rogue figures who might not be rational actors. If a religious fanatic is willing to strap explosives to himself and detonate it, what makes you think they would not launch a nuclear strike? What are the chances that a group like ISIS might get their hands on them?

Would you really feel safer if all 195 countries in the world had nuclear weapons? I personally definitely wouldn't.
I hear this reasoning about rational actors used to defend the status quo constantly, but the argument lacks integrity when you put into perspective a few hard truths.

1) Only one nation to date has used a nuke or something resembling it on a civilian population, hint - its not one of the pantomime baddies we're all terrified of but rather one of the so called 'rational actors'. And as far as the Middle east is concerned, that same nation's regional ally and proxy is the only power in the region to also possess a nuke.

2) Your point about it falling into the hands of genocidal, morally-bankrupt, ethno-fascist fanatics that believe they're doing god's work being a recipe for catastrophic disaster. You're spot on. It also so happens the aforementioned proxy power in the previous point fits that description.

The nuclear weapon is definitely one of humanity's most tragic and disgraceful conceptions, but its only saving grace is the powerful deterring factor it holds amongst adversaries. If it acts as a buffer that prevents major powers from engaging in devastating, direct conflicts that decimated Europe in the 20th century, then surely we take that as an acceptable, albeit reluctant compromise. The ideal scenario is no one possesses nuclear weapons, but considering that's an impossibility, the next best thing is anyone who possesses nuclear weapons is deeply hesitant to use them for fear of equally devastating reprisals. That stalemate only works when there's a nuclear power balance which currently doesn't exist in volatile regions like the middle east.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,319
Location
Hollywood CA
Nuclear weapons reduce the chance of conflicts but increase the chance of a catastrophic nuclear war. I don't really believe in MAD, or maybe I should say my belief in MAD is conditional and with some limitations. Mainly, MAD deterrence requires rational actors. But as we see with guns, if almost everyone gets one you can't be sure that all the persons in possession of them will act rationally or with restraint. Or that the guns won't end up in the hands of people who aren't supposed to have them (for example children or people with mental health problems).

If many countries get nuclear weapons then if their government or regime falls, the weapons can end up in the hands of warlords and other rogue figures who might not be rational actors. If a religious fanatic is willing to strap explosives to himself and detonate it, what makes you think they would not launch a nuclear strike? What are the chances that a group like ISIS might get their hands on them?

Would you really feel safer if all 195 countries in the world had nuclear weapons? I personally definitely wouldn't.
There's the rational actor bit that is a concern. We are after all dealing with messianic fanatics here. There's also a risk that spreading nuclear technology will eventually see it end up in the hands of non-state actors such as AQ, ISIS, and the like.