On a purely rational logic level, thinking of this as an Iran problem as opposed to a Shi’a problem is a mistake. However on a “where the rubber meets the road” standpoint it is still a problem that bears serious consequences for the nation state of Iran. True enough, if the nation state of Iran develops the bomb, gives it to a rogue Shi’a terrorist group, and they set it off in say London, or Tel Aviv, or New York it will be difficult to directly assign blame to Iran. However, should that event happen, it would be implied that Iran supplied the bomb, and the likely response by the West would be to eliminate the treat of it happening again by incinerating the source of the bomb.

Lets not forget the fact that not one of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq. The mood following 9/11 was that we needed to punish somebody for what was done to us. The Taliban in Afganistan was the first to “feel the rath”, but it didn’t stop there, and it didn’t even get redirected at the Taliban, or al Quida elsewhere in the world. It got directed at Iraq.

Defensively pulling back into border sealing isolation is not the only response that would come from a Shi’a Islam terrorist group delivered nuclear bomb (as opposed to being delivered by a directly identified Shi’a nation state like Iran). The border sealing would most likely be preceeded by a very offensive nuclear response by the West. And the response would be targeted at a blamable Shi’a nation state, likely Iran.

What I’m saying is that both Shi’a Islam and Shi’a nation states would be seriously affected by the events depicted in the article.