Yeah I recall Mehdi Hasan's article about this some 7 years ago: "Wouldn't it be rational for Iran – geographically encircled, politically isolated, feeling th

Yeah I recall Mehdi Hasan's article about this some 7 years ago: "Wouldn't it be rational for Iran – geographically encircled, politically isolated, feeling threatened – to want its own arsenal of nukes, for defensive and deterrent purposes?" Pointing out the difference between America, and its allies, going to "war with non-nuclear Iraq" and their "diplomacy with nuclear-armed North Korea", Hasan concluded: "The simple fact is there is no alternative to diplomacy, no matter how truculent or paranoid the leaders of Iran might seem to western eyes." [0] As for the OP's question... it was a dictatorship for 40 years driven not by good governance but by oil money. You either have a dictatorship that builds very strong institutions for a post-dictator rule, or you don't. And particularly the oil-dependent states forgo building the right institutions, because an oil-rich country doesn't need them. Without institutions and civil society a dictatorship erupts into chaos after the dictator dies, particularly if it happens abruptly. In terms of institutions and governance Libya was far from the jewel of Africa. It was never designed to last. It's more akin to someone living on creditcard debt for a few years before it all comes crashing down. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/17/iran-want-nuclear-bomb https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/17/iran-w...