This man should not be allowed near nuclear weapons!

[Jester]

I share your concern. Against a society where sacrificing your life to blow up a few of the people you hate is an acceptable mental state, is mutually assured destruction a viable strategy? Perhaps this generation of leaders, perhaps the next, are safe (I wouldn't completely count on it), but when will the true zealots, the true fanatics gain that power -- or even just access? Rational deterrents only work on rational people, and a lot of the Arab leaders don't seem to fit that category.

First, Persians aren't Arabs, just to clear up the potential confusion there. ;)

Rational deterrents works on irrational people, so long as they are self-interested. (I guess, to some economists, that's the same thing, although I'd disagree.) The leaders of these countries are not, by my estimation, in the class of crazy who would destroy their own selves to spite their enemies, during peacetime. (At the end of a losing war, things might look different.) The Iranian leadership has many terrible qualities, but I don't think they're close to the line where deterrence would fail because they do not fear death. One only needs to look at the leaders of the various Palestinian terror groups to see the pattern - they're perfectly happy to send idealistic young men, subjugated women, and helpless children to their horrible fiery deaths, but they never strap on the vests themselves. They're barbaric, but they're not crazy, at least not in that sense. Threatening their power and comfort is effective, even if threatening their people is not.

Will a group crazy enough to really end it all ever come to power? I wouldn't say never, but I people that fanatical usually have a hard time getting political power, which at least takes some degree of pragmatism. Never say never, though.

-Jester