The reasoning of the optimists is problematic 1) Because a decision to wage a nuclear war can be taken quickly, with little aforethought or debate (unlike launching a conventional war). Thre are not months and eyars of acceptable losses during which the losses of fighting an unwinnable war can be cut. 2) Iran woukd not be the only power to have made a strategic miscalculation about its chances of surviviing a war or even how the war will play out (witness World War I, Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, the U.S. invasion of Iraq). 3) What appears rational to an outsider does nt necessarily appear rational to those making the decisions inside the bubble of their own worldwivew, ideological, religious or otherwise. 4) Iran's nuclear capability is dangerous not so much because Tehran would resort to using it, but because it would now be free to engage in conventional military operations and widen its influence, knowing it has a nuclear umbrella. 5) There is much debate about it, but there areindications that the Tehran regime, or at least those in Ahmadinajad's circle, hold millenialist views. If so, the rational argument holds no water. It may not be true, but given the risks involved, caution on the part of Israel and the West is certainly advisable (and rational).
Seven Libyan soldiers killed in clashes with ISIS (Reuters)
from the article: Iran is too rational to attack Israel