I made this point a while back but it bears repeating here.
Making an Iranian/Terrorist nuclear comparison with the MAD scenario of the Cold War is invalid. Dont kid yourself for a minute thinking they relate.
During the Cold War it was a standoff between the Soviet Union and the United States. Both had a large enough nuclear arsenal to completely annihilate the other. This created a situation called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)
MAD worked during the cold war because both sides were concerned about the endgame. In the endgame not only was it necessary for the opposing country to have lost, but there was a necessity for the winning country to survive.
This does not apply in this case. These terrorist, and yes I refer to Iran as a terrorist country, do not have a specific concern with the endgame. Their survival is not a necessary component of victory, only the destruction of their enemies.
That is the problem when the endgame is governed by religious fanaticism. There is existence and reward after life in their mentality of Jihad. Their own personal survival of the conflict does not matter to them. Dont think for a minute that they wont use a nuke if they have the means to deliver it.
"This does not apply in this case. These terrorist, and yes I refer to Iran as a terrorist country, do not have a specific concern with the endgame. Their survival is not a necessary component of victory, only the destruction of their enemies."
To them Israel is a proxy for the real enemy - us. They cannot "destroy" us - no matter how bad a few nukes would be. The result WOULD BE our damage but their annihilation, and they know it. We would survive, we would eliminate them and there would be a world that would not have an Iran and its "end game" afterwards.