But what about the effects of an Iranian nuke tethered to the bottom in the Straights of Hormuz? Even a crude one will decimate a carrier battle group if it catches it in the wrong place, conducting flight operations or not. Again, that would be way too risky for Iran. How would you control such a device? Remote control? Nope, too many radio and sonar emissions. They would always run the risk of blowing up the wrong ship, or detonating the thing on its own by accident.
Then, there is the larger reality of the fact that any nuclear explosion means Iran as a country, becomes a glowing crater within 20 minutes. Iran wont do anything that America can use to justify us obliterating them.
Nor would Russia or China allow Iran to do anything to risk the free flow of oil, so it just aint going to happen. What Iran wants is for their to be some sort of terrorist action that cant be tied back to them, but the problem is that Bush and Cheney's public statements were designed to make sure that Iran understands that we would LOVE to light them up, and are just looking for a reason.
I agree with your analysis of the situation, but not your underlying assumption that we are dealing with rational players in Iran.
What if they are as crazy as they pretend to be?
I've dealt with my share of full goose bozos in my time in emergency services (lo these many moons ago). That makes it possible for me to picture one of them getting into a position of authority in one of these 13th century countries.
However, that doesn't make me a pessimist. The best way I can convey my position is to fall back on the old "half empty glass" analogy. Well I don't care if the glass is half empty or half full. I just want to know if it's got poison in it.
I am not fond of the idea of drinking the figurative Socrates cocktail.