But I don't think this analysis is right. If this is what he's trying, it's intolerable to us, and we will destroy his regime. Yes, he may distribute some anthrax, and the results may be terrible, but they will be temporary, and he will lose; after his loss, he will be reviled throughout history in the Muslim world for the destruction he brought down on them. We need to make absolutely clear to him that this is what will happen, and possibly he'll be deterred.
In another sense, though, the problem is deeper than you're suggesting. Technology is changing the balance of power in the world; small groups of people and relatively weak countries can now command huge amounts of energy, increasingly huge as technology advances. There is no actual defense against these kinds of attacks; the only defense is offense. I'm afraid this will require a continuous staying action, and I don't know if it will ultimately be successful, over, say, the next century.
This is what happened when the Roman Empire fell and Europe entered the Middle Ages. Power couldn't be effectively projected over large areas any more, because of technological changes, and Europe split into many small fiefdoms. This slowed progress dramatically (more borders limit trade, they limit communication, they reduce the spread of new ideas, etc.). (I believe similar changes happened in China at about the same time, lending credence to the idea that this was driven by technological changes. It's been a long time since I've read Chinese history though, and I'd have to look it up again.)
Needless to say, I hope this analogy is wrong. Maybe we can learn from history so it comes out differently this time around.
That is all that I am suggesting. You talk about it as if it was a trivial thing. I don't think the Soviets considered it a trivial thing. Soviet nuclear parity with the United States shaped world affairs for forty years.