MAD AND MULLAHS

Slavoj Zizek thinks there's no reason the Cold War's balance of terror, aka Mutually Assured Destruction, shouldn't apply to Iran if it manages to go nuclear:

As to Iran and nukes, the surprising fact is that the MAD logic still operates today: Why hasn’t the tension between India and Pakistan exploded into an all-out war? Because both sides are nuclear powers. Why have the Arab states not risked another attack on Israel? Because Israel is a nuclear power. So why should this MAD logic not work in the case of Iran? The standard counter-argument is that in Iran, Muslim fundamentalists are in power who may be tempted to nuke Israel. (Iran is the only large Arab state which not only does not diplomatically recognize Israel, but resolutely denies its right to exist as a state). Is, however, the Iranian regime really so “irrational”? Isn’t Pakistan, with its nuclear arms and its secret services’ ties to al-Qaeda, a much greater threat? Furthermore, two decades ago, Iran was brutally attacked by Iraq (with active U.S. support), so it has every right to feel threatened.

The real question is, do we want to trust the Iranian regime to act rationally? You know, what with an infinite supply of virgins waiting for martyrs.

Update: Commenter dirtbikeoption enquires, "Why do you feel that the Iranians will be incapable of understanding the concept of mutually assured destruction?"

It's not that the Iranians don't understand the logic of MAD, it's that their government is willing to martyr the whole population to the glory of Allah. Or so says their president:

"Is there art that is more beautiful, more divine and more eternal than the art of martyrdom? A nation with martyrdom knows no captivity.

Think he's bluffing?