[Piano Red]

Typhoon

In the end a nuclear Iran would probably have a stabilising effect on the region. Iran would use the weapons to mitigate Isreali and US influence but would be unable to target Isreal directly as they would in effect be targetting the future Palestinian state.

On the contrary all signs point to it being the reverse of that. A nuclear Iran would be incredibly destabilizing, and in all likelihood trigger a nuclear arms race in the region as other countries rushed to acquire such a capability.

Mircea

Perhaps because Russia and Iran are part of a 5-member State coalition for mutual protection and economic unity.

Which amounts to didly if it came to an Iranian shooting war against the US.

I trained to invade Iran.

Really? MOS and Unit?

Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.

Yes they do.

But, we have two serious problems here. First, the dual-reactors at Bushwher are not conducive to plutonium production (because of the burn-up rate), and second, the IAEA by its own admission says Iran is enriching uranium to 20%.

Well duh....why are you even bringing Plutonium into the equation of Iran's nuke program in the first place?

Since Iran has no plutonium, it can only make weapons from uranium.

1] the weapons will be fission only; and

2] the maximum possible theoretical yield is 60 kt.

Again....duh.

No one else postulated the Iranians were going to be rolling out 500 kiloton nuclear warheads with Plutonium-Implosion designs.

No lower tier country working on their own indigenous weapons program is going to produce anything better than gun-type fission designs.

Like Pakistan, if Iran would have a nuclear weapons program (they don't) then the weapon yields would range from 0.01 kt to as much as 20 kt (possibly a little higher).

And? A nuke is a nuke, it'd still be enough of a jump start for them to expand on in the future if they were to cross that threshold.

I take it none of your have read Sun Tzu, who said exactly the same thing, that the only way to win is to always know where your enemy is.

That's not what he said. Apparently you need to refresh your memory on the Art of War yourself.

The first country that gets smart enough to negate the US' technological advantage will be mopping the floor with dead US troops.

That country certainly isn't going to be Iran.

I would also remind you that the air strike could not have occurred without massive US assistance, mainly US military advisors in Iraq made certain that critical air search radars were either down for maintenance or looking at the Iranian border, because, well, you know, the Iraq-Iran War was going on.

Got a source on that?

That was not a nuclear facility.

What planet are you living on? Of course it was.

[Smilin' Dave]

On the contrary all signs point to it being the reverse of that. A nuclear Iran would be incredibly destabilizing, and in all likelihood trigger a nuclear arms race in the region as other countries rushed to acquire such a capability.

The Cold War also witnessed a nuclear arms race, one far larger in scale in fact, yet at times the 'balance of terror' created a sort of balance and hence stability. Why do you think it would be any different this time around?

[Piano Red]

Smilin' Dave

The Cold War also witnessed a nuclear arms race, one far larger in scale in fact, yet at times the 'balance of terror' created a sort of balance and hence stability. Why do you think it would be any different this time around?

A false retrospective of history. The world was an incredibly dangerous place during the Cold War period, especially in the early era prior to the strategic disarmament conventions that began to pick up speed in the 70s. Need I remind you the number of false alarms and escalatory flashpoints that almost triggered a nuclear exchange between the US and USSR?

It's not something the world needs to see again. Especially in a region already as volatile as the Middle East

[Far-Right Sage]

It is, however, inevitable. How long can you hold up a tattered dam and prevent a surge of water from gushing through?

The United States didn't wish to see the Soviet Union develop nuclear weapons technology. Personally, I would have publically executed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Once this was a reality and nuclear states in Western Europe (Britain and France) were backed by the U.S. politically, Red China joined the club and the Soviets were quite wary.

Certainly none of the elite original five nuclear powers, also incidentally the five permenant members of the Security Council, as well as the victorious Allied states, wished to see India, Pakistan, or Israel go nuclear in the manner they did.

It was always a doomed strategy for a certain number of "cool kids" to have access to something, deny the same privilege to others, and legitimize that denial through law and international treaty organized by the very same nuclear states. Such a policy leads to feelings of resentment on a national level.

A nuclear state knows it cannot simply be invaded and overthrown and the Iranians don't wish to become another Libya when they tread too roughly on Saudi or Israeli toes.

[Baff]

In order for a war to become a world war, Iran would need to have more allies than just Syria.

[Smilin' Dave]

The world was an incredibly dangerous place during the Cold War period, especially in the early era prior to the strategic disarmament conventions that began to pick up speed in the 70s. Need I remind you the number of false alarms and escalatory flashpoints that almost triggered a nuclear exchange between the US and USSR?

Leaving aside accidents like Stanislav Petrov's incident etc.*, most of the threats of nuclear exchange do date to that early period prior to detente. This could be attributed in part to inexperience, after all there had never been strategic dilemas quite like the Cold War presented before. Early near exchanges could for example be explained by either power attempting a 'conventional' approach, but in what was proving to be a radically different environment. The other element was the level of hostility that already existed between the two major powers, which made dialogue difficult. Eventually both found some level of accomodation and the threat level dropped accordingly.

Assuming inexperience won't be an issue this time around, as we haven't completely forgotten the lessons of the Cold War, that leaves existing hostilities. This isn't likely to be rectified by constantly turning up the heat with rhetoric. Iranian intransigence doesn't help either, but if both sides feed it the tensions are unlikely to diminish.

It's not something the world needs to see again. Especially in a region already as volatile as the Middle East

An attack against Iran is hardly going to be a stabilising action, it would probably create more volatility in the short term (Iranian responses, general fears of future strikes etc.). It solves nothing long term as there doesn't appear to be a permanent solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran has been trying to go nuclear for decades, even prior to the current theocratic regime. Assuming you could strike Iran so successfully their current program was taken back to square one (and this is far from certain), then the question is how do you stop them from starting again?

* I'm pretty sure conflict with Iran wouldn't be justified on the possibility of an accident, and possible accidents hasn't motivated action against other new-ish nuclear club members.

[GandalfTheGrey]

A nuclear Iran would be incredibly destabilizing, and in all likelihood trigger a nuclear arms race in the region as other countries rushed to acquire such a capability.

I find this ironic - since the current situation is that a single nuclear armed state in the middle east is whats causing countries like Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, and for good reason. While Israel is the only nuclear power in the region, it can act aggressively and launch wars with impunity. And I just love the use of the word "destabilizing" here - which refers to taking away Israel's ability to bully and attack neighbours at will. A middle east with Israel as the only nuclear power is stabilizing for Israel, and destabilizing for everyone else.

[Piano Red]

Leaving aside accidents like Stanislav Petrov's incident etc.*, most of the threats of nuclear exchange do date to that early period prior to detente. This could be attributed in part to inexperience

Which is exactly my point.

How long do you think it would take the Arabs and Persians to learn from the same geopolitical lessons and mistakes the US and USSR went through in those first 35 years or so that led up to the Detente period? That is....if they ever were to learn them?

How many Egyptian, Saudi, or Iranian Henry Kissingers and George F. Kennans do you think any of those countries have waiting in the wings ready to influence policy the way those men did?

Eventually both found some level of accomodation and the threat level dropped accordingly.

A process which took decades, and involved a significant degree of behind the scenes application of strategic theories and guesswork.

Assuming inexperience won't be an issue this time around

Why in god's name would you assume that? It'd practically be a given that they'd be inexperienced.

as we haven't completely forgotten the lessons of the Cold War

We haven't. What exactly have countries in the Middle East learned themselves is the question.

An attack against Iran is hardly going to be a stabilising action, it would probably create more volatility in the short term (Iranian responses, general fears of future strikes etc.).

Logic dictates that choosing the lesser of two evils is the better choice. Attacking Iran and risking a destabilized region in it's wake is a much healthier alternative than seeing one with a nuclear Iran provoking regional tensions to the boiling point.

It solves nothing long term as there doesn't appear to be a permanent solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Which is why military action is at the bottom of the list of options the US is prosecuting at the moment.

The tried and true method of strategic containment is working rather nicely, and will likely lead to the regime's collapse internally in the long run.

Assuming you could strike Iran so successfully their current program was taken back to square one (and this is far from certain), then the question is how do you stop them from starting again?

If it came to military action? Keep bombing their facilities of course.

GandalfTheGrey

I find this ironic - since the current situation is that a single nuclear armed state in the middle east is whats causing countries like Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, and for good reason. While Israel is the only nuclear power in the region, it can act aggressively and launch wars with impunity.

That stance is fallacious, and one that has been falsely advocated by Iranian apologists and anti-Israel factions (who love to sidestep the discussion) for quite some time whenever the issue of Iran's nuclear program falls under question.

Iran's nuclear weapons program has nothing to do with "defending themselves from Israel", it's just used as a convenient excuse to veil the real reasons for why it's being pursued...in violation of international law to which Iran is party to.

And I just love the use of the word "destabilizing" here - which refers to taking away Israel's ability to bully and attack neighbours at will.

Case in point.

See what I mean when it comes to anti-Israel Iranian apologists like yourself? It's always the matter of changing the discussion to "Israel! Israel! Israel!" without acknowledging that Iran itself isn't particularly well liked in places like Riyadh, Cairo, Istanbul, Doha, or Abu Dhabi. Or that the acquisition of such weapons in Iranian hands would only further propel such countries to seek such capabilities of their own.

A middle east with Israel as the only nuclear power is stabilizing for Israel, and destabilizing for everyone else.

Not really. Israel is a known entity in the Middle East for the handling of it's nukes, and has been tolerated by the Arab States in that regard.

Hell, it was even invaded in '73 despite the Egyptians and Syrians knowing the Israelis had nukes and they still weren't used.

[Typhoon]

On the contrary all signs point to it being the reverse of that. A nuclear Iran would be incredibly destabilizing, and in all likelihood trigger a nuclear arms race in the region as other countries rushed to acquire such a capability.

If an arms race is the concern then I have to agree that it is the Israeli arsenal that is the problem here not Iran, it is this undisclosed arsenal and volatile conflict that surrounds the country that drives the desire for nuclear weapons. That nuclear ambition in the region is wider than Iran adds weight to this point.

[The last Iranian]

I am in the same camp as FRS first comments. They all stand to reason.
As for Chine and Russia, well The Russians have shown that they Hold no true allegiance with any country and will sell any country and any person out for the right money. So the Russians will keep out and will seek to make money out of the situation by expecting renumeration from the west for not arming Iran or indeed arming Iran and earning a quíck buck.
China however stands to lose a great deal because it is heavily involved with Iran and its life line supplies will be disrupted and some 8 to 900 billion of its finances will go begging, If they are not compensated for such huge loss who knows what they will do....

Also Iran has once or twice hinted that in such an eventuality they will destroy all oil refinaries including their own within the mid east. they have the capability to do it and they are mad enough to do it. I know they have enough fuel stored away for themselves for a 5 year period since Petrol and diesel have been rationed to the public for the past 6 years now. 40% of people there have converted their cars to LPG.
If they carryout this threat there is only a handful of winners, Russians, Venezuelans, Nigerians. Norwegians and Candians.
The rest of the world will free fall into an economical melt down, every powers first priority will become to provide oil to its infrastructure to keep going, Opec will be no longer and US Dollor will be worth 25C since no one will observe paying for whatever oil they can get in Dollors.
Since if you include Azerbyejans oil fields in the mid east you are talking about 26% of all the worlds oil supplies will no longer be, for at least a 6 year period after hostilities stop since it takes that long to bring each oil field back on line.

[pikachu]

Mircea
You seem knowledgeable about the subject, but please remember that not everybody here is an International Relations PHD, in fact I'd wager most of us here are undergraduates in other fields. Therefore there's no need to remind everyone how weak they are in certain areas, chances are they already know it.

Now, if you don't mind, what 5-state alliance you are referring to? I've tried to look it up myself but could not find any information. Does it have a name? Can I have a link to the document? If such thing really exists, it's truly strange why I haven't encountered it anywhere in the media so far.

The invasion plan you described seems plausible on paper, but let's remember that it is also the plan that Saddam Hussein (with massive international help) already tried to execute and failed. Yes, the US is a lot stronger Iraq, but the conditions for invasion are also much worse today. Let's see just a few examples of HOW much worse it is:
-The invasion of 1980 was conducted by Iraq along a large front. The US has no front with Iran other than through Afghanistan, which borders a mountain range and is nowhere near Khuzestan, it is also a completely non-viable invasion route for logistical reasons. Iraq is now a Shi'ite power and would not participate in something as crazy as this under absolutely any circumstance. The invasion of Khuzestan would therefore have to be an entirely maritime-airborne operation, which is at least 50% more risky matter in itself. However, if you take into account the uncertain naval situation in the Persian Gulf, where the Iranians might be able to block the straight of Hormuz, interrupt the logistical chain, fire anti-ship missiles at the US fleet, or sink US carriers by other non-conventional means, the plan begins to look like a suicide mission waiting to happen.
-In 1980, Iran was in the midst of a revolutionary chaos. The economy and the apparatus of government had collapsed, military and security forces were in disarray. Perfect conditions for an invasion. It still failed. Today, Iran is much more stable. It has been preparing for this war for several decades. Expect a lot of surprises.
-The Arab population of Khuzestan is shi'ite and it remained overwhelmingly loyal to Tehran during the invasion by a neighboring Arab power. Despite decades of supporting and arming the separatists, the uprising by the ethnic Arabs of Khuzestan that Saddam hoped for failed to occur. Do you really expect them to react more favorably to an invasion by the US? Their resistance will be only fiercer, and now they'll be joined by volunteers from across Iraqi border...
-Iran in 1980 had no great power supporters and no real sphere of influence abroad. Iran today does. It has very close allies in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Syria, and the shi'ite populations of the Gulf states. The Bahraini government just barely survived this year, and the unrest is continuing. Do you expect it to survive in the event of large-scale hostilities with Iran? I don't. And it happens to be the base of the US 5th fleet. Imagine Bahrain falling to Iranian influence and the problems this would cause. Imagine also the Iranian medium-range missiles landing all over Tel'aviv, Ridyah, and the US bases in the Middle East. Imagine how pissed off Russia and China will be. Sure, they probably won't be fighting the US directly, but they'll make sure to use this opportunity to cause as much pain as possible. Supply routes to Afghanistan? Forget about it. Independent Georgia and Ukraine? Forget about it. That's just the most obvious responses. The US will have to commit substantial strategic reserves to make sure the Iranian campaign doesn't fail, which will leave its interests widely exposed in every other part of the world. A lot of countries will be tempted to do what they otherwise could not do.
-Okay, say you achieved the stated objective and occupied Khuzestan, while the Iranians have destroyed their own refineries before retreating, and they have also blocked, restricted, or severely increased the risk on the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. You blocked their exports, they blocked your imports. Now what? Are you really sure the US economy will be in a better shape to handle the vastly increased price of oil and gas in the midst of a sovereign debt crisis than the Iranian economy can handle the decline in oil exports? In 1980s, Iran went for several YEARS with its oil production at 15%-20% of normal capacity, and it did very well. And here's the fun part - any increase in the price of oil will vastly benefit the Russian treasury... Which can then transfer the extra funds right back to Iran and fund its war effort!

So many things can go wrong with this plan, I think the US stands a better chance at just limiting its effort to an air campaign designed to inflict maximum carnage on the Iranian economy. But even that can go wrong.

[The last Iranian]

I find this ironic - since the current situation is that a single nuclear armed state in the middle east is whats causing countries like Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, and for good reason. While Israel is the only nuclear power in the region, it can act aggressively and launch wars with impunity. And I just love the use of the word "destabilizing" here - which refers to taking away Israel's ability to bully and attack neighbours at will. A middle east with Israel as the only nuclear power is stabilizing for Israel, and destabilizing for everyone else.

Why do you find it so hard to come to terms with the way things are?
The world has embarked on a religious war, It is a war between Islam on one side, the Christianity and the Judaism on the other. It is a dirty war.
it is about supremacy. decades ago to acheive this supremacy the Muslim Brotherhood was backed and strengthend by the usual suspects to fight the expansion of Communism.
That plan worked, but as a biproduct the islamists have become more and more powerful, so much so, that they themselves now represent the same threats that communism did back then.
The problem here is that Communism took over numerous societies by force and held that power by force, Islamism is only in power by force in Iran and in all the other societies is wanted by people, it is belief, a way of life for close to half a billion muslims. every country that has been involved in the so called "Arab Uprising" will turn Islamic, thats what the people want.
This situation is not going to get better, it will get worse, no matter what the world powers decide to do.
Look at EU and Turkey, Every tom dick and harry has been accepted into the EU but Turky. Why? because It does not belong to the club, EU is a Christian club, more to the point bordering Iran and Syria also do not help.

[The last Iranian]

I find this ironic - since the current situation is that a single nuclear armed state in the middle east is whats causing countries like Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, and for good reason. While Israel is the only nuclear power in the region, it can act aggressively and launch wars with impunity. And I just love the use of the word "destabilizing" here - which refers to taking away Israel's ability to bully and attack neighbours at will. A middle east with Israel as the only nuclear power is stabilizing for Israel, and destabilizing for everyone else.

Why do you find it so hard to come to terms with the way things are?
The world has embarked on a religious war, It is a war between Islam on one side, the Christianity and the Judaism on the other. It is a dirty war.
it is about supremacy. decades ago to acheive this supremacy the Muslim Brotherhood was backed and strengthend by the usual suspects to fight the expansion of Communism.
That plan worked, but as a biproduct the islamists have become more and more powerful, so much so, that they themselves now represent the same threats that communism did back then.
The problem here is that Communism took over numerous societies by force and held that power by force, Islamism is only in power by force in Iran and in all the other societies is wanted by people, it is belief, a way of life for close to half a billion muslims. every country that has been involved in the so called "Arab Uprising" will turn Islamic, thats what the people want.
This situation is not going to get better, it will get worse, no matter what the world powers decide to do.
Look at EU and Turkey, Every tom dick and harry has been accepted into the EU but Turky. Why? because It does not belong to the club, EU is a Christian club, more to the point bordering Iran and Syria also do not help.

Double post, I am having trouble with POFO, I cant use "your posts" links most often, Tried sending Siberian fox a message to that effect and it wont get sent, just goes to my outbox and now double post, its all in the "PHP". forum, please fix these probs.

[Baff]

Turkey isn't being accepted into the EU because of Germany.
Not it's faith.

They have had massive Turkish immigration issues for years. Their public aren't up for it.
The Greeks presumably aren't that keen either.

[The last Iranian]

Turkey isn't being accepted into the EU because of Germany.
Not it's faith.

Believe what you will sir but the reality is as I said it.
the biggest resistance to Turkey in EU is actually France sir not Germany.

[gunnarwordon]

IF total hell were to break loose and the Middle East lost all disregard for decency, we can be sure Israel would be up to it. It wouldn't be the first time. The antics of Israel are well known by all. Iran wants to totally disassociate itself with Israel, and can we really blame it? They kill thousands of Palestinians casually, and take advantage of the current United States Foreign Aid Policy. The reason Israel despises Iran is because they know Iran has more resources and natural commodities than Israel, and are afraid that once non-Jewish foreigners control Middle Eastern economy, Israel will indefinitely crumble.
PS- This is not an anti-semitic rant. I love Jewish people. I am merely speaking from a sociopolitical stand point, not a religious one.

[Baff]

Believe what you will sir but the reality is as I said it.
The biggest resistance to Turkey in EU is actually France sir not Germany.

Germans have been moaning about it to me for over a decade. It's a right wing bugbear for them.
They have 3 milliion Turkish immigrants living there.
So you get the usual routines, taking up all the low paid jobs, placing stress on social services, destroying the national identity, crime etc.

France I think may have anti-Turkish friction with it's Armenian population.
The muslims the French get upset about are the Morrocans I thought.

I recognise that anti muslim sentiment is widespread but I don't really think people particularly attribute Turkey with that sort of muslim.
Muslim for most people around here means bomber in a beard if you know what I mean.
And if you ask them to be more specific, you are going to hear about Saudi's and Taliban and Iranians and Pakistani's. Stoning, wife beating, mad mullahs, bhurkas, the usual guff.
I don't think people really make that same connection to the Turkish.

I think they are broadly seen as the acceptable face of Islam if you see what I mean.
You'd have to go into the realms of extremist Christinanity to get any significant complaint about their faith.

[Smilin' Dave]

How long do you think it would take the Arabs and Persians to learn from the same geopolitical lessons and mistakes the US and USSR went through in those first 35 years or so that led up to the Detente period? That is....if they ever were to learn them?

1. One side of the equation already knows the lessons from experience, which changes the scenario from one where both sides are inexperienced.
2. Even the Iranians would have to be aware that using nuclear arms would be suicidal. That would tend to put a break on any reckless behaviour.

A process which took decades, and involved a significant degree of behind the scenes application of strategic theories and guesswork.

Diplomacy is often behind the scenes so I'm unclear what you point is there. Given those strategic theories are already well known and these days widely studied, why do you think there would have to be another round of guesswork?

Why in god's name would you assume that? It'd practically be a given that they'd be inexperienced.

See above. In fact I think you need to justify why you think the Iranians are completely stupid, as this seems your default assumption.

Logic dictates that choosing the lesser of two evils is the better choice. Attacking Iran and risking a destabilized region in it's wake is a much healthier alternative than seeing one with a nuclear Iran provoking regional tensions to the boiling point.

This entirely breaks down when we realise your 'greater evil' is unlikely to come to pass. The 'umbrella' that Iranian nuclear capability wouldn't give them additional conventional capacity to 'provoke regional tensions', and as discussed they can't use the nukes offensively without losing the whole game.

Acquiring nuclear capability hasn't radically changed North Korea's strategic position, seemingly in contradiction of your nuclear Iran scenario.

The tried and true method of strategic containment is working rather nicely

It is failing to stop Iran advancing their nuclear ambitions, which in your world view is supposed to be a game changer.

will likely lead to the regime's collapse internally in the long run.

As I've already pointed out, and you've apparently ignored, regime change probably won't end Iran's nuclear ambitions either. The Iranians have been trying for nuclear infrastructure for a while now, spanning two regimes. The likely replacement is unlikely to be any less nationalist, and hence the prestige item of nuclear power/weapons remains appealing.

Further, if your concern is instability a collapse of the Iranian regime is the least desirable option. All that infrastructure, know how etc. would become completely uncontrollable and the resulting civil war would likely trigger conflicts (or other fallout) in neighbouring countries.

If it came to military action? Keep bombing their facilities of course.

Laughable, you expect to be taken seriously suggesting this sort of thing? Let me point out some of the problems of a perpetual war scenario
- It destabilises the region far more than a nuclear Iran ever would
- It could destabilise international relations since it sets a pretty troubling precedent
- It relies on the US to remain willing and capable to strike targets in Iran indefinately eg. the budget will never be cut, capabilities will never atrophy
- It relies on the Iranians never successfully defending themselves or otherwise avoiding the worst of the strikes. Which is particularly important because if your objective was to create a genuinely suicidal and hostile nuclear state, perpetual war with Iran would seem to be the best recipe.

[Baff]

This entirely breaks down when we realise your 'greater evil' is unlikely to come to pass. The 'umbrella' that Iranian nuclear capability wouldn't give them additional conventional capacity to 'provoke regional tensions', and as discussed they can't use the nukes offensively without losing the whole game.

Yes it would, because they can use their nukes defensively, freeing up their conventional forces for the offense and removing any threat of retaliation and counter invasion from their nieghbours.

Allowing them to embark on colonial wars, much as we are able to do for the same reasons.

For example, (and it is a silly example), if they block the Straits today, we can zap the hell out of them for little or no risk.
If they have nukes, we cannot be so sure.

it changes the risk vs reward equation massively for any for intervention and enables them to attack their neighbours without fear of counter invasion by an allied nation or their chosen enemies forces.

Once they have nukes they can take the offensive with their conventional forces against any country without them.
Lets say, 1/3 of Iraq perhaps.

Or they could declare the Straits to be Iranian waters and start demanding tribute from all shipping etc.

[pikachu]

For example, (and it is a silly example), if they block the Straits today, we can zap the hell out of them for little or no risk.
If they have nukes, we cannot be so sure.

The risk of accident increases, but not so much the risk of deliberate nuclear exchange. In case of a nuclear escalation against the US, the US can wipe Iran off the map, and they know it with certainty. Iran can't even do the same to the US. As long as this fact remains true, I don't see how Iran can realistically use its nuclear arsenal. Suppose they consider nuking Israel. What for? There's more Jews around the world outside Israel than there are in Israel, they can still come and fight for it and rebuild it from the scratch like they did in 1949 (the place was little more than a desert). The Iranian people, on the other hand, will be gone for good. Whatever remains of their nation will never again rise to prominence. So the end result is - the US and the western world are unharmed, Israel is severely damaged but can still be rebuilt, and the only thing Iran had achieved was suiciding itself while also destroying the lands they consider holy and where many Arabs live as well. So it's not even anywhere close to MAD.

Iranian history had many periods of foreign occupation and domination, they handled it all and re-emerged eventually with renewed strength and confidence. A war between Iran and the US would not be a life-and-death struggle for either, UNLESS one of them uses nuclear weapons, and in that case it would be a death sentence for Iran. Even if they were to somehow take the entire Jewish nation with them, it would not change the fact that Iran was gone for good. This would be like the Japanese choosing to genocide the Philippinos rather than surrender after the atomic bombings in late WW2. It wouldn't make any sense, and they didn't do it. So they swallowed their pride and surrendered. Everyone thought they were suicidal kamikaze fight-to-death fanatics. Turns out, they had common sense. Iranians have as least as much common sense as the Japanese - you can't survive as a nation for millenia without it. Every country tries to make itself look tough and fanatical when confronted, but when it comes to issues of national survival - they bend.