So, Pakistan learned that while nuclear weapons can limit your opponent’s retaliation, they do not ensure military victory. So, they went back to what served them best – sponsoring terrorists to carry out attacks in India. But even then, Pakistan failed to see long-term consequences. After the attack on India’s parliament in Dec 2001, both nations spent six months, spending men and material on a six-month buildup at their border. While the Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent did keep India from invading, it also made them realize that allowing a terrorist client group to get its sponsors into such a tight spot was no longer feasible.

But, Israel and Iran have no territorial disputes between them. Israel is rightly concerned that a nuclear weapon will allow Iran the freedom to increase its support to Hezbollah – the only Arab force that can withstand an Israeli assault. But, Iran would find itself in the same spot as Pakistan. Do you want Hezbollah to get so out of control, that its actions put Iran at risk? Unlikely.

Of course, Russia and we have thousands of nukes, and have made only fitful efforts to reduce the number. If I were running Iran, I’d probably want them, too, as insurance.