Steven David asks a silly question:

But what if Iranian leaders are rational yet would contemplate a nuclear strike against Israel or the United States anyway? This is precisely the situation we might expect if the Iranian leadership finds itself on the brink of being toppled from within. Facing the end of their rule, and possibly their lives, Iranian leaders quite possibly could choose to lash out against the United States or Israel in a parting shot for posterity.

If only we had some previous experience with sudden political change in a nuclear-armed state to help us judge how likely this scenario is. If ever there was a danger of a crumbling regime “lashing out” with nuclear weapons, it was during the dissolution of the USSR, and nothing happened. Of course, there was never any real chance that this would happen, since even people inside a crumbling regime aren’t going to invite their own doom by launching a nuclear strike. If Iranian leaders are rational, they aren’t going to take a “parting shot” with nukes that would result in the destruction of their country, their families, and everyone they know. If the current regime were collapsing, it is more likely that its leaders would be busy trying to hang on to power or trying to find a way out of the country to avoid retribution from the next government.

David’s supporting examples are not compelling. Hussein’s decision to set oil wells on fire was spiteful, but it was not remotely similar to a decision to embark on national suicide through nuclear war. Assad has so far done nothing that would seriously call into question his interest in retaining power and surviving. He may be an incompetent and brutal ruler, but he isn’t a suicidal one. The Nixon example can’t be taken seriously. Even the Castro example is unpersuasive, since the government that controlled the nuclear weapons recoiled from the idea of launching a first strike. Even if a few in the Iranian regime’s leadership went mad in response to the prospect of losing control, subordinates would have to carry out their orders. It’s absurd to think that an order to launch a nuclear first strike would be carried out as the regime was on the verge of being overthrown. This is a scenario better-suited to a bad episode of 24 than a debate over Iran’s nuclear program.

David’s disaster scenario is based in large part on the assumption that the current Iranian regime is “waning” in its control, but at present there is not much reason to think this is so. While sanctions are making life more miserable for Iranian civilians, they are also undermining the base of political opposition to the current leadership. Thanks in part to our obsession with Iran’s nuclear program, effective opposition to the current leadership is weaker than it was just a few years ago. One can always imagine scenarios of regime and/or state collapse that lead to nuclear weapons getting into the wrong hands, but the idea that a faltering regime will invite the obliteration of its own country as a final act of spite is just laughably far-fetched. Iranian leaders will always have things to lose even when they are on the verge of losing power.