Jim Antle argues that the discussion over whether Iran is a rational actor misses the bigger picture of whether we ought to go to war with Iran.
The discussion of whether Iran is or isn't a rational actor is germane because the Obama Administration believes Iran to be a rational actor and it is this belief plays a role in its policy towards it. Jim writes:
We are talking about going to war with a country based on assumptions about its objectives that may not be true, to disarm of it weapons it may not have, without much thought for the consequences or results. This was the road we traveled to Baghdad. Are we eager for a sequel?
Relax, Jim. We're not going to war with Iran.
The Obama Administration (through General Dempsey) says it isn't even sure if Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. No doubt this view is colored by our failure to find WMDs in Iraq. But what started the whole discussion about Iran being a rational actor in the first place was the Obama Administration's efforts to dissuade Israel from launching a military invasion against Iran.
Clearly the United States and Israel disagree not only about how close Iran is to a nuclear weapon, they disagree on whether Iran is building them in the first place. But even if Israel's intelligence is more reliable than ours on that question it doesn't necessarily mean Israel will opt to take that course. Unlike Iraq and Syria, the Iranians have multiple facilities which are underground quite possibly rendering an airstrike to be hopelessly impractical. It might very well be the case that the only way Israel can undermine Iran's nuclear weapons program is through covert ops rather than through a full scale military invasion.