LOL, whether people are capable of atrocities was never in question. You introduced that red herring into the conversation. In fact, the argument I was defending starting from my FIRST POST was that crazy leaders (who commit atrocities) exist, but those around them will stop them when they want to use nuclear weapons in crazy ways.So you acknowledge that people are capable of these things. So, whats the disconnect then? If idealogues are capable of genocide and atrocities, why wouldn't they be capable of launching a nuclear weapon purely out of hate for another country and culture? Especially an openly hostile and ideological country such as Iran.
It's pretty clear from this post that you don't know much about international politics and how political scientists in addition to governments determine "rational states". I already explained to you earlier that a rational state is a state that acts in order to preserve itself or that at least prizes its survival. Treat women and gay people like crap does not make a state irrational in this sense anymore than it made the United States irrational when it was purposely giving its citizens syphilis and not telling them as they died and passed it onto their children or enslaving human beings and treating them as inhuman for hundreds of years. So, like I said, Iran acts like it wants to survive. Consequently, it's a rational state. If you studied international politics a bit more, you would get that.Their treatment of the Baha'i minority, homosexuals, and women suggest your claim of them being a "rational" state is the true red herring in this debate.