You may be right that deterrence would be enough to keep Israel safe.

But there are many factors to balance out. Just a few random thoughts:

- Deterrence is based on the concept that survival is important to the attacker. We are dealing with people who will, with little hesitation, commit suicide to take an enemy out. Would this apply at a national level? I don't know.

- I think that it's been established that avoiding "world condemnation" does not figure high in terrorist thinking. I don't expect it to deter them either.

- By sheer landmass, Iran could take a lot more punishment from atomic attacks than Israel. Iran's area is over twice that of Texas. Israel is the size of Vermont. There were about 100 atmospheric nuclear tests in Nevada that had very little impact on the inhabitants of that state, although to be fair, none of them were aimed at Las Vegas.

- Radical Islamists might do a lot better living at Stone Age levels for a while than the average Israeli might. Bin Laden can operate from a cave. Can the Israeli parliament?

- On the other hand, I have seen that the leaders of terror movements tend to avoid danger themselves. Maybe that's the saving grace--the mullahs and other terror leaders are quite happy to see other Muslims die to destroy enemies, but not them. You don't see Zarqawi or Arafat wrapping bombs around themselves.

Something to watch for: construction of shelters in Iran for the leadership. Bad news.

- Iran seems fixated on missile delivery. Considering the common wisdom that bombs are best delivered by cargo container, one wonders why they bother.

- Israel is taking missile defense systems VERY seriously.

- That mullah's statement is still out there, made quite some time ago. The mullah is still holding a high position in Iran, and he was the one who announced the new missiles. Not good.