Nicho, MAD only applies when both groups are ruled by reason and rationality. When both countries want what's best for their citizens, than neither will use nuclear force against each other. However Iran doesn't fall under that category. They are a theocracy, and do not necessarily want what's best for Iranians as long as they get their way with destroying Israel.
Yet another person who conflates and obfuscates rationality. I'll just quote the delightful Fareed Zakaria:
A number of you asked me whether I agree with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey who described Iran as a “rational actor” on my program a couple of weeks ago.
My answer is: I very much agree with General Dempsey. It’s very important to understand, however, what it means to talk about a “rational actor.” A rational actor is not a reasonable actor. It is not somebody who has the same goals or values as we have.
In international affairs or economics, the term rational actor is used to describe somebody who is concerned about their survival, prosperity or strength and is making calculations on the basis of these concerns. It describes someone who calculates costs and benefits.
We all assume Iran is a rational actor " even the most hawkish people in this debate " when we assume that pressure on Iran will make a difference. We are assuming that Iran is watching the costs of its actions, calculating them and, presumably, will recognize that the costs outweigh the benefits. This is all that it means to say that Iran is a rational actor.
Indeed, Iran has been very calculating in its behavior, far more so than other so-called radical, revolutionary regimes. If you look at Mao’s China, he talked openly about destroying the world and about sacrificing half of China so that global communism could survive. The Iranians never talk like that and they certainly don’t do things like that. Their behavior for 30 years has been calculating. They respond to inducements and pressures in ways that are completely understandable.
Their goals are not ours, of course, but that’s a very different issue.