Commenter “Keith” wrote:

… [T]he mullahs have had the ability for some time to put a dirty bomb on the Temple Mount or Tel Aviv . Dirty bomb would actually be more worser than a true nuclear device because of the isotopes involved . 1000 years without the wailing wall.

They have not done so. Maybe we should have just left the crazies alone. We could always kill them later.

I think that sounds like a topic worth tackling.

First, on the dirty bomb question:

While it remains doubtful that Iran has developed a nuclear weapons capability, it is widely believed to have access to sufficient radioactive material for use in dirty bombs, particularly from civilian nuclear and industrial sources.

Unlike nuclear weapons that require fissile materials such as uranium or plutonium, dirty bombs can be assembled using radioactive isotopes from civilian sources such as cesium?137, cobalt?60, or americium?241, paired with conventional explosives. Though not designed for mass lethality, a well-placed dirty bomb can cause localized surface contamination, psychological trauma, and economic disruption, as well as significant cleanup costs …

Depending on their size, most dirty bombs and similar devices can only impact an area the size of 1-2 city blocks, but winds can disperse the radioactive particles over a few square miles …

This potential form of asymmetric escalation fits within Iran’s doctrine of warfare and long-standing reliance on proxy actors, offering a plausible but risky retaliatory tool, should Tehran perceive that it faces an existential threat …

The article mentions that Iran could use Hezbollah or the Houthis as the conduit. It also states what is rather obvious, which is that fear of massive retaliation – perhaps nuclear retaliation – could also discourage a dirty bomb’s use. In my opinion, that’s one reason why Iran has been so eager to pursue its own conventional nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles – to finesse such retaliation.

In addition, the article points out that a dirty bomb could end up hurting Israel’s Muslim neighbors, because the radiation is difficult to control and unpredictable.

Therefore, I don’t think it’s at all surprising that Iran has never used a dirty bomb. I also think – as I’ve written before – that Iran’s leaders are somewhat unpredictable because they display a mix of pragmatism and of extreme apocalyptic fanaticism. Which tendency will win out, and when? We can’t afford to risk finding out if it’s the apocalyptic fanaticism, but does the current war increase or decrease that danger? Iran is also not just a self-contained tyranny only affecting the Iranian people, but has ambitions (some of which have already been carried out) of takeover of other countries and the spread of worldwide Islamic terrorist jihadism against other Muslim counties and the West.

Here’s another relevant article:

[Trump’s] methods [of deal-making] have produced impressive results in all sorts of unexpected areas, but for them to work, his counterparts need to be rational actors capable of understanding and acting in their own self interest.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is not a rational actor.

From its very earliest inception, the Islamic Republic of Iran has mirrored founder Ayatollah Khomeini’s belief that the United States (“the Great Satan”) and Israel (“the Little Satan”) are affronts to Islam that must be fought and destroyed. Catspaws Hezbollah and Hamas believe that the founding of Israel (“the Zionist entity”) was a literal affront to God that must be expunged through violent jihad. …

And don’t forget that Iran’s fundamentalist Twelver Shiia regime has devout apocalyptic eschatological beliefs about the return of the occulted Mahdi, one in which the Islamic Republic will create the conditions to hasten his return and reign before the Day of Judgment. Asking them to stop supporting terrorism in the wake of bombing and hyperinflation is like asking an Evangelical to give up their belief in the Rapture and the Second Coming in order to lower their gasoline bill. By the standards of economics, traditional geopolitics and game theory, they cannot be considered “rational actors.”

Some observers have argued that the U.S. has already “won” the war against Iran by shattering its nuclear program, decapitating its leadership and destroying numerous military assets while taking extremely few casualties. But the United States won just about every battle it fought in Afghanistan and Vietnam, but still lost those wars by letting its adversaries survive.

We’re not going to be putting boots on the ground in Iran. It’s a big country with a deeply entrenched (and somewhat decentralized) military, and ruthlessly devoted to putting down dissent in a violent manner. Regine change is probably necessary for victory, but at this point I don’t see how it can be achieved, or how regime change for the better could be guaranteed. But leaving the regime in place just kicks the can down the road.

Without such change, this sort of thing is inevitable:

Alarming new satellite images show signs that the Iranian regime appears to be rebuilding its suspected nuclear facilities at Pickaxe Mountain and Parchin.

Footage of both areas – which sustained extensive damage during US and Israeli-led bombing campaigns that began in late February – reveal “major signs” of activity …

The regime puts these efforts very high on its “must do” list.