The concept of a nuclear standoff between 'responsible' nation states has proved to be successful in the past. No matter the alarm felt by those looking over the ever near cliff edge of total annihilation through the Cold War period, the concept of mutually assured destruction was sufficiently grim to ensure against total strikes by both sides although regional conflicts fought by proxy were a collateral effect. This does not however negate the fact that the homelands of both sides were enjoyed 'peace' for fifty years.

A stand off with Iran along the same lines then is not out of the question. Nuclear strikes enjoy the advantage that they need not discriminate between leaders and their peoples. A sufficiently large nuclear strike will be in most situations take out the very same ruling elite that took what course of action got them into that situation in the first place, either that or after the strike what is left to govern is insufficiently small to contain their future aspirations for power. In fact it might be the case that nuclear standoffs foster a degree of maturity in a leadership. Its not just about losing a couple of assets at the periphery of your control, the leadership are just as vulnerable. The India Pakistan situation is perhaps a point in fact.