I doubt they would initiate a nuclear strike, knowing it means their annihilation.
Also, most modern statements by Iran focus on the "Zionist regime", not the literal killing of the residents of Israel. You can find similar rhetoric in the United States about the CCP.
> what is certain is Iran has stated they intend to use nuclear weapons
Is that certain? When have they said that?
If someone with a gun holstered at their waist asked you to give you your money, would you refuse?
If Iran will get access to nuclear weapons, it's status in international politics will change drastically, all leverages the west has on Iran (like the ability to impose sanctions upon human right violations and counter their violent export of the shiite ideology) will more or less disappear
I don't think that the middle east, being an unstable region to begin with, would benefit from yet such a major destabilizing factor.
Iran has an ability to inflict much more damage upon the west than NK and Pakistan combined. It is an oil rich country, neighbor to the one of the biggest oil exporters in the world and is located in the center one of the busiest naval traffic routes.
Your other points rely on a rational actor... rational actors don't take freight ships hostage nor kidnap tourists.
Israel has kidnapped tourists before. Vanunu is still trapped in Israel.
Where has Iran said that they intend to use nuclear weapons?
Mordechai Vanunu? His situation is quite a bit different than kidnapping a tourist that literally has done nothing to Iran except show up - or a freight ship traversing international waters. Vanunu leaked a ton of nuclear secrets about Israel and fled - ie, he was no tourist and your point makes no sense.
Whataboutism isn't a good reason to excuse Iran's extremely poor international behavior, nor condone their relentless threats against Israel and other nations (including the US). Nor does whataboutism excuse Iran's direct funding of terrorist groups that have killed Americans and other nationals alike.
With all these discussions, it's important to note the regime of Iran is not the people of Iran. The people are likely amazing and full of culture and history - the regime is oppressive and aggressive, which is not tolerated in modern times.
Nothing to do with the discussion here, just a random thought on the Vanunu matter.
I think there are parallels with Iran, in that a lot of BS & insane rhetorical bluster we hear(d) feed the base so they can maintain power. They need to keep the religious base flustered and angry at an enemy to maintain their own power.
Sorry that's probably too much editorializing for HN but it's extremely farcical on its face.
https://time.com/4437089/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-nukes/
I'd wager the US will dismantle it's nuclear weapons the day other nations stop seeking to produce nuclear weapons. ie, this will never happen.
The US, China, Russia, India, UK, etc having nuclear weapons is a lot less of a threat to global security than a nation-state such as Iran, which vows to destroy it's surrounding nations every chance it gets.
The history of humans has been rife with armed conflict. It's an anomaly that the last 70 years have not seen massive global armed conflict, particularly in the "digital age". Perhaps nations that have nuclear weapons, but don't desire to use them are the reason? Perhaps not... but what is certain is Iran has stated they intend to use nuclear weapons, and that's not ok by anyone.