We know that Saddam is willing to tolerate & provide certain forms of support to terrorists who harry his enemies: for example, compensating the families of suicide bombers, sheltering Palestinian militants.

Supporting these groups actually strengthens Saddam's position in Iraq & in the region. After all, the Arab "street" by & large regards Palestinian militants as "freedom fighters."

Moreover, low-tech attacks on Israel by Hamas & Hezbollah represent no threat to Saddam. As long as they remain low-tech movements focused on Israel & indebted to Baghdad, they can only help Saddam.

But the best part is that, while Saddam's reaping the benefits of backing scruffy West Bank suicide bombers, he can intimidate regional rivals with his supposed weapons of mass destruction & his demonstrated willingness to use them when challenged (by Kurdish rebels, Iranian invaders, etc.).

These are the pillars of Saddam's regional influence & his potential for real regional power, someday: posing both as a hero of the Arab "Street" & a strongman capable of raining mass death down on rebels or invaders.

But what if one of these pillars collapsed into the other? What if Saddam went beyond backing low-tech assaults on Israel, & actually shared weapons of mass destruction with some band of terrorists?

Let's assume that he wouldn't be stupid enough to share such weapons with a group that openly opposes his rule--say it was a group like Hamas or Hezbollah, & they proposed to use their newfound destructive potential against Israel or the U.S.

Neither of Saddam's pillars would be left standing, & his potential for regional power would crumble.

Why?

First, because he would have at the very least risked overwhelming retaliation (as we've discussed).

Second, because he would have undermined his regional monopoly on the said weapons of mass destruction (& the demonstrated willingness to use them). This would pose another specific risk to Saddam's standing (&, potentially, his survival)--a risk that we've lately come to calling "blowback."

Saddam would on both scores be risking everything. What "reward" would be worth that dual risk?