Would Iran be as likely to have hit one of these ships if the result was potentially a nuclear meltdown close to their shoreline? It would pretty radically change the costs to them for such an attack, wouldn't it?
Either way, "loss of nuclear material" is the real concern isn't it, instead of just the nature of how that loss happened?
The question still stands. If a country knows they're potentially going to cause a nuclear disaster by hitting one of these ships on their shoreline, are they as likely to shoot at them?
And even among the non-hardliners mistakes are rampant in war. It's not about what they're likely to rationally do, it's about what some local, demoralized missile officer who graduated in the bottom 20% of his class does when he's cut off from command and drinking too much.
If Iran wants to make their country a nuclear wasteland, they don't need to blow up ships to do it. I'd imagine they probably don't want that outcome, but hey I'm not an Iranian so I can't speak for them.
I kind of figured that'd just be a "logical" thing and not necessarily a "cultural" thing, but I agree I don't know all cultures.