All you're saying is that Saddam called the USA's bluff and was wrong and it was disastrous. That could EASILY have happened with an attempt by the US to demand inspections from Russia.

Um, no, because the USSR had no reason to think and be correct in thinking it served a useful role for the USA which meant the threats were bluffs that were best ridden out lest it damage both allies' long-term goals.

I read "it" in "it served a useful role" as referring to "demanding inspections". And I took "which meant the threats were bluffs" to mean "in the hypothetical involving the USSR, the threats were bluffs". Because the prior clause had clearly established that you were talking about the USSR. Maybe instead of accusing me of bad faith, you could actually try to clear up the confusion. I'll be downvoting your posts until you do. It would be nice if you could write your sentence with correct and clear grammar, especially when dealing with complex compound sentences, and if you can't be bothered to do so, then don't complain about people having trouble parsing your sentences. When there's a failure in communication, attributing all of the blame to the other person is a very anti-rationalist position to take.

By removing one potential way for it to be a bluff, the probability of being a bluff necessarily falls

You didn't merely say that the probability is lower; you presented it as a logical certainty.

'He' is Saddam. Obviously. That was how the comment thread started and what I was objecting to and I even name Saddam in the same paragraph you claim to be confused by!

You said that Punoxysm asserted that Saddam did it for irrational reasons. I don't think that it is entirely clear as to what statement by Punoxysm you consider to be the making that assertion. If I had been unclear about who you were talking about, I would have said who, rather than what.