dominic said:
i think the issues are distinct only on paper.
The two are separate. Being a nuclear state does not mean you are arming terrorists with nuclear weapons (cf. Pakistan).
that is, the very same fear that bush exploited in attempting to justify the invasion of iraq (that saddam would arm osama w/ wmd) seems to have a much firmer basis in reality with respect to a nuclear iran arming hezbollah and other groups
Okay, let's say that that is true. Ask yourself this, though: would an Israeli/US attack, surgical or not, increase or decrease long-term radical Islamist desire to launch terrorist nuclear attacks? As you say, M.A.D is less of a deterrent when fighting suicide bombers, and we have seen that violent repression only increases the Islamist base.
again, it is not at all clear that a nuclear north korea is contrary to u.s. interests in the far east.
North Korea seems to me more trigger-happy than others, which is perhaps why the international community is letting the country starve to death?
but a nuclear iran would pose a direct challenge to u.s. primacy in the persian gulf
I'm not so sure about that. Would they be able to effectively fight against the US? Doubtful. Nuclear weapons don't make you all-powerful.
avoiding a u.n.-imposed sanctions regime could only be in the short-term interests of iran, the very short term.
Considering what they did in Iraq...
further, i doubt that most countries would be willing to participate in a sanctions regime against iran, given the debacle that was made of iraq . . . .
Possibly. If the IAEA gets to do its job, it might not have to come to that.