Saddam's Nukes?

David Frum's brother-in-law asks:

What's the big holdup on Iran and its nukes? Concerns about stability?

Concerns that the Euros might get upset?  Some of them will. Some of them will pretend like they are.  A number of them have indicated they have no problem.  Anyway, who cares what they think? If we cared what they think, we'd be worrying about Saddam Hussein’s nukes as well as Iran's nukes right now.

Is Crittenden saying that Saddam would have already reconstituted nuclear weapons if we had decided not to invade in 2003? Just asking ...

I might add that the one consequence of bombing Iran that does not seem to have occurred to him is that it might well lead to the Iranian public's rallying to its regime, and a massive boost to Jihadist propaganda across the Muslim world, with concomitant increase in terror. No one doubts that Iran's regime is a force for instability in the Middle East - although nothing has done more to set back stability and democracy in recent years than the bungled occupation of Iraq. But the fact that some neocons even now seem utterly indifferent to the need to defang Jihadism rather than inflame it is a function of a mindset that is not interested in learning from its own mistakes.