Neoconservatism and Iran

A reader writes:

The fundamental premise of the neocon argument for attacking Iran is based on two concepts:

1. A nuclear armed Iran, even with a single weapon and little means to deliver it, is a fundamental threat to our nation that cannot be permitted

2. A military strike against Iran will stop them from being able to make a nuclear weapon.

I will grant that, assuming such a strike did in fact wipe out all of Iran's nuclear facilities, on the day after that attack, Iran would find themselves unable to make a nuclear weapon.  What happens on day two?  Day 10?  Day 1000?  Would Iran be progressing towards liberal democracy?  No.  Would Iran have less motivation to possess a nuclear weapon?  No.  Quite the opposite, they'd have indisputable evidence that they were vulnerable and that having a nuclear trump card was vital to their security.

In a neocon world, time stops after we attack. Unfortunately for all of us, they are living in our world, not theirs.

And what if Putin or a future Pakistani leader decides just to give them one anyway, in solidarity after US aggression? I understand the worry about Iran's regime and nukes. It's real. But pretending that no other global powers exist or that mere bombing will solve our fundamental problem with Islamism seems to me to be badly short-sighted.