Rosner raises an interesting question:
It is also easy to forget that what makes Iran dangerous is not merely its pursuit of nuclear weapons but, rather, its campaign for regional hegemony, which is emboldened by nuclear development. In his Cairo speech, President Barack Obama reaffirmed "America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons." But until that goal is reached, there are big differences among the various nations armed with nukes. What makes Iran different is the goal that country is pursuing, not the means it is using. This is why Iran--and not France or India--turned out to be what experts call "one of the most critical national security challenges facing the United States."
In my conversations with leaders of moderate Arab states, it became clear to me that many of them want Ahmadinejad to stay president: His rhetoric helps makes their case that Iran is a danger to them. They don't expect Iran to change under new, more "moderate" leadership, because national security and foreign policy are not in the hands of the president, in any case.
Me, I'm slightly more hopeful than that: Maybe something extraordinary is brewing, and maybe the ayatollahs are learning that they are truly out of step with many of their people. One can hope.