I agree that it does cover the substantive points, which is the kind of discussion I'd want to see in response to my post.

I cannot/would not argue that we could be sure the "right" hands could always maintain control of the button, should Iran obtain nuclear weapons. That is a strong point. However, I don't see (and this was what I liked most about Zakaria's article) how further violence from us, in a "region where war is as much a norm as peace," can be the answer, especially when we would have little to no support for another such strike. Not out of the middle of nowhere, and certainly not to make Obama look tougher.

My point, and, I feel, Zakaria's point, is that we will be fighting them for eons if WE don't make some attempt at helping them reform the region. They certainly aren't going to change tomorrow, by any means, but attacking Iran currently would bring about the cascading results he discussed (and make it harder for any sort of positive reform in the future):

"But this does not change the powerful calculus against a military strike, which would most likely delay the Iranian program by only a few years. And then there are the political consequences. The regime would gain support as ordinary Iranians rally around the flag. The opposition would be forced to support a government under attack from abroad. The regime would foment and fund violence from Afghanistan to Iraq and across the Persian Gulf. The price of oil would skyrocket -- which, ironically, would help Tehran pay for all these operations."