Iranian Proliferation

Today in the Times Nick Kristof notes that Iran continues to push for nuclear weapon capability, and that our response is likely to get increaslingly tough with the regime. He also writes:

A tougher approach toward Iran isn't partisan, and a President Kerry might also pursue a more confrontational, albeit more multilateral, approach to Iran.

But that would be a mistake.

He goes on to note that doing so would only make the Mullahs stronger with their street, and that UN-backed sanctions also will not work. His solution:

We should vigorously pursue a “grand bargain” in which, among other elements, Iran maintains its freeze on uranium enrichment and we establish diplomatic relations and encourage business investment, tourism and education exchanges.

“What would destroy the conservatives [in Iran] would be a money flood” of American investment, says Hooshang Amirahmadi, the president of the American Iranian Council. “In just a few years, the conservatives would be finished.”

Ok. But are these two things—proliferation and connectedness—mutually exclusive? If anything, I would expect greater connection to the global political economy would increase the desire for nuclear capability as a marker of global legitimacy. So for me, the real question is: do you rest easier knowing the world has a liberal and open Iran that also has nuclear weapons (along with Pakistan and India, just across the way)?