^^
The flaw with that theory is that an unstable Pakistan is one that is more likely to lose control of one or more nuclear warheads, that could be used in a catastrophic attack against US or western interests.
yes, the plan is to take destablisation to some point where US can intervene to save Pak nukes. and take care of that
**
The US unwillingness to attack Iran already reflects that the US is unwilling to risk actions that could lead to terrorist organisations getting nukes (the US cannot destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities in one go, and does not want to risk Iran retaliating by leaking technology or weapons).
[/quote]
US will not attack iran yet, 1)its heavily engage in tow of Iran neighbouring countries.
2) it suspects to have a response from Iran, US attacks only with almost zero risk policy, as they did in Iraq, - they didnt attack when it had WMD they only did when 10 years sanctions and inspections made sure there are no WMDs taht can be used on US or Israel.
**
These two factors mean that the US has an obvious interest in maintaining a stable Pakistan. If Pakistan's security deteriorates, then so does the US's.
[/quote]
US has apparent interest in maintaining a stable India than Pakistan. They dont worry about Pak nukes, Israel and India are worried. protection of Israel is utmost requirement for US. they want to destablise and devide Pakistan between India and Afghanistan, all working towards it. and certainly they want a non nuke Pakistan.
destablise - a big excuse - save the pak nukes - devide or leave a weaker Pakistan.