I fail to see your point. If I read it correctly, the analogy is not about cause, but about effect i.e., the possession of nuclear weapons by both India and Pakistan has (the argument goes) kept them each at bay, which is a good thing. Similarly, possession of nuclear weapons by Iran can have a good effect. That is the argument, as I understand it. I am not sure I agree with the relevance of the analogy in that India and Pakistan were probably restrained in their actions anyway, even before the nuclear capabilities (due to the imbalance of power, presence of democracy, and other reasons). In terms of the reasoning, it does seem that Iran would have a valid point if they are arguing that their possessing a nuclear weapon would restrain Israel (whose actions, we may all agree, are fairly unrestrained at this point). At the least it would prevent Israeli attacks against Iran (a la Iraq).
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/