(via Parapundit) In this National Review article, Stanley Kurtz lays out his arguments attacking Iraq.   Kurtz earlier wrote this Policy Review article I raved about here.  In the National Review, Kurtz writes:

Let me tell you the truth about our reasons for invading Iraq. We are not invading Iraq to protect the credibility of the United Nations. We are not invading Iraq to bring democracy to the Arab world. We are not invading Iraq to save the Iraqi people from poverty and oppression. The reason we are invading Iraq is to prevent Saddam Hussein from obtaining nuclear weapons. [emphasis mine]

That's it.  Pure and Simple.  There are potentially a few questions revolving around direct and indirect causality (for ex., an Iraqi democracy helps prevent proliferation in the future) but the end goal is still keeping nukes out of those hands.

The remainder of Kurtz's article describes the implications of a Saddam with nuclear capability.   His first argument is the now classic one made by most observers here -- that Saddam could pass them on to terrorists for a nuclear 9/11.

However, his second argument is far more interesting;  instead of the question being "can the US deter Saddam", the question is rather "what happens if Saddam suddenly has the ability to deter the US?"

If he takes Kuwait before we can stop him, he will force the United States to decide between ceding him control of the region's oil supplies, and an invasion that would surely result in a nuclear strike by Saddam against either our troops, our cities, the Saudi oil fields, or all of these.

... What would you do if you were forced to choose between saving the populace of New York City from a possible nuclear strike, and ceding control of the world's oil to Saddam Hussein? Saddam knows that you would hesitate to risk New York, so he is willing to gamble that he can get away with an invasion of Kuwait. In fact, he has already told his aides that his big mistake in Kuwait was not waiting until he had a nuclear device to invade.  [emphasis mine]

It angers me to think that there are circles, domestically and internationally, who actually have a deep seated enchantment towards the idea of a new Deterrant to US actions.