Your 10 reasons are all plausible even persuasive but hardly conclusive as you suggest. I had previously presented counter arguments in this vanity some of which overlaps the post to which you are reacting:
Never mind the Ides of March, beware the Surprises of October
If you take a look at Obama's speech at AIPAC I think you will agree that, as I predicted, he is laying the predicate for a strike or at least he declined to rule out a strike. Moreover, he has abandoned his policy of containment which, in logic, leaves no option but a strike if diplomacy fails as is almost certain. However, I'm not naïve enough to believe that Obama will be controlled by logic on this issue.
I remain of the view that he will be guided exclusively by his own self interests and his rather rigid ideology.
“Moreover, he has abandoned his policy of containment which, in logic, leaves no option but a strike if diplomacy fails as is almost certain.”
There is another option for Obama: Do nothing beyond talk; the option Clinton, Bush, & Obama have pursued in N. Korea. If, as I said, Obama cared nothing for Israel, then that is a perfectly valid option for him.
There are 2 ugly little secrets about nukes that nobody talks about. First, any regime that is serious about obtaining nukes will get them. Second, once you get them, you can't use them except in self defense w/o risking annihilation.
This is why Clinton, Bush, & Obama have done little to stop a determined NK & Iran to develop nukes. They have depended on the MAD theory to protect our interests, & that works quite well with godless commies, but may not work so well with men seeking eternal Paradise.
Of course, as interesting as this is to you & I, it doesn't interest Obama. His focus is on immediate reelection & long term destruction of America. Foreign relations play no part in his plans. The last 3 1/2 years make that clear.