Your points are well taken. However I dont think we can analyze the Middle East the same way we analyze the rest of the world. The countries surrounding Israel have invaded them without warning in the past. Many of Israel's neighbors have sworn 'death to Israel'. They are under constant suicide attack. Israel is also the only nuclear country in the world that has had ballistic missiles fired at it while it possessed nuclear weapons. The only reason Israel did not retaliate and nuke Saddam during Gulf War I was due to restraints placed on it from the coalition. Do you think if ballistic missiles were launched from Russia to the US that we would sit back and send scientist to the impact areas to look for signs of WMD ? No we would not. We would launch retaliation before the Russian missiles reached their apex. Israel has already shown it will strike first to prevent their neighbors from becomming nuclear. So it is clear that no one in the Middle East can pound their chests and say they have acquired nuclear weapons if they actually have. Israel would instantly try to destroy the nuclear capability with a first strike. Judging by their past behavior, we would probably realize that one of these middle eastern countries was about to go nuclear by examining the aftermath of the Israeli strikes. Chemical weapons are another story. A launching of chemical weapons can be survived and Israel is the best equipped country on the planet for surviving such an attack. No one in their right state of mind would fire chemicals at Israel without expecting retalitory nuclear annihilation. The remaining threats are biological and dirty nuclear. If the radical Islamic terrorists are going to utilize WMD on Israel, Western Europe Southern Russia or the US coalition, it will probably be biological or dirty nukes.
France really needs to start worrying. The Chirac and Saddam deal was much like Hitler and Stalins. Now that Saddam is gone, there is nothing France can do for the radical Islamic Front. Taking over the French Government along with its nuclear capabilities is the best option radical Islam has. The Russians have shown the capability to defend their home turf. France has not.
You make very interesting points too. Israel would most certainly not tolerate a nuclear hostile nation on its borders, particularly Syria. But wouldn't that give some credence to my theory ? Given the excellent penetration of Israeli intelligence service (as proved by the Osirak raid and many other operations), surely Israel would have acted if they thought the Syrian proposal was backed by any nuclear capability.
As for Israel not retaliating during the first Iraq war, the country showed a remarkable restraint, that's for sure, and that tells a lot about this country's nerves and its confidence in its allies. The modified FROG missiles fired at Israel could have easily been met with a devastating response, although I don't know if Israel would have fired nuclear missiles.
Finally, I have to entirely disagree with you regarding Islam and France. I know it's a popular theory - probably because of its sensationalism - but there's absolutely no fact to back it up. My country is not in the verge of a Islamic takeover, neither in the streets nor in the corridors of the Elysee Palace. This country - and particularly in its institutions - is Catholic. This Republic, for all her secularism, if of Judeo-Christian stock. Don't you think that Islamic radicals willing to go nuclear could more easily pry into Pakistan arsenals ?