separating apples from apples

In the course of reinvigorating its wartime footing in the Middle East, the United States and its allies are starting, as usual, with the comparatively 'distant' bombing campaign used in the past. As yet there are "no (very visible) boots on the ground." The object of the bombing is the Islamic State, a militant Islamic body whose numbers are not numbered and whose attractiveness is always treated as bogus and cruel and inimical even as it somehow gains adherents who are also not numbered.

In the course of rounding up the latest 'coalition of the willing' -- countries willing the lend a supportive hand in the attack on IS -- the U.S. has solicited help from Iran, a country which, six or eight months ago, was roundly attacked by the U.S. for trying to make the kind of uranium that might be used in an atomic bomb. [Scientific studies I cannot immediately find suggest that even if Iran did make a nuclear weapon, it would probably take at least 10 years. Further, no one in the U.S. suggests that we squeeze or vet a sovereign Israel in the same way.]

As to Iran, it seems the bad guy on the could-be nuclear front can be the good guy when it comes to routing the Islamic State. The two cannot be linked, the White House has asserted in a statement that might make a Jesuit's jaw drop:

[White House Press Secretary Josh] Earnest said the effort by world powers, including the United States, to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program is "entirely separate" from President Barack Obama's attempts to build a coalition against Islamic State.
"The United States will not be in the position of trading aspects of Iran's nuclear program to secure commitments to take on ISIL," Earnest said, using an acronym for Islamic State (IS).

Let's not compare oranges with oranges.