>the alternative to "liberal hegemony" in places like Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria is nuclear proliferation

The West persuaded Qaddafi to give up his nukes, then a few years went by, then the West helped Libyan rebels overthrow Qaddafi, resulting in his violent death. Since the world was watching, good luck now trying to persuade any other leader to give up his nukes in the future.

I'm not objecting to the West's having persuaded Qaddafi to give up his nukes; I'm objecting to the West's putting him in mortal peril after he cooperated to give up his nukes. (Much of the help given to the rebels consisted of Western bombers attacking Libyan governmental installations. If Libya still had nukes, the West would not have dared to use their bombers in that way.)

So, explain to me again how the agenda and approach I am criticizing (which has been called "liberal hegemony") helps control nuclear proliferation.

Also: I always thought that any attempt to obtain a nuke by the leadership of Iraq ended before the US took over that country.