Third Front: Syria?

Source: CIA World Factbook

No, I am not talking about Syria as the third front among US conflicts (i.e. not Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.)  Instead, I am asking whether the world can handle a third front in the fight against nuclear proliferation (i.e. Iran, North Korea, and Syria.) A Reuters article out today states that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) believes Syria is stonewalling on information requests regarding its nuclear program, but the IAEA is hesitant to make a full court press against another country in the middle of its ongoing battle with Iran. 

There are many who insist the IAEA must press for a Special Inspection in Syria, but the feeling seems to be that the request will be rejected by Syria and this will commit the IAEA and broader global community to engagement on a third front on nonproliferation.

While some may say that the thought of nonproliferation as a two-front war is a great oversimplification (true), others will point out that it is exceedingly difficult to engage the general public in a dialogue about nuclear weapons that goes beyond Iran and North Korea (also true.)

Why isn’t the Syrian case given the same urgency as Iran and North Korea? Is it that the public and policymakers don’t have the attention span for another fight? Is it that Syria, having had its known facility- the Dair Alzour reactor (North Korean design)- bombed to rubble by Israel, is not considered an immediate threat? Is it just that Syria isn’t engaged in a rivalry that risks becoming a hot war that outside powers will necessarily be drawn into? Is it that Syria is viewed as a saner regime than the Ahmedinejad / Cleric  or Kim Jong Il / Kim Jong Un combos? I wonder…?