"It's strange how Iran attracts far more attention than Pakistan.
Iranians want to modernize, westernize , but it's in Pakistan that the Taliban were created, Pakistan has the bomb (their engineers being from the Islamist networks) and it's in Pakistan that journalist Daniel Pearl was killed."

Well, one thing is I've heard the leader of Pakistan speak and explain what his intentions are and how he feels in regards to the US and the West in general. Whereas with Iran I've heard the foreign minister speak, and what he said seemed reasonable, but I don't recall, nor could I even recognize the leader of Iran.
Speaking to the public and what a leader says in public is important in terms of how the rest of the world percieves the possible intentions or desired direction in which a country is going towards.
Another aspect is that even though a leader may say one and then do another, it still important as far as potential direction that leadership may take. Now if the leadership is constantly saying one thing and doing another, then that leadership will evenually lose crediblity, but until that "stage" has been reached, the audience should allow at least some benefit of doubt. This doesn't conflict with the notion that one should be skeptical of what any leader says- regardless of how trustworthy they may appear- power does corrupt and in a sense you are helping leaders by being skeptical rather blindingly accept whatever they say.