Excellent piece, destor. I agree that, while nuclear proliferation is not at all desirable, the world could in a pinch live with a nuclear-armed Iran. We've done it with India, Pakistan, North Korea and, yes, Israel. There is no way that one or two hypothetical Iranian bombs is more of a danger to the world than the 100-plus that fundamentalist Pakistan is known to possess. 

The fact is, however, that we don't have to live with an Iranian bomb. The U.S. intelligence assessment is that Iran has not begun a weapons program, Supreme Leader Khamenei has disavowed any desire for a bomb, and the IEAE has found no evidence of uranium diversion. I believe Iran does want to have "breakout" capability -- the know-how to cobble together a weapons program in a year or two if things go seriously downhill. Like, for example, if there's an actual Israeli attack this spring.

What we in the West have to realize is that Iran won't negotiate away their right to enrich uranium. What they might agree to is caps on the degree of enrichment and an even more in-depth inspection regime, in exchange for an end to sanctions and warlike acts against the Iranian state (assassinations, drone spying, funding of militant separatists).

The Israelis and Saudis are looking for something more: an abject, humiliating surrender that takes Iran out of the Middle Eastern balance of power. They won't get it, and that shouldn't be a goal that we in the West lock ourselves into.