Of course - nobody has any intention of actually dropping nukes on anyone.
It's about power and leverage, and Iran's ability to project their dominance towards destabilizing and overthrowing House of Saud, and maybe disrupting/overthrowing Israel some day as well.
Since House of Saud actually has nukes (they paid for Pakistani program so that 'in a time of need' nukes will magically appear in their arsenal) all of this is bad for everyone.
In the 'balance of power' it actually makes a tiny bit of sense that 'small actor surrounded by 10 enemies', Israel, has 'secret nukes' because from a strategic perspective, it would be suicidal for them to use in anything other than an existential scenario of defence. If they were not building homes in Occupied Territories, I think more people would probably more readily acknowledge their defensive requirements. Also of course the fact that most people alive today don't have living memory of the many times Israel was invaded/fought wars with direct neighbours, many times bigger than it, and the outcomes were never going to be clear.
It would be better for everyone if Iran just gave up it's nuclear ambitions - there is zero chance anyone is going to invade them, they could join the rest of the world and start using their Oil dollars to buy plastic junk from China and software from the US, and physical gear from Germany - just like the rest of us - their people can be much wealthier, and we could all get along.
Definitely would improve their international stature if they stopped occupying, but they are still a state organized around an ethnic group.
---
Serious question: at what point is it no longer rational to return land wrongfully taken? To displace millions of people and remove their right to self-govern? Practically every nation in existence came to be by taking land from someone at some point.
I agree that the "right of return" thing was BS. But it happened. I think the best course of action now is figure out how to move forward without wronging even more people.
This is not about long-ago occurences, this is about active steps Israel is taking now to maintain their status as an ethnostate.
Now we fear the theocratic muslims because their fanaticism is stronger than their sense of self preservation.
It turns out this is all propaganda, no state is keen on destroying the world, and it's entirely rational for a country under constant threat like Iran (or Israel) to want nuclear weapons.
No, it's really not. It's akin to citizens wanting to walk around with ARs in case they need to defend themselves. No, worse, because at least an AR wont annihilate everyone around you after you're already dead.
The value in having nuclear weapons is the threat that you could spitefully take your opponents out with you. The danger in having nuclear weapons is that some day it could actually happen.
Mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent. It's an eventuality - one which we should be vigilantly protecting against.
Unlike other nuclear states, Iran is governed by religious zealots.
In that case their highest religious authority has issued a fatwa against weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, and since they're religious zealots they would honour that fatwa.
So they're either very religious, and should pose no danger because of that, or they're not very religious, in which case they would pose no danger.
We didn't start WWIII when Kruschev banged his shoe at the UN like a maniac, it would also be a bad idea to do it over Iran's posturing.
The US killed their national hero last year and we got a measured, proportionate response rather than lighting Iraq on fire.
Trying to pre-emptively "bomb Iran into the stone age" would not only be barbaric, it would result in a hail of scuds hitting Tel Aviv. You don't want that.