You could say the US thinks the current Iranian leadership is too religiously zealous. But the US (and UK) overthrew Iran's secular parliament in 1953 and installed a dictator by bankrolling the ayatollahs, such as Mohammad Behbahani ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... ).
We here talk of a danger to Israel...what about a danger to the Iranians, who have lived there for a long time and now have to contend with millions of Jews who moved into the region in the past decades from Russia and Brooklyn, displacing Palestinians. Who are nuclear armed themselves - but bringing that into the discussions of a peace plan is off the table apparently - Jews from Brooklyn new to the Middle East can have the bomb, Iranians who have been there for thousands of years are restricted even in having nuclear power. Podhoretz is right about one thing - the situation will not hold forever. When it changes, it will probably not be in a manner he will be happy with.
Podhoretz wrote in February 2002 that "There is no doubt that Saddam already possesses large stores of chemical and biological weapons, and may ... be 'on the precipice of nuclear power.' ... Some urge that we ... concentrate on easier targets first. Others contend that the longer we wait, the more dangerous Saddam will grow. Yet whether or not Iraq becomes the second front in the war against terrorism, one thing is certain: there can be no victory in this war if it ends with Saddam Hussein still in power."