At this point I would rate an Israeli strike on the known Iranian nuclear facilities as the most likely outcome. Which I also think would be disastrous for the Middle East and probably for Israel. I think a safer course is containment and deterrence, which might require Israel to publicly declare or even demonstrate its nuclear weapons & survivable delivery systems, but which would still be safer than outright warfare that is likely to end with both parties armed with nuclear weapons anyway and – because of the open hostility – much more likely to use them.

I dunno though. The problem that North Korea & Pakistan have shown is that small nuclear states have much more incentive to trade weapons secrets with other small states not involved in their local conflicts in order to share development costs. Large states are not a proliferation risk in the same way because they can individually absorb the cost of weapons development.

The big overarching problem is the lack of anything like a plan for general disarmament (which has to include conventional weapons and a peaceful conflict-resolution mechanism as well as reducing nuclear weapons). We’re headed towards a world in 2100 with dozens of nuclear-armed states, and that’s a recipe for nuclear terrorism or use-it-or-lose-it scenarios for small states. No, I don’t have suggestions for what such a plan would look like.