I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the value of a handful of nuclear weapons, Michael. Indeed, there was a little colloquium not long ago (I'll try to dredge up the link) on just this subject and the consensus was that a small number of nuclear weapons might well provoke a decapitating strike.

True, I hadn't thought of that. But wouldn't that require knowing where to strike? If Iran had a hand full of nuclear warheads, I doubt they'd keep them all in the same proverbial basket.

I'm thinking less of our circumstances than those of Israel. Israel would be placed in quite a pickle by a nuclear-armed Iran. Israel couldn't survive even a smallish nuclear attack and might well elect total preemptive obliteration of the enemy to the extent that it was in their power rather run the risk of obliteration themselves.

Israel is reputed to have something like 150 nuclear devices.

This is purely a devil's advocate position, but what would really be the harm if Iran got itself some nuclear weapons?

It would mean that the rest of the world must accept the Iranian government as it is. No Iraq-styled regime change would be possible once they have nuclear weapons. It also means the rest of the world would be somewhat more limited in it's options to counter Iranian aggression against it's non-nuclear neighbors.

There's no evidence that Iran would ever launch an unprovoked attack with one.

It's not the nuclear weapons that we would be worried about, it would be an unprovoked attack using conventional weapons because, as I stated above, we're limited in how much we could use our conventional forces to counter it without provoking a nuclear response.

THE IDEA IS LOGICAL AND CERTAINLY WOULD END THE THREAT AND WOES THAT FACE ALL OF US.

SO GLAD TO READ SOMETHING POSITIVE-BASED!

What does one believe?

it would be highly imprudent if they did

Sadly, and in economic terms, this is a very low barrier to entry (very low).