Why not let Iran have their Nukes?

I am puzzled as to why world leaders are so eager to negotiate with Iran, seemingly obsessed with preventing them from building nuclear weapons. What would Iran do with an atomic bomb if they had one? This is not to lend credence to their dubious claims of "peaceful purposes."

More than likely, there are half a dozen countries targeting Iran with multiple, tested and proven warheads. Before a nuclear-armed rocket leaves Iranian airspace, one can imagine an arsenal of supersonic nuclear missiles speeding their way towards the land of the magic carpet, rendering it uninhabitable for 26,000 years. Of course, the Iranian missile would have bounced off of Israel's Iron Dome and likely ricocheted back onto their own lands.


But haven't we been through this before? The "Nuclear Winter" with no winners, only radioactive losers? What am I missing?

Some would argue Hezbollah would have the capability of arming maniacal terrorists with miniature bombs hidden in the most unlikely places, raring to strike infidels wherever they dwelt. But wouldn't the finger of guilt still point directly at Iran - culpable or not?

It surprises me Iran, or any other country for that matter would wish to assume the risks of joining the doomsday club. Being a nuclear power is a burden without any tangible military or defensive rewards. It plays directly into the hands of their sworn enemies while distancing themselves from their scarce allies.

Why are so many resources being devoted to these inane negotiations, endlessly arguing about how many centrifuges Iran should be allowed to keep? Next they'll be debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Wouldn't the world's interests be better served by calling Iran's bluff, patiently waiting for sanctions to further erode their already crumbling economy? The political instability that would eventually ensue just may force them to reconsider their nuclear clouded ambitions.