See, the real question... and the disapointing one that nobody bothered to ask is....

"Is it really possible to keep nuclear weapons away from these countries forever? If not, is there that much value in stalling for a decade or so?

Iran unlike Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea has signed up to the NPT so it' not allowed to have nukes however evidence does to point to it trying to do a Japan i.e having the capability to quickly build one should the need arise, in fact Leon Panetta believes this to be the case. It is possible to stop Iran from having this capability but it will most likely require a massive military campaign which will cause the region will go up in flames, think Iraq and Afghanistan together and then times that by 2. Sanctions so far haven't worked. Though the Iranian economy has been badly hurt, they are still able to find ways of selling their oil mainly to Asian nations in particular the one's not in the US orbit of influence like India and China.

From a purely Western perpsective there is point in stalling Iran acquiring the know how to build nukes because it gives the West more time to build a more technically sophisticated and robust Global ABM network. 10 years is a long time though undoubtly Iran will be improving it's ballistic missile forces in range, accuracy and payload during that time as well. But they won't have anything like the Russians have to defeat the ABM network (i.e quasi ballistic hypersonic TBMs and hypersonic maneuverable ICBMs)

As far as I understand there isn't much of an obligation in terms of disarming - the treaty is strongest in terms of stopping new countries getting weapons and limiting how the weapons can be used.

If you don't spend the rest of your life in jail via the ICC.

Is it just me or does OP seem a little racist towards Arabs and Muslims? I'm not even trolling. This is coming from observing his stance on numerous topics pertaining to the Middle East. Maybe you should befriend some Arabs and Persians, they're the kindest friends I have, and I'm African-Canadian.

Why would you ever use the phrase "African-Canadian", nobody uses this definition.  And why would being from africa and from canada have any relation to how "Arabs and Persians" would be towards you as a friend?

Just watched a video on youtube that may help OP understand why Iran may want nuclear power. Here's the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NMr2VrhmFI

It's a long film, but it helps you get an idea of why our neighbors in the East may feel threatened enough to want to build nuclear weapons. Don't be so quick to call someone aggressive/unstable before hearing their side of the story first.

  Your understanding of world politics is minimal at best...

I do have freinds who came from the Middle east.  Work for a middleastern guy too... none of them want Iran to have Nuclear weapons.

I'm not racist against the middle eastern people.  I'm not a fan of unstable dictatorships having nuclear weapons no matter where they are located.

Wasn't for North Korea having Nuclear weapons either.

If there was a way to get Nuclear weapons away from Belarus, that'd be awesome.

If Iran was a stable democracy mostly free of corruption (Say one that would be listed a "Full Democracy" in the Democracy index) fine.

We should be limiting nuclear weapons to dictatorships because dictatorships are unstable... and are run by peopel who will be put in an unwinnable corner.

Let me break this down for you... This discussion we're having is related to Iran and it's potential nukes AND the West not being fond of this. I stated my ethnicity, and where I was raised, in order to express my neutrality before I made a decision of who I support.

Watch the FULL video I posted about three posts ago. Then tell me America is stable. And PLEASE don't give me that "oh North Korea is unstable so I don't want to hear what they have to say."

Edit - Oh and when you're done watching, tell me how great of a democracy America is - the world would love to know.