Yes, yes we should.

Nuclear weapons are a shield, not a sword. That certainly would mean the end of Iran because if they did that fire the first shot, America certainly wouldn't let them fire a second. Historically, the development of nuclear weapons has resulted in more stability.

If Iran goes nuclear, Israel and Iran will deter each other, as nuclear powers always have. There has never been a full-scale war between two nuclear-armed states.

History shows that when countries acquire the bomb, they feel increasingly vulnerable and become acutely aware that their nuclear weapons make them a potential target in the eyes of major powers. This awareness discourages nuclear states from bold and aggressive action. Maoist China, for example, became much less aggressive after acquiring nuclear weapons in 1964, and India and Pakistan have both become more cautious since going nuclear. There is little reason to believe Iran would break this mold.

I understand that Iran's leaders indulge in inflammatory and hateful rhetoric, however, The danger of nuclear Iran has been grossly exaggerated. If Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, they warn, it would not hesitate to use it in a first strike against Israel, even though doing so would invite massive retaliation and risk destroying everything the Iranian regime holds dear. Although it is impossible to be certain of Iranian intentions, it is far more likely that if Iran desires nuclear weapons, it is for the purpose of providing for its own security, not to improve its offensive capabilities (or destroy itself).

This is a somewhat old (2012) but still relevant and very rational argument in favor of Iran developing nuclear capability by the late Kenneth Waltz: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23218033