I am not at all convinced that Iran has deployable nuclear weapons. It may well be the case that they are close to being able to construct a first generation nuclear weapon, but it not necessarily the case that it is sufficiently small and light to be deployable. The necessary technology to miniaturise a nuclear warhead is very difficult to develop. I hope that before we make a pre-emptive strike, there is some informed debate about the realistic danger of Iranian weapons and that we don't glibly launch an attack based on another "dodgy dossier" of ill-informed and incomplete and paranoid intelligence data, stirred up to a frenzy by ignorant tabloid press.
In a wider context, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty needs to be renegotiated. It is absurd that Israel - a non-signatory - is allowed to keep nuclear weapons simply because it did not sign the treaty, whereas Iran is threatened with pre-emptive strikes for being in breach of the treaty. Moreover, the "haves" have not lived up to their side of the treaty - namely to disarm - whereas the "have nots" such as Iran are threatened with attacks because they may not have stuck to their side of the treaty.
Finally, there will never be any peace in the Middle East until the Israel-Palestine situation is resolved, and that means putting substantial pressure on Israel. Trying to blame Iran for regional instability is a red-herring.