Someone needs to brush up on their history a bit.
When there's at least one "superpower" in charge, things are pretty chill.
I would say when there's an empire with hegemony, things are pretty chill within the core of the empire. The rest of the world doesn't live in peace because Britain or America decides they're the sole power governing the world. Actually, the empire tends to stir the pot by hoarding resources and causing inequities elsewhere, conducting proxy wars against lesser powers, punishing those who do not go along with the will of the empire, etc.
Just because we had the werewithall to call ourselves a "hegemon" doesn't make us any less of an empire, and we certainly haven't been benevolent, in other words things were not and are not "pretty chill" for the majority of the world.
When the "superpower" falls you don't get utopia, you get a warring states period.
Really? I didn't think the wars actually stopped. You must mean wars among countries that matter....spare me the democratic peace research, that only applies to wars between democracies, not democracies and any other government type, and those tend to be quite frequent.
What you will see is the next empire fighting for supremacy, perhaps an actual large scale war, though I doubt it. In this case the winner will be China, followed closely by India, perhaps with another hot/cold war period as those two juggernauts duke it out for international supremacy.
The "superpower" isn't more enlightened, they just know that it is in their best interest (and they have self preservation as one of those interests) to have some restraint and civility. Get into a warring states situation and it's every bastard for themselves in a no-holds-barred deathmatch.
Restraint and civility? Hardly. What you get is an empire/hegemon that takes what it wants, forces it's will on others, and shows very little in the way of restraint or civility, sometimes even to its allies. Unilateralism at its finest. Anyhow, its interesting how you try to bring it back to Hobbes at the end, though I'm not sure he would agree you. He, and most realists, would classify all of time as a no holds barred death match, not just the inter-empire period.
To the point of the article: There isn't much we can do about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. If they've been able to obtain the technology and equipment under heavy sanctions further sanctions are unlikely to have the desired effect. I think it's high time we stop meddling in the internal affairs of other states. We participated heavily in the arms race in the Middle East, I don't see how we have any right to say what they can and cannot acquire, especially after we armed Israel to the teeth.