I can sum up that post with one phrase:

"I want a pony."

Seriously, is this conversation about the real world or a fantasy world? In the real world, the US has nuclear weapons. It shouldn't use them for its defense? That's a fantasy solution, because it fails the primary responsibility of a government: protect its people.

To that end, is the US safer if Iran and the rest of the middle east go nuclear?
Obviously, the answer is no.

So, what is true?

Certainly, the US has far more nuclear weapons than it need. Certainly, it should say it will not use them offensively. That is a very reasonable position to advocate--I'd agree with that wholeheartedly.

Do you disagree with the basic premises of my post?
1) Nuclear weapons are dangerous.
2) Ensuring that they are properly tracked, accounted for, and not accidentally used is a difficult, and relatively undersolved problem.
3) Having more countries with them multiplies the danger that an accident will happen.
4) The middle east is already unstable--would adding nuclear weapons make it more stable?
5)Does "mutual assured destruction" even work in a multi-party balance?

Nobody knows the answer to #5--and really, the consequences of being wrong are too awful to contemplate.