The article's last paragraph, in fact, can be seen as encouraging of diplomacy, as well as sanctions, and it offers a quality alternative to armed action, albeit one that I don't necessarily agree with.

Iran is obstinate, paranoid and ambitious. But it is also vulnerable. A young population with no memory of the revolution is desperate for jobs its leaders have failed to provide. Sanctions that cut off equipment for its decrepit oilfields or struck hard at the financial interests of the regime and its protectors in the Revolutionary Guards would have an immediate impact on its own assessment of the cost of its nuclear programme. That on its own is unlikely to change the regime's mind. If at the same time Iran was offered a dignified ladder to climb down--above all a credible promise of an historic reconciliation with the United States--the troubled leadership of a tired revolution might just grab it. But time is short.

I don't see a nuclear armed Iran as any worse than a nuclear Pakistan, for instance.  While Pakistan is in the "Western camp" at present, its situation as such is precarious at best.  So, I don't see the failure of diplomacy or sanctions as requiring an armed response to Iran's ambitions.  I do, by the way, believe that Iran will not stop at development of a peaceful nuclear capability and fully intends to develop weapons. To what end, no one can be certain, but it is quite possible that it will do so for leverage against Israel and the US.  But no one wins in a nuclear war and Iran is unlikely to risk one over ideology.  

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears