It is a lot of work--an incredible amount.  And maybe to some extent the positions and conclusions will just fall out in the Gnomemoot 0 debates, and in associated diaries like this one.  For example, I found the combination of Jerome's position and Drew's to be thoughtful and credible, particularly taken together:

I'll go on the record, no problem.

I don't see Iran to be a threat to anyone;

I expect their anti-Israel threats to be more rhetoric than anything and I personally think (but I understand Israelis not wanting to make that bet themselves) that they will go along with any real resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict that is acceptable to the Palestinians themselves;

I understand how Iran feels threatened by the USA (a long history of meddling, 2 neighbors invaded, bellicose statements) and sees that those ocuntries with nuclear weapons are "respected" a lot more

I see humongous hypocrisy on the nuclear front, with inconsistent enforcement of treaties, and inconsistent diplomacy towards countries that have not signed the relevant treaties or are in breach (cf Israel, India, Pakistan), and I understand Iran calling this out; Ultimately, our lack of seriousness on the nuclear front dooms us to failure;

I am not even convinced that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a danger.

I agree with the assessments that say Iran's anti-Israel tendencies are all talk.  Israel could turn Iran into a giant sandbox at a moment's notice, and -- let's be honest -- the Israelis make far better soldiers than the Muslims (not that the Muslims don't make better soldiers than I could ever hope to).  As I've said in the past, last time a Muslim country attacked Israel, it didn't work out so well.
This is a major reason for why I think the US should take the advantage of getting out of the way, because Israel doesn't need anyone to defend her.  Why are we continuing to feed the Islamist propaganda by giving them ammunition in the "Is the US Israel's Prison Bitch?" argument?  It's a major reason, I'm convinced, for 9/11 and various other attacks over the last twenty years.

Also, a nuclear attack on Israel translates to an attack on Palestine.  The Palestinians would be slaughtered -- if not by the bomb, itself, then by the fallout.  Iran has no incentive to attack Israel.  A nuclear attack would mean the end of Iran.

The Islamists' demands are fairly clear: They want us off their land.  Out of Saudi Arabia (more than any other area), out of Iraq, out of Afghanistan, and off their oil -- though bin Laden has clearly never studied economics, because oil is the only good that anyone requires from the Middle East.  Take away the oil dependency, and every leader in the West could tell the Saudi Royals, "Go to hell, you brutal pigs.  If you want to trade with us, you're going to trade on our terms, politically."  If we could end our oil dependency, we could dictate to the thugs who control Middle East countries and really work for democracy and freedom -- and without firing a shot.

I don't agree with this line of thinking for a number of reasons.  But I'm just saying it does put a position on the table,,,either to be refined, or let alone as is.

(btw, some interpretted my diary comments as suggesting there are only two positions.  I don't feel that way, I was stating two contrasting positions as a way of communicating by example,,,,and didn't intend to suggest that we would be limited to two)

And maybe the model that I'm thinking of for this conclusion is just the wrong model.  I was thinking of almost white paper type altenatives as the end point,,,,as one would do in a well run business, or in good policy debates in governments.  Probably not realistic for a blog,,,and maybe just the discussion we're having, just like this is the right outcome.  

I'm not sure, and I think your experience in leading a blog and efforts like this will provide the right guidance--but certainly I mean guidance, and no implication that you summarise all of this.