And we weren’t going to war with Iran to take away their nukes. Until we did.

Right. That doesn't mean we're equally likely to go to war with any one country as another. We're not going to war against Israel over their nukes.

So you reject the premise that change doesn’t happen until the pain of change is less than the pain of the status quo?

It's incomplete. It assumes that the person suffering the pain has the ability to cause a change but is lacking motivation to do so, and that it is possible for the pain of change to be less than the pain of the status quo for the relevant parties. That's not the situation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The majority of folks on both sides would gladly accept a peaceful outcome, and already believe that the pain of change is less than the pain of the status quo. The problem is that there is a minority on both sides for whom the pain of change will always be greater than the status quo. They don't care - they have a belief in the rightness of their cause that dwarfs all current pain, and (perhaps more importantly) they will always have access to resources from abroad.

This isn't northern Ireland, where peace was possible once the general population on both sides became sick of fighting. There are enough people who will want the fight to continue forever who won't be dissuaded by pain, and who don't depend on the rest of the people in order to keep up the fight.