The Iranians have agreed to partial oversight of their nuclear program; it doesn't remove the threat of them being able to make nuclear bombs in fairly short order, but it also doesn't require a small war to get rid of them, either.
The glass-half-full view would note that Iran is involved in a Shia-Sunni brawl in Syria with spillovers into Lebanon, where Hezbollah has been attacked by (one would assume) anti-Syrian forces who are going after Assad's Lebanese allies who have sent troops into Syria to help Assad.
The odd development is that neither the Gulf monarchies nor Israel has any love for Iran or Syria and that the two might be strange bedfellows in an anti-Shia alliance. They couldn't say so publicly, but the Saudis wouldn't be disappointed if the Israelis took out some Iranian nuclear facilities and would politely ignore an IDF flyover of Saudi airspace to and from Iran.
What's the US game here? Path of least resistance. We're in roughly the same spot with Iranian nukes as we were with Syrian chemical weapons; an attack looks bad, rouses the rabble on the Shia street and might not do much good if our intel misses some of their stash. Slowing the Iranians down might be better than a dicey military strike.
Does it make Israel less safe? Good question. A lot depends on whether the Iranians are on a peace offensive just to buy time to keep the Americans happy while their real nuke program is a couple steps away from inspectors or whether the mullahs in Qum are willing to play nice with the rest of the world in order to have better economic relations with the US and Europe.