I'm sure it's a mixed-bag; on the one hand, it continues to keep the notion of having to stay on top focussed on the minds of both policy makers and the public. On the other, there's plenty of belief in that group that the US has used nuclear deterrence "responsibly" and "for the greater good" whereas this can be seen as "merely" an escalation of a regional conflict.
It's likely that both sides were allowed to continue their programs as a kind of Iran-Iraq-style local deterrence; I don't think the full consequence was imagined to play out this way.
One thing to remember about the CFR crowd is that they are *wildly* divided on the issue of nuclear weapons. Some believe no one should have them, some believe that only "we" should have them. Some believe they should be used :-) ...
Interestingly, Morton Halperin, their top nuclear dog, thinks that ABM is _not_ an effective strategy against 'rogue states' -- but rather argues that the US should, as a statement of policy, not tolerate the development of an ICBM program (including threat of pre-emptive strike to destroy any such development facility) by anyone who doesn't already have one.
Of course that doesn't help in this situation, since you don't need an ICBM to hit your neighbor ...
/jordan