The easiest parallel are other aspirational nuclear states that did not acquire nuclear technology, because of pressure, diplomacy, and treaties (as opposed to war).

So in this category we might list the following states, among others, which had nuclear programs but abandoned them, in part due to external pressures: Taiwan (1960s-1980s), Brazil (1960s-1980s), Argentina (1960s-1980s), South Korea (1970s), Romania (1970s), Yugoslavia (1970s-1980s), Sweden (1950s-1960s).

Now, any good historian of this would immediately point out that the circumstances of most of these are different than Iran. Taiwan, for example, was a country that was interested in the clandestine development of nuclear weapons, but the US put very heavy pressure on it, and, because the US is such an important protector of the state against China, the Taiwanese did not have as many options there. Iran is not under the umbrella of any particular superpower, so it is in a different position.

Similarly, one might ask how much of these states not getting nuclear technology is because of external pressures and how much because of internal pressure, lack of interest, and so on. This is a tricky thing to disentangle. In any situation where an external power is not just kicking out a government, the existing government does have to be amenable to cooperation. Which means the external pressures can hardly take all of the credit. But this is a good general point to keep in mind, because it is the definition of diplomacy and politics — it cannot be just one directional. To put on a more pundit-y hat, any successful diplomatic deal with Iran will not just be the US "keeping another nation from acquiring a technology" — it will have to involve the Iranians deciding (for one reason or another) not to pursue the technology.

If you are looking for one book that does a lot of work on talking about the nuclear programs of other nations, Jeffrey Richelson's Spying on the Bomb is pretty enjoyable and covers a lot of ground. Its only flaw is that it is generally a view from 100 miles up (somewhat literally, as it is often based on satellite intelligence), which tells you not so much about the conditions on the ground (obviously), but I don't know too much else that covers as much ground so well, including about the non-successful states (who often get ignored because our focus is, understandably, usually on those did get the bomb).

Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but Israel has been enforcing something called the Begin Doctrine since 1981, when it destroyed Iraq's French Osiris nuclear reactor with a surprise airstrike during Operation Opera.It's debatable whether or not Sadam would have had the capability to develop nuclear weapons, but the point is Iraq was prevented from pursuing that goal without outright conquest/war (although Iraq retaliated during the Persian Gulf War by launching SCUD missles at Israel).

More recently, in 2008, Israel destroyed what is believed to be a Syrian nuclear facility using American intelligence during Operation Orchard, but the details on this are still unclear since Syria has not confirmed or denied it, and the time-frame is outside the scope of this subreddit.

So to summarize, Israel has been actively preventing it's Middle-Eastern neighbors from acquiring nuclear capability using airstrikes and surprise attacks. It is a highly controversial policy, but it has been effective up to now.