I mean, come on, really? REALLY? Please… enough about war and can we please talk about the real issues instead of being completely distracted again. Things like the economy, healthcare, education. Remember them? Oh no, we were so busy fighting a conventional war on two fronts against an IDEOLOGY (hello, the war on terror can’t be won using cluster bombs against perceptions) that we didn’t have time for them until Bush can now make his getaway and we’re left with the remains.

why do you think the Iranian Mullah regime wants to commit suicide?

Your assumption that they intend or will nuke Tel Aviv is - paranoid.
As well as your idea that this would not be the last target.

Any nuclear strike coming from Iran would lead to a nuclear answer - and finish the nation’s capability to go on striking.

For a nation like Iran nuclear weapons can only be meaningful as a defense: deter others to nuke them.

As Israel has nukes, Iran needs nukes to deter Israel.

The only nation that might use nuclear weapons in an offense are the USA - provided they can manage to rule out a nuclear counter-strike. The USA is working on that project, as we know.

If you examine history, you have to ask yourself how things will look a year from now… two years from now… five years from now. Wisdom lies in taking the right action at the right time. Think carefully before you advocate acting too soon; or acting too late; or in closing your eyes and wishing like a child for a different reality.

Every one of us should ask ourselves now: What are the events and conditions that need to happen, for me to at that time say, “Go, Bomb Iran, now. Attack.” For some of the commenters above, such a day when they would agree to attack Iran will NEVER arrive, not for them, not for any provocation.

A good sign that a strike on Iran is actually coming will be the resignation/replacement of Gates as SecDef. As long as we dont see this on the news it is at least a little ways off.

http://www.nysun.com/article/58507

While I have no evidence against any of this, nor evidence in favour of it, I would note that the author has been a relentless supporter of both action against Iran and the Iraq war, so can hardly be called unbiased.

So, what we seem to actually have is a claim to have access to a classified document that confirms what both the author and certain factions in the Bush administration want to see.

The released portions of the NIE are completely silent on this matter as far as I can tell.

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf

So it seems that, rather than arguing on the basis of what the NIE says, you are in fact arguing on the basis of what a reporter sympathetic to an attack on Iran says an unnamed source says that the classified portions of the NIE says.

Now that’s more like it.

As for this sort of attitude, have you really not cottoned onto the fact that just about everyone thinks that they are the good guys? Hitler, Stalin and Mao (about as gruesome a trimverate of evil as you could imagine) all thought of themselves as the good guys. Hitler saw himself as both protecting civilization against communism and other Jewish consipiracies, Stalin saw himself as protecting Russia from Hitler and then as trying to make Russia into the power that it should be in order to become an advanced state. Mao was even more messianic, trying to remould an old and decaying culture into something fair and equitable for the Chinese people. Of course, they were all monsters, but they didn’t see themselves that way.

So when you say “pretend that the bad guys are in the US government” I reject the whole notion of worrying about who thinks that are the good guys and who they think are the bad guys and look at intentions and capabilities. It should be clear to anyone what the Bush admins intentions are at this point, and it should be equally clear what their capabilities are. They want the creation of as many pro-US regimes in the ME as possible, but they are only capable of creating vast death and destruction. The result of allowing them to have their way will be death and destruction whatever their intentions, and whether you want to consider that to be good or bad is purely up to you.

do you know SIIC and Badr Corps (SIIC’s strong militia)?
They are one of the big Iraqi Shiite parties, backbone of the government there, and so also backbone of US hopes to get a viable government in Baghdad - and at the same time they are close to Iran, very close - close to the Mullah regime there, and do not hide it. Iran supports SIIC and Badr Corps with weapons, with training.

So, I dare say: USA support Iran. Somehow. And Iran supports USA. Somehow.

Weird thing!

There is more truth (although it is not the complete truth) to a claim like “USA supports Ahmadinejad” than to a claim “Ahmadinejad supports AlQaida”.

As for binLaden Jr in Iran:

Seems to be quite an obscure thing. Does the NIC mention it and infer anything from it? Please quote!

As far as I know: There are plenty of members of this family in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the world. In itself it has little significance to say that this or that member of the binLadens is here or there. Osama is the terrorist, but some of his many-membered family are part of the Saudi establishment.

For example: do you mean THIS son of binLaden, Chris?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=467599&in_page_id=1770

= Omar binLaden, 27, son of Osama binLaden, has married in Berlin, Germany, recently …

Osama binLaden has 17 children … Give us some hints about the Iranian one!