To Haybasusa Rider, I will type this very slowly, you may consider your self omnipotent, but I find your reasoning less than compelling and not representative of the thinking of a larger world.
The word you are looking for is omniscient, but I am neither. I do however have a better track record than you regarding outcomes of my predictions. Consider that past forecasts of sanctions against Israel have not materialized, that while tensions increase between the US and Israel, it is Iran which has taken action against the Western world in recent times. Iran is being sanctioned and ratcheting up tensions by threatening Europe right now. Between Israel and Iran which is getting the most attention based on it's actions affecting those outside the region? It's Iran. Sorry, but those are the facts. It doesn't require one to be all knowing, just the ability to absorb the day to day goings on in the world.
But your latest statement of "It's hardly credible that Iran has no interest in nukes. They aren't able to produce them now" as totally ridiculous and it shows how out of touch with reality you are.
Not according to the IAEA report of last November of which I'll quote a BBC (hardly Fox News) reference-
The IAEA has long expressed concern about Iran's nuclear programme, but its latest report (November 2011) lays out the case in much greater detail than before.
Drawing on evidence provided by more than 10 member states as well as its own information, the IAEA said Iran had carried out activities "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device".
It said that some of these activities could only be used to develop nuclear weapons - though it did not say that Iran had mastered the process, nor how long it would take Iran to make a bomb.
The report documents alleged Iranian testing of explosives, experiments on detonating a nuclear weapon, and work on weaponisation - the processes by which a device might be adapted and hardened to fit into the nose-section of a missile.
There are some allegations that are listed openly for the first time, including the claim that Iran has used computer modelling on the behaviour of a nuclear device.
Previously, the IAEA complained that Tehran had not fully co-operated with its inspectors, though it did say that Iran had displayed "greater transparency" during an inspection visit in August 2011.
Link to the above
My contention is based on real world assessments by experts who have no interest in nation building or Bush paranoia. Now if you have better expert sources this would be the time to reveal them.
Because that is exactly the $64,000 question, because if Iran only intends to purse a nuclear energy program for electrical power generation, its 100% legal by UN doctrine. Meanwhile even Leon Pinhead flat out states, not only is Iran acting rationally, but Iran is more than a year away from even reaching a decision point when Iran can even remotely consider going on to develop nuclear weapons. And the it will take another year or two for Iran to refine enough weapons grade U235 to produce its first nuke.
As I have said the IAEA disagrees with your "only" point so "100% legal" doesn't have much bearing on the facts as laid out. Regarding "Pinhead", he does not want Israel launching a unilateral military action against Iran, but neither has he sided with the Iranians against the majority of the western world. You'll be hard pressed to find him unconcerned as a rule.
That said, "a year away from making a decision"? What physical process in the universe keeps people from making a choice now? There isn't one. They may be a year away from having the ability to establish a working program and at that point they have the option of doing so or not, but as evidence suggests they clearly have an interest. Making a decision to have groundwork laid for a physical program is a decision. That it may take time to have a working weapon is irrelevant, of course it won't spring forth from the ground.
Meanwhile Haybasusa, you seemingly understand nothing about the politics of Iran, because Achmadinejhad, for all his motor mouth bluster has no real political power inside Iran, because its the religious mullahs who actually call the political shots. And even if Iran gives its Mullah's the old heave ho, the Iranian people are 100% behind a peacetime program to develop nuclear energy.
Again you would be mistaken. I'm familiar with the goings on from the Pahlavi dynasty forward. I don't have to google Kermit Roosevelt or Mohammad Mosaddegh or Winston Churchill and BPs involvement. I understand cause and effect. I realize our part in creating Iran as it is today. How the Iranian people were supportive of us above all other Islamic nations after 9/11. I get that Bush took a moment of tangible hope and crushed it with his "Axis" speech which put Imadinnerjacket and his ilk in firm control of a nation and a people who were reaching out to us. I also know the people in charge now and how one of the top three most influential people in Iran has announced support of third parties that can be used against Israel and if need be others. I know the official power of the Presidency and that the office has influence over the lives of the people of Iran. The leadership has crushed it's own people and if necessary would slaughter them to stay in power much like is happening in Syria now. Why you defend such a government is something you have to answer for, but there is a clear distinction among most rational people between the government and the people of Iran. Do you even know Iranians personally? Have you talked with Jews who escaped from takeover by the clerics? Do you know any of the lives ruined by SAVAK? Do you care about a power who will kill someone for writing software for pic hosting?
No, it seems you know that the Iranian government is a benign entity who only has peaceful intentions and no doubt it's peoples best interest at heart although it has acted demonstrably contrary to that idea. Regardless of how this group of despots came to be, they are there now and they will do what it takes to secure their position and that does not exclude nuclear weapon production. I've given evidence against the contention that nuclear energy production is the sole intent of those who kill their own citizens who protest for freedom, now you have the opportunity to do the same. Can you cite equivalent experts to back up your point? Can you provide some grounds for the idea of a benevolent leadership? Will you refute the words of those in power who have announced for active support of terrorism? I wonder.
While many major powers are still committed to finding a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear questions. And if Israel acts unilaterally and totally irrationally, the larger world may decide the safest response, is to muzzle the Israeli pit bull and let Israel suffer the consequences of its own stupidity.
If Israel acts now it will create a lot if headaches for those working diplomatically. Now I have the IAEA backing up my point. What do you have that Israel is going to act unilaterally and irrationally as things stand? Israel has it's own sources of information and not being omnipresent (might as well finish up the whole deity qualification thing) I don't know what is planned. If they attack I want to see good reason for it. I won't give a pass on supposition. Now if the time comes and there is evidence that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons with the intent of moving against Israel, would that matter to you? I don't know what Iran plans to do with it's future nuclear capability and at this time I do not believe the intent is a first strike, but suppose for sake of argument it was? Would you then object to Israel removing the threat? Will the world put the muzzle on Israel? I think not.
Because if Israeli stupidity and greed even slows the flow of oil in the Persian Gulf, the larger world will blame Israel for upsetting the apple cart.
Israel isn't going to slow the flow of oil. That is a decision that Iran will make independent of Israel. If one barrel less flows it will be because the one person you can spell correctly, the President of Iran, and his masters wish it to be so. If that happens people who matter won't be looking at Israel, it will be at those who order it to be so. That would be the leadership of Iran.
I have some affection for the people who I know who came from Iran, who escaped tyranny in different forms across the decades. I believe that the Iranian people as a whole are a good people, that they have suffered at the hands of others, that we created a path that they could not avoid in terms of leadership. Notwithstanding that I recognize that their leadership is corrupt and evil. Yes that old fashioned moral judgment word, evil. That it exists is evidenced by the works against people by their leaders and if you wish to dispute what those in charge have done to those in Iran then you have a hard row to hoe.
I do not believe them, I have nothing to suggest I should, I have history to demonstrate their abuses. I accuse the leaders of Iran as betraying their people, of oppressing them as they will, of subjugation.
Trust them at your peril.