200-400 = -200
So, Israel is in minus with their nukes. It means that they don't only have none, but are in debt of nukes (to the US, South Africa?) for an amount of 200.

...or did you mean 200~400...?

Seriousely,
Iran doesn't need nukes. If they don't want war, they just have to not build them.

When you have a proof that they are infact building a nuclear bomb then let's talk. Until then this is all hypothetical and you know it.

When you have a proof that they are infact building a nuclear bomb then let's talk. Until then this is all hypothetical and you know it.

No, I don't see anyone having proof of Iran having a nuclear weapon to date.

But Kactus...doesn't it stand to reason that Iran is a tad different than your other countries listed?

One simply cannot merely assume this. And if you're Israel, you MUST assume the worst and you need to have another Osirak party.

Iran is developing longe range missile technology, rather than building an army against an invasion or to 'deter', they seem to be building a special weapons force that can reach Israel.

Commemorating the Unforgivable

Jews in Israel and around the world will commemorate May 14. It's the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel's founding. Thousands of other Jews everywhere along with everyone of conscience stand with the Canadian Palestine Support Network (CalPalNet). They cannot celebrate. They will not celebrate. They remember the Nakba. They know it continues. They condemn 41 years of occupation; the starving and bombing of Gaza; the oppressive Separation Wall; the theft of Palestinian land; the building of illegal settlements; the denial of the right of return; the killings, torture, imprisonment and harassment; the denial of basic human rights; and Israel's disdain for international law.

Yes, we agree. We're probably not going to always agree, let's agree however to not denying reality. Iran, as 
far as I can determine, has not a nuclear weapon as of today. We agree and I'm coming in late to the 
conversation so...apologize for confusion.

I'm sorry, where do you quote me using "ally" to describe Saudi Arabia? I was making a point concerning Iran. 
These are not Saudi Bombs killing American soldiers Sir, the Saudi military is not supplying rockets fired into 
Green Zones. And please do not attribute words to me I didn't write. Thank You.

May 5, 2008. A World to Win News Service. U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s recent threat to “totally obliterate” Iran was truly alarming, not just for what she said, but for what didn’t happen: for the firestorm of condemnation and repudiation that didn’t take place, either in Washington or any other Western capital. Even her rival for the Democratic Party nomination, Barack Obama, confined himself to gently chiding her for a poor choice of words—“It’s not the language we need right now.” What he didn’t say, and what no American politician likely to have a voice in the matter did not say either, is that what she is threatening is genocide, that genocide is a crime, and that even threats of genocide are unacceptable.
Clinton’s shocking threat revealed a great deal more than her own ambitions. It brought to light a certain mood in Washington as a whole, a consensus that Iran is a threat to American interests and that the U.S. should plan for and carry out whatever it takes to achieve political goals they all agree on.

So much for the idea that Bush’s impending exit from the White House might lessen the danger of an attack on Iran, before or after he leaves office.

Last November, a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran was probably no longer engaging in a nuclear weapons program. The public release of that document indicated unease about the advisability of attacking Iran and contention within the ranks of those who make such decisions. But the situation has evolved somewhat since then. Ironically, as the stated end of Bush’s term in office appears on the horizon, it seems that the strategic assessment he made, in, for instance, his April 10 speech, has been broadly accepted among those who make such decisions. “Iraq is the convergence point of the two greatest threats to America in this century: Al Qaeda and Iran.”

Contrary to what he and others repeatedly imply or claim, the two are different in many basic ways. They are enemies, with no connection between them that anyone has ever provided the slightest evidence for. But you only have to rearrange these words a little to decode what Bush really meant, and what really is the truth: the Shia Islamic Republic of Iran and armed Sunni anti-U.S. Islamic fundamentalism are the sharpest threats to the locking in of the global “American century” the U.S. is seeking. Both reflect an Islamic fundamentalist tide, and the success of any of the diverse and mutually opposed components of this trend in confronting the U.S. emboldens and spurs on the others.

Even more ironically, if irony is appropriate when discussing calls for mass murder, Bush’s statement is far more true now than when he launched the “war on terror” and put Iran alongside Iraq on the “axis of evil.” What has made it truer is the U.S.’s whole international rampage since the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. The American-led invasion of Afghanistan brought back to life a Taliban that had made itself hated and discredited among many Afghans. American attempts to keep hold of Pakistan have pushed armed Islamic fundamentalism there out of control. Looking to the other side of the horizon, the U.S.-backed Israeli invasion of Lebanon resulted in an unprecedented stalemate for the Israeli army and encouraged the growth of Hezbollah as one of Iran’s most militarily and politically potent allies, with a real army and modern weapons under its command and probably more sympathy throughout the Middle East than any of the American-dependent rulers.

In the eye of this hurricane sits Iraq. Of course Bush is lying when he blames Iran for the war against the U.S. occupation in Iraq. But there is no denying that that war is the best thing for Iran’s mullahs since they came to power. If they are overconfident that the U.S. will not dare attack or that such a war would end in an American defeat, perhaps it is because if there is a god, he has certainly been munificent to them in this regard. He gave them an American occupation in Iraq that, as concluded in a recent paper by U.S. Department of Defense analyst Joseph Collins, the U.S. can’t win and can’t afford to lose. (“Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath,” Institute for Strategic Studies, National Defense University) Yet there is little hope for a political solution that would enable the U.S. to continue to rule Iraq without the help of forces tied to Islamic fundamentalism in general and especially to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the sister regime to the Islamic government the U.S. ended up installing in Iraq.

If American authorities are increasingly casting the Iraq war as about Iran, a “proxy war,” as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker recently said, it is because the invasion of Iraq was never just about the Saddam Hussein regime, or just Iraq itself, but a U.S. bid for regional control which made a collision with Iran inevitable. While the ruling mullahs in Tehran are carefully calibrating their moves (for instance, supporting Shia forces both inside and opposed to the U.S.-installed Iraqi government), and trying to avoid or postpone a direct collision with the U.S. over Iraq, they are certainly seeking to advance their interests in what is, for them, an advantageous situation.

There is another side of the picture for the Iranian regime: It is completely surrounded on all sides by the American military, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the states of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. Near the southeastern Iraq town of Kut, about 58 kilometers from the Iranian border and near a main border crossing between the two countries, American contractors are busily expanding barracks to comfortably house 6,000 U.S. troops. Until now, the installation has been a main base for spying on Iran. The U.S. sent first one and recently a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Gulf, and another one to the eastern Mediterranean off Lebanon. Few times in history has so much firepower been concentrated. On several occasions now, the U.S. and the UK have provoked naval clashes close to the Iranian shoreline. The additional amount of weapons of mass destruction the U.S. could quickly deploy from the Indian Ocean, Europe and the imperialist “homeland” itself is horrendous.

Yeah right make sure that the Osirak party does not back fire this time!

Hell will be unleashed if they do.

What isn't being thought thru is IRan with an atomic weapon...and how that changes the equation 
overnight.

No. I expected them to excel in roadside bombs. Short range rockets now being used today. I expected them to keep funding and supporting and training terrorism like they're currently doing in southern Lebanon with their lil proxy army Hezbollah or the undeniable support they feed Hamas and other Palestinian charities. I expected uranium enrichment with their claim its for civilian purposes only while your claim is they want the actual weapon as a deterrent.

The long range missiles you are talking about has not suddenly materialised and become a new invention in Iran. 
Iran has had this technology for many years and if they wanted to hit Israel they could have done it long ago, 
which is why I believe nuclear power is perceived by Iran as a deterrent.

http://www.janes.com/press/press/pc080411_1.shtml

You gotta be paying attention

And, they're startng to get resolved, huh?

I sleep fairly comfortably each and every night...and so do you...in full awareness of Israel's nukes and their ability to both deploy and engage. Every single night. Iran acquires an atomic bomb...and people who pay attention...people like you and I don't sleep as comfortably. The Israelis don't sleep at all. They simply cannot permit it.