Quick! Name a country that Iran has attacked in the last 10 years.
Quick! Name a country that Iran has been attacked by in the last 30.
Quick: Name a country that the US has gone to war with in the last 10 years.
Quick! Name a country that the US has gone to war with in the last 30 years.
Quick! Name a country that the US has gone to way with in the last 50 years.
Quick! Name a country that the US supplies arms to that has bombed peoples who's main weapons are rocks.
Quick! Name a country that the US has declared an "axis of evil".
Quick! Name a country named an "axis of evil" that has been threatened with Preemptive strikes
Quick! Name a country in the Middle East that the US had propped up a dictator until he was overthrown by the people.
Now if you're bright enough to have gotten correct answers for the above questions then you are bright enough to know that all this Iran sabre rattling being done by both Clinton and Obama is sheer silliness and is intended for only two things:
1) Satisfy the Israeli lobby.
2) Stoke the white supremacist fervor of putting those Muslims in their place.
Hillary Clinton says that she would "obliterate" them and Obama seems to think that Iran is not a sovereign nation that has the right to defend itself and develop weapons to that end without anyone's permission (a position I'm quite sure Clinton agrees with). Obama ups the ante with "conventional weapons" and "any of our allies." The record is quite clear that the US is a greater threat to Iran than Iran is to the US. the US currently has it's military deployed on two sides of Iran, not to mention those in the Persian Gulf. Does anyone here think that if Iran had it's military in Mexico and Canada and ships in the Gulf of Mexico that the US would even tolerate that kind of situation? If anything Iran would be stupid not to develop weapons of deterrence given the hostility shown to it going back decades.
Lastly, it is highly unlikely that Iran, or any other Muslim nation would throw a nuclear bomb at Israel. Simply put, any scientist knows full well what the fallout from such an attack would be. A: There would be a great number of Palestinians killed in such an attack. There is a high likelihood that such holy places such as Jerusalem would be damaged of destroyed. That wouldn't sit well with a lot of Muslims. Lastly, the radioactive fallout from such an attack in that region would be damaging to the economies of the countries in the area not to mention the health crisis that would follow.
No, any real analysis of this situation would clearly show that the nuclear aspirations of Iran are a direct result of US policy (and dumb statements by wanna be presidents) who have been threatening Iran either directly of through proxy for decades. It would have been nice to see so called "news reporters" to point out these things to these wanna-be president candidates.