Iran And Nukes

I went on the BBC site recently and there's an article on "Iran 'will defend nuclear sites'",
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4118545.stm
Quite interesting. Apparently, the US has been looking into how an assault on the nuclear sites in Iran would go.
Well I suspect it would go just about fine. the US, number 1 airforce in the world, now with on-ground air bases just next door, can easily afford a short trip cross-border and drops a few kg's of explosives on their surely under-defended targets.
the Iranian military is nervously warning that this is not the case, that the army is on alert and so on, but this a rather lousy attempt at disuasion.
It also appears quite a few 'spies' have been captured.
This is all perfectly normal. Frankly, we shouldn't be too surprised if, within this president's term, a war on Iran is launched. We'd then hear the same rethoric about liberation and so on, and who ever knows, perhaps in Iran, some people will rejoice to see the end of the regime.
But I doubt it. Iranians hate more than anything else, the presence and influence of foreigners in their own country. Still interesting from the BBC is the "have your say" event on the now closed debate of Iran and nukes.
It seems most people, from all types of backgrounds, felt that A- Iran was entitled to developing nukes; others felt B- it was normal for it to desire nukes, as that is the only deterrent to Bush's war on "Turrr". Inded you can rest assured that should Iran tomorrow reveal a nuclear arsenal, such talks of assault in DC wil be terminated instantly. In the meantime however, the pentagon carries on it's 3d animations of the nuke sites blowing up. But anyway, another group of people are the usual tit-for-tat bunch, claiming that C- Iran can pursue nuke programs just like any other country can. Then, a tiny minority, preaching the word of god [WOG] said, no no, the other simpletons in the debate had no clue, D- Iran is far too unstable to have nukes. this will cause too much regional instability.
Well a number of observations can be made here. Firstly, no one in that debate seemed to hold to the official Iranian stance that the program was for energy use only! But conversely, I was shocked at the consensus which seemed to neither support, nor approve, but understand Iran's seemingly military nuclear program.
And I have to say, this is perfectly normal, again. Say you're country X. For the past few centuries the leaders of your country have been slaves to foreign masters. 50 years ago, superpower Z destroyed your only dash at democracy, helped a dictator to the 'throne' and arranged for the extraction of your country most precious asset. Now, superpower Z wants to kick your ass again. It said so publicly a few years ago. What are you gonna do? You're gonna find a way to protect yourself, that's what you're gonna do. So it is indeed understandable.
But at the same time, it is fair enough to say that such unstable region really could do with no nukes. Thing is, some other country Y [Israel] already has nukes from Z. And for the reasons mentioned above, Iran really doesn't have a choice. This is an unfortunate and uncomfortable situation which like it or not, can be traced back to that coup in 53. Perhaps I should elaborate on that, soon.