Make no mistake ... Iran's public display of military "might" is disconcerting, and does not do much to stabilize efforts at peace and understanding throughout the world.  However, there are a few bits of information that your version of the story omits that certainly in an open forum should be mentioned.  Make of them what you will. A few days before Iran launched "nine" missiles to show off its capabilities, Israel staged a similar showing of military might with a public military maneuver of its own.  Somehow, those maneuvers during a time of instability are more acceptable than are those of Iran.  Personally, I think Iran's actions were a childish and immature retaliation against an equally childish and provocative action by Israel. It turns out that Iran did not launch nine missiles.  Most of the networks tonight showed two photographs, side by side, showing four missiles being launched (left hand photo) and three missiles being launched (right hand photo) ... the only difference (besides the number of vapor trails leaving the launching pads) was that in the right hand photo the missile was still sitting there.  A dud.  A misfire.  The photo released by Iran was doctored.  So, does that mean we can all celebrate because at least one of Iran's missiles misfired?  Probably not.  But it does suggest that Iran is not as well-equipped and well-prepared as they would have us believe. Only one of the eight launched missiles (if, in fact, there were even eight) was capable of reaching Israel.  Is that the only one Iran has so far?  Or is it one of a gazillion.  Guess we better ask our well-versed and highly capable intelligence community what the Iranian stockpile is, don't you think? The President of Iran is named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (not Achnaminajad or Achnaminijad).  I realize it is a difficult name to pronounce, and it is a difficult name to spell.  Still ...  More importantly than the lapse in spelling, it is important to point out that he is a political leader, and a politician.  Prior to being elected as Iran's President, he was elected as the mayor of Tehran.  He is NOT a cleric.  He does not believe that he is the 12th Imam.  Perhaps the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei believes himself to be the 12th Imam, but it seems you are trying to confuse us all by confusing the leadership of Iran.  Unless, of course, it is you who is confused. Now, the Shi'a version of Islam is a pretty conservative religious view (many a Southern Baptist would feel quite at home in it, were it not for current anti-Christian bias it has adopted over the years).  To the best of my knowledge, however, it does not profess a national socialist political platform.  Capitalism is quite at home in Iran, but the business leaders don't call the shots and the political leaders have not passed laws to nationalize independent business operations -- large or small.  To the best of my knowledge, while all countries (including this one) have secret police, there are not many running around in Iran rounding up dissenters and chucking them into deep dark holes or into extermination camps.  There have been some rather large and loud and very public protest rallies directed against President Ahmadinejad.  Iranian people are still free to purchase western products that are being imported into Iran in record numbers (I saw and read that in the news, yesterday).  I guess the point is that "fascism" does not really describe the type of democratic theocracy that Iran is currently practicing. Pre-emptively launching "mini-nukes" ... as you euphemistically calling them ... would mean the instantaneous start of World War III.  There would most certainly be retaliation against whomever launched said mini-nukes, then someone would need to retaliate against them.  "Best case" scenario would be that Iran shuts down the Straits of Hormuz and 20% of the world's oil disappears until they decide to reopen them (or someone goes in and forces them open ... which is just another form of retaliation).  It's time that you get it into your head the "pre-emptive" is simply a Newspeak invention to hide the more negative term "invasion".  Certainly there are better ways to prevent a war than by launching one. Lastly, and this is purely hypothetical mind you.  But let's just imagine for a half of a second that somehow all that Cold War sloganeering and propagandizing had been correct, and the world really did fall to the Soviets like so many dominoes.  From Cuba it spread across the Caribbean to Central America and northward, to Mexico.  Somehow (go with me for a second), some faction in Canada appealed to the Soviet Union for help, as well and voila ... Canada suddenly had a pro-Soviet government.  The governments of both Mexico and Canada, though "freely" elected, still saw a lot of resistance out in the countryside.  As in Cuba, the Ruskies then started building military bases in both Mexico and Canada (to help maintain security until the new governments could do it for themselves).  They armed those military bases with fighters, bombers and missiles.  They also began calling on the US to disarm before a problem began.  So ... you tell me ... what would your reaction to that situation have been?  I have no doubt about, nor do I question, the stated animosity and hatred for Israel that the leaders of Iran have publicly made.  I am not naive nor stupid, and know if they thought they could get away with it, Iran (and whatever buddies it could muster) would one day try to pile on Israel and make good the promises of its crazed theocratic bullies.  Our role is to make sure it doesn't happen.  We don't have to go in there and take them out before they can do anything (just like I don't go into my neighbor's yard and blow up his shed because the history of animosity between us has me convinced he is building something in there to take me down).  As we tried to demonstrate in Iraq, we can put a lot of military pressure on a group of folk we dislike or want to get rid of pretty darn quick (then again, maybe we aren't so good at occupying the place once we have achieved our stated goals).  I know of nothing short of Machiavellian determinism that gives any country the right to arbitrarily invade another country and/or take unprovoked military action against it (and launching nine missiles is not a provocation warranting an invasion).