I would not say that Iran is "harmless," but I think that they are not the threat that the media and so many pundits are trying to make them out to be. While they may be able to launch some rockets and do a lot of saber-rattling, they are not, in any way, an existential threat to either the United States or Israel.
I don't think that Iran would be so stupid as to hand off a nuke to Hezbollah or Hamas because it is already common knowledge that Iran funds both organizations and that if either group were to get a nuke, we'd already have a good idea of who gave it to them using the process of elimination.
I'm saying you specifically think Iran is harmless, but a lot of people apparently do. While their military strength is not a significant threat, it's their practice of arming and supplying militants, terrorists, and otherwise fanatics that constitutes the
real threat from Iran. This has generally been glossed over because this small scale practice isn't an existential threat to anyone, as you say. But once Iran can make its own nukes, then Iran will constitute a severe existential threat. Their attack will not be an easily defended missile attack, it would be a nuclear warhead aboard a ship or a panel van, which is far harder to defend against. Remember, the goal is not
retribution after a city has been obliterated, it's
preventing the destruction of a city at all!
And while US intelligence indicates Iran does not have a weapon nor have they definitively decided to assemble one, intelligence also shows they have collected many of the pieces necessary to build a nuke should they so choose to. So if we trust that intelligence is right that they aren't building a nuke, we should also trust intelligence that says they're collecting the pieces for nuke.
Even if Hezbollah destroys Haifa, and it would seem logical that Iran supplied the weapon, we still see a lot of people NOT accepting the idea that Iran could do any wrong. People are refusing to even trust our intelligence services. So even if the CIA points an accusing finger at Iran, we'll see many people accusing the CIA of bias against Iran. They may even refuse the chance at retribution. Understand that Iran reads the US press too. And they can see a certain ambiguity in the American mindset. They may read this as a weakness in American solidarity that Iran could exploit and get away with a nuclear terrorist act.
Actually, I'd have to disagree as in his recent speech to AIPAC, Obama stated
I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power: a political effort aimed at isolating Iran, a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored, an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.
Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I have made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.
(
Transcript of Obama?s AIPAC speech - POLITICO.com)
In addition to this, Obama stated in a recent interview with
The Atlantic that "
both Iran and Israel should take seriously the possibility of American action against Iran's nuclear facilities" and "
that Tehran's nuclear program would represent a 'profound' national-security threat to the United States even if Israel were not a target of Iran's violent rhetoric, and he dismissed the argument that the United States could successfully contain a nuclear Iran." (
Obama to Iran and Israel: 'As President of the United States, I Don't Bluff' - Jeffrey Goldberg - International - The Atlantic)
So not only do you have Obama saying that we'll still use military force, but in addition to this, that he has completely and totally given up on even attempting to contain Iran of they do get a nuclear weapon. I don't know about you, but that is pretty pro-war rhetoric.
Obama MUST maintain a strong stance in regards to Iran. If he takes the military option off the table, then negotiations have no hope of success. If Iran sees they have unlimited time to draw out negotiations they will never negotiate in good faith. Why would they? So the threat of military strikes must remain present to insure that the preferred option of diplomacy has a chance at all. Obama isn't beating war drums, he's actually doing the best thing possible to give peace a chance.
And while Obama still considers military strikes possible, he's made it extremely clear that attacks are the last resort. Diplomacy is his preferred method. This isn't beating war drums in the slightest, it's pushing for a peaceful settlement. Observe:
President Barack Obama and the Republican presidential hopefuls clashed Tuesday over how to address Iran's nuclear program. The Republican contenders accused Obama of weakness, while Obama blasted back that presidents do not launch wars lightly.
[...]
"We have a window of opportunity where this can still be resolved diplomatically," Obama told his first news conference of the year. "We are going to continue to apply pressure even as we provide a door for the Iranian regime to walk through where they can rejoin the community of nations."
While Obama is under considerable pressure to attack, he is resisting and insisting on diplomacy
Santorum sharply criticized the joint offer by the United States, European countries, Russia and China to resume talks with Iran on its suspected nuclear weapons program as "another appeasement, another delay, another opportunity for them to go forward (with developing a nuclear weapon) while we talk."
Romney assailed the administration's go-slow approach on Iran, saying "the only thing respected by thugs and tyrants is our resolve, backed by our power and our readiness to use it."
Republicans clash with Obama on Iranian response - Yahoo! News
So it's clear to me that Obama wants diplomacy, not war. His actions of resisting Netanyahu and even other members of government make this obvious.