CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, Iran’s missiles are getting more accurate, but they may not have to be because they are also getting more deadly. By that I mean they’re developing a new payload system that spreads out the destruction over a wider area than a solid warhead....

The Pentagon report says Iran is developing short-range missiles that can identify ships at sea and maneuver towards them in mid-flight. And Iran already has a missile that could reach the U.S. if it could put it on a ship and move it to within 600 miles of the American coastline.
As As’ad Abu Khalil observed about these frightening Iranian missiles: ”They can also reach the moon if they can put it on a rocket and get closer to the moon.”

September 28, 2011 | By Ashley Fantz and Tom Cohen, CNN

It would be nearly impossible for Iran's navy to threaten the U.S. coast with warships, military experts said Wednesday.

Overnight Tuesday, Iranian state news quoted a commander as saying his country plans to have a "powerful presence" near the U.S. border.

A Pentagon spokesman responded Wednesday by questioning if Iran was capable of carrying out the stated plan. George Little told reporters that Iran has the right to send vessels into international waters, but "whether they can truly project naval power beyond the region is another question."

Richard Herrmann, director of the Mershon Center for International Security Studies at The Ohio State University said Iran's navy is too small with too miniscule a budget to remain for long off the U.S. coast.’This is hard to take seriously because Iran's navy is very small. This force, whatever it may be. is going to be puny, especially compared to the U.S. Navy." said Herrmann, who specializes in the use of imagery and posturing in international conflicts. "Iran doesn't have the capability to come within close proximity to (the United States) to conduct hostile activities. Even if (Iran) launched missiles, we would sink their ships immediately."

Iran lacks battleships or aircraft carriers. Its forces are capable of patrolling the Persian Gulf and sailing a short distance in the Indian Ocean. Herrmann said, but keeping ships stationed near the United States, so far from Iran, would be too expensive for the government.

We are damned if we do and damned it we don't.

There is no artful solution to this mess.

Not that it changes a thing, but I blame Carter for this whole mess. After he threw to Shah of Iran under the bus I knew there was no way this was going to end well for anyone.

But we can easily spread that blame beyond Carter.

Why we haven't been working harder over the years to encourage and support the massive under ground resentment that many Iranians have for their government is beyond me.

And when the Obama administration was presented with a golden opportunity to provide that very encouragement and support in the recent uprising, the stood silently by and allowed the brutal supression of that movement without comment.

Sadly, all this is now water under the bridge. Too late for subtlety now, we've screwed the pooch on this one.

Now the only fix is the unthinkable. And with a son and a nephew in the Army, the unthinkable is particularly disturbing.

There is no way this ends well now, no matter what path is taken.

It's actually surprising a country like Iran still hasn't tested or otherwise deployed nuclear weapons despite the fact that the technology for making them has been freely available for more than half a century. Either international sanctions have been unusually effective (which I doubt) or secret deals have been made between governments which are preventing it.

More likely than not, they have them already. Israel does as well, but they've never had a confirmed test.
Testing is something big countries with lots of spare space do to rattle their adversaries; a thermonuclear dick swing, if you will.
Both Iran and Israel are sovereign states in conflicted areas. While I don't agree with nuclear weapons in the least, if my neighbor has them, I'm gonna want them as well, if only as a deterrent. But I'm not gonna tell everyone outright.

When surrounded by your enemies, would you think it wise for them to know your capabilities?

You'd probably want your adversary to know that you can respond in a devastating manner to any attack they might be planning..Therefore if you had nukes you'd let them know, as Israel has done, but Iran has not..leading me to believe that they don't have 'em. Other countries having faceoffs make clear what they have to their adversaries..like Pakistan/India, USSR/US, N.Korea/the rest of the world..etc.. Like in Dr. Strangelove the final deterrent failed because the Soviets failed to let the US know that it had one, leading at the end of the movie to it being used.

This should make you worry, when it comes to that nutcake running that country.

Like I said..Israel has never had a confirmed test. The same applies.
Imagine an enemy merely thinking about the possibility of devastating response.
Intelligence regarding Israel's capability is impressive in scope. Same applies for Iran.
It's also all speculative. Rumor and musing.
Posture and bluff.
Say what you will about Iran, and Israel for that matter, being headed by "nutcase" regimes, but what they are not, is stupid. Aman and Mossad in particular are very good at what they do -- but like most State Intelligence apparatus, gathering intelligence has become secondary to disseminating it.