Except... Iran already is an unstable regime... and they can fund it due to oil.

The middle east is the big exception to your rule.

Stability is relative. I think the current government is stable enough to know not to do this, and the trends in the country are towards further moderation, not away. The only danger is if more irreconcialable elements of the Revolutionary Guard stage a coup, but even then they would be answerable to Khamenei, who i would also trust at least to restrain from using the bomb.

Haha. I remember that poll, being so ashamed of my fellow countrymen. Didn't 24% also believe that Winston Churchill was fictional?

Anyway, your bit about statistics kind of reminds of Doug Stanhope talking about polls on the news. Whereby basically a poll will come up on a complicated subject that is hard to understand, yet you will get 57% say yes, 40% say no and 3% say I don't know. In reality they all don't know and all it tells you is that 97% of people will give you a strong opinion based on something they know nothing about.

And it's true, especially when it comes to Iran having nukes. It's a situation that even the brightest minds who's job it is to know, don't know. I would guess from reports I've read that their Uranium enrichment facilities are far too small to produce any nuke, let alone a large one or several. So it would be foolish for them to build one. But then again, I have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about like everyone else, I have not been to Iran and examined their Uranium enrichment programme. No one outside of the Iranian government has.

The moral of the story is that public opinion polls should not be trusted.

The fight between Israel and Palestine/and other arabic countries is not a fight between Judaism and Islam, but is, instead, a territorial conflict between a Judaism-majority country and an Islamic-majority country.. 

In their minds Israel is an invading force.. which is not strange seeing as the UN created it against the will of the arabic countries.. while they had no claims to the land for 100's of years.. it would be like if the UN said the native americans would get Florida back.. with guns.. lots of guns..

They already have.

That's what rigging the election was about.  People thought Kamenei would have a problem with it and has shown none.

So explain again why they wouldn't nuke Israel?

Yep.

In general I believe the IAEA said about 5 years ago we shouldn't worry because it was likely that it would be 10-15 years that they'ed get a nuke... with a sligher chance they'd get one in 5 years.

5 years later... they're saying we should worry.

Cause they don't have then? :P Anyway more serious:

Cause they would destroy their own holy land..killing the occupants is something different then nuking it...

and the fact that the fallout would kill not only their own people but also their neigbours..

You'd be surprised Nuclear fallout stuff is actually pretty exagerrated.

Additionally you know... not only do they see Israel as in that "holy war"... but also the US, UK and in general NATO allies as the west that prop up Israel.  Hence why they fund terrorist cells that hit us as well. 

So why again wouldn't they say... Nuke the UK if they had the weapons?

In Islam retaliation (cause that would be the case for invading) is authorized to avenge an injury. However, the retaliation must be directed toward the guilty individual(s), must be proportional to the injury, and must not exceed the limits set by Allah. The Qur'an does not support substitutionary retaliation against individuals who are innocent of any offense... So unless the the entire population UK nuked so that Israel could get the land.. 

And of course their ballistic missiles can't get there... unless you believe Israel on their reports that Iran has build super missiles with super long range with the help of North Korea.. but I'm sure the Americans will spot them like the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq..