Thanks for your thoughts.
I, too, have some issues with the article.
You said,
"For instance, he suggests that Iran may want nukes for imperialistic reasons, but I fail to see how one will want to capture territory with nuclear weapons."
I didn't note "imperialistic" reasons but rather nationalistic self-gratification as a technical source of Persian pride and reflecting Iran's rightful status as a regional hegemon. Moreover, this elevated sense of self-esteem would likely arise regardless of a weaponized nuclear program. Achieving the fuel cycle would suffice.
MEMRI may concur with Juan Cole, but a re-read of MEMRI's translation of Ahmedinejad's comments is nonetheless frightening. More to the point, Ahmedinejad has an accumulating history of comments along these mystic/spiritual/apolcalyptic lines of thinking.
"...then goes on to warn that it will likely also be ineffective if US attacks nuclear facilities. Well, wouldnt they be the targets, and once gone the offensive use of air power would end?"
Not necessarily for a variety of reasons, foremost being that the Iranians have given this matter considerable thought as well. As such, their nuclear facilities have undergone various stages of redundancy, hardening, and dispersal. Those are the locations and facilities of which we're aware. Then there are facilities of which we are unaware. They are camouflaged and shall remain so as long as possible. Then there is the knowledge base. That much is very likely near out of the bag. The Iranians probably know how to construct a nuke- in theory.
The provided example, in my estimation was a poor attempt to say that air-power, given a difficult targeting environment, can't guarantee the elimination of discrete targets. As such, the warning offered would extend to the attack of ancillary targets, such as power plants and comms facilities necessary to the effective operation of a modern nuclear facility under military control. This increases the liklihood of success. However, attacking dual-service targets may affect the general population-a social and political complication to any attack plan. That's how I read that section.
In answer to your thoughts about designation of the Pasdaran as a terrorist organization, the inestimable Ralph Peters would agree with you-
"...the move lets our government go after the Revolutionary Guards' finances and the international companies that cut deals with Tehran's thugs.
The [actual] real reason for the move is to set up a legal basis for airstrikes or special operations raids on the Guard's bases in Iran."
Whacking Iran
"So, this brings us right back to the question of are the Iranians madmen or not, lol."
Dwarven Pirate, there's a culminating point somewhere not too far down the road. Iran, to date IMHO, has not played "rational actor" very well. There's a dynamic of brinksmanship to their diplomacy which is alarming to Iran's immediate neighbors. S.A. and the GCC emirates remember too well Iran's attempt to close Hormuz during the "tanker war" of 1988. Further, the internal decision-making appartus of the Iranian leadership lacks any semblance of transparency. That's a dangerous condition when contemplating future relations with a nuclear-armed Iran.