CNN v. Jerusalem Post v. Tehran Times

Given, these are all English written papers, there weren't too many, outwordly biased statements supporting Iran, but the key note here is the titlement of each article.

Jerusalem Post has the statement of bold aggression with its Barak: If Sanctions Fail, Iran Must Be Hit  article. Iran is written as an enemy of the state, as far as, Israel is concerned. Their only purpose for having nuclear energy is to be a future threat to Israel's people.
Because of this threat, Israel is prepared to strike sooner, rather, than later. From their view, Iran will be too powerful to take, on down the road. They mention that they do not want to wait on the West, because the West is too hesitant to take action. The article quotes the Washington Post;s senior writer, David Ignatius, as he says, "Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu doesn't want to learn the fate of Israel dependant on American action." Ya alon, former IDF Chief of Staff agreed. "The Iranians understand the West has capabilities, but as long as the Iranians don't think the West has the political stomach and determination to use it, they will not stop. Currently, they don't think that the world is determined." There is clearly a bold bias against Iran in this article.

The next titled article is West Pursuing a Wrong Policy Toward Iran: Salehi. Can you guess which souce this came from? The title's choice of words gives it away? The Tehran Times, though written in English, is basing it's worldly articles from a slight pro-Iran bias. Yet, they cannot give commitment to any one side.
Another thing pointed out to me was the shortness of this newspaper' articles. Some are too short. Iran Will Become Burial Ground For Aggressor: General is a great example of that. It consists of two sentences that are separated to look like two paragraphs. Still, it gets its point across just fine. Major General Hossein Hassani-Sa'di makes his statement very clear. This lack of content gives me the impression that there is a hesitancy to go any further with the story...due to conflict of interests. The defiance of Israel's, and the West's, stance is powerful, though.

CNN.com's article title reads Iran's Leader: War Would be Detrimental to U.S.  Unlike the Jerusalem Post, this article doesn't shout for offensive aggression, neither does it yell defensive aggression like the Tehran Times.  Instead, is labels a warning of awareness. CNN points out, "Khameini's rhetoric is hardly new. But the timing of his comments could prove critical with nuclear talks around the corner." The lack of dominant bias for Israel is what is amazing. Though, we have instantly had their back in the past, it appears we are getting second opinions and still being unclear about our stance.