A more salient point would be to note what GlobalSecurity.org has to say, with the acknowledgement that this NIE confirmed the existence of Iranian WMD of the nuclear variety.

The success of strikes against Iran's WMD facilities requires both tactical and strategic surprise, so there will not be the sort of public rhetorical buildup in the weeks preceeding hostilities, of the sort that preceeded the invasion of Iraq. To the contrary, the Bush Administration will do everything within its power to deceive Iran's leaders into believing that military action is not imminent.
With respect to the role of the upcoming election, and the barometer of public perception of the Iranian nuclear threat, I submit the poll posted above is most germane to this issue. To quote one of my favorite columnists:

I think the election results will turn as much on perceptions as reality, and political campaigns are all about creating perceptions, so the campaigning will be highly relevant. Don't get me wrong, there is not always a major disconnect between perception and reality. The electorate will often perceive things as they objectively exist.
From the same link as above:

4 November 2008
The US presidential election of 2008 is scheduled to occur on November 4, 2008. If the White House judges that military strikes would rally the country around the President and his party, it would argue for timing strikes as little as a week before the election, a pre-planned October Surprise.
This might be the bottom line if the current NIE was in fact politically motivated.