Originally Posted by headspace
I believe you are being inflammatory for the sake - but if you could try and make one point at a time, that would be good.
I am particularly interested in the gas / oil / power issues that Iran has.
You see, a lot of people think that the enrichment programme is all about arms. I don't doubt Iran has nuclear ambitions, but I suspect that a regular power supply is their main ambition. It is also interesting that Russia has offered to enrich on their soil - again it is about control of power supply.
It seems to be that sources of independent power (gas, oil, nuclear) are forming the basis for most conflicts - and this is no different. Iran is not as radical as some posters here believe - but you are not helping the case.
I think the problem is when you have a leader of a power who states that another nation must be wiped from the face of the earth, and in the next sentence declares that their nuclear programme is for energy needs only. It doesn't exactly fill one with any reassurance.
Of course the acquisition of power (in one form or another) forms the basis for most conflicts - it always has. Even wars fought in the name of religion are essentially about the projection of influence, and therefore power, over their antagonists. If we're honest both gulf wars were more than partly fought to safeguard economic interests. The fact that we took out a tyrant was a bonus.