Infact atleast ONE of those excuses are true.
Iran IS funding and supporting Hezbollah.
Iran IS funding and supporting part of the insurgency in Iraq.
So maybe that isn´t just an excuse..

I think the point that every western intellegence agency are making is..
Can we afford to gamble on the Iranian nuclear aspirations are peaceful?
It is a hard question with alot of different sides to it.
Maybe it is but maybe, just maybe alot of enriched uranium floating around a nation with KNOWN ties to terrorist organizations that has NO problem whatsoever attacking civilian populace is a problem...

Everyone will have to decide for themselves what they think.

On another note, why are you so interested in what we think about your country?
I get it everyone wants to feel nationalpride, but this goes above and beyond IMO.
You have asked, we have pretty much answered what we think.
Are you trying to sell us on Iranian propaganda then perhaps you are barking alittle up the wrong tree?

KJ sends..

Is Iran the boogeyman that American neo-conservatives and Israeli hardliners make it out to be? Surprisingly, it is – but not because of its nuclear program. Iran doesn’t want nuclear weapons to exterminate Jews; rather, Iran wants to increase its ability to project power and influence across the Persian Gulf.

This is the real problem with Iran: it has the potential to project enormous influence in the Gulf through conventional (and in the future, nuclear) means, but it cannot do so while Americans remain stationed in Iraq. As such, Iran has been working to destabilise Iraq and to encourage the United States to leave – which finally, it is. The ensuing Iraqi power vacuum, once filled by Saddam Hussein’s Sunni minority, can now be filled by Iran-friendly Shiites. With Iraq as a hapless buffer state, Iran will be free to project its influence throughout the entire Gulf. This is not a far-fetched idea – the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war just so that he could act as a buffer against Iranian expansion.

That’s why the concern of the Gulf states isn’t really Israel (which, for all intents and purposes, is an enemy in public rhetoric only), but a Shiite Iran seeking to increase its sphere of influence in a region increasingly devoid of American troops. It is this fear of Iranian expansionism which has prompted the furious battle over Bahrain, a majority Shiite population ruled by a Saudi-friendly Sunni minority. Iran has very likely been fuelling the riots across the small island nation in the hope of encouraging regime change, a Shiite and Iran-friendly government, and thereby gaining an opening to project its influence in neighbouring Saudi Arabia. That’s also why the Saudis moved forcefully to support the Bahraini government in fending off protestors, and why the West watched silently. The rights of a few protestors in a tiny Middle Eastern nation are a small price to pay for holding back Iranian influence.

The growth of Iranian power is not just a Middle Eastern affair, either. Remember: Iran has a considerable naval presence in the Gulf, and with it, the ability to lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz, a channel for over two-thirds of the world’s oil supplies. To do so might be contrary to Iran’s immediate self-interest but it provides Iran with bargaining power, a kill-switch against any threats. This, in addition to the development of nuclear weapons, would present enormous complications in any attempt to take action against Iran in the future.

Does this sound like a nuclear, nation-state version of a suicide bomber? We need to stop seeing Iran as an unstable, fundamentalist regime itching to take out Israel. Only then will we see the real problem that it poses.

A few days ago in Iran and 5+1 group negotiations in Baghdad Mr. Jalili, the lead of Iranian negotiators, said to the 5+1 group: Do you know where we are? We are in the Saddam’s palace, the person you help him 30 years ago in Iran-Iraq war by the German leopard tanks, the UK Chieftain tanks, the French Exocet missiles and Mirage and Super Étendard fighters, the Russian Scat B missiles and Mig aircrafts, the German and England chemical bombs, The US sidewinder missiles and AWACS aircrafts, The Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar dollars and the Palestinian, Yemeni and the other Arab soldiers. At that time we were almost alone but we didn’t surrender. Now Saddam was killed, the Iraqi people are free and the Iraq leaders are our strategic friends. We are much stronger than before so do you expect we regardless of our legal rights about nuclear energy?
And about the Persian Gulf I think if someone comes from another planet and read your text he maybe thought the Persian Gulf is somewhere full of the oil and is near the US or Europe and the Iranian are the people who want to make nuclear weapon to threaten the US or the Europeans to rob their oil!!

Originally Posted by Der Alte

Is Iran the boogeyman that American neo-conservatives and Israeli hardliners make it out to be? Surprisingly, it is – but not because of its nuclear program. Iran doesn’t want nuclear weapons to exterminate Jews; rather, Iran wants to increase its ability to project power and influence across the Persian Gulf.

This is the real problem with Iran: it has the potential to project enormous influence in the Gulf through conventional (and in the future, nuclear) means, but it cannot do so while Americans remain stationed in Iraq. As such, Iran has been working to destabilise Iraq and to encourage the United States to leave – which finally, it is. The ensuing Iraqi power vacuum, once filled by Saddam Hussein’s Sunni minority, can now be filled by Iran-friendly Shiites. With Iraq as a hapless buffer state, Iran will be free to project its influence throughout the entire Gulf. This is not a far-fetched idea – the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war just so that he could act as a buffer against Iranian expansion.

That’s why the concern of the Gulf states isn’t really Israel (which, for all intents and purposes, is an enemy in public rhetoric only), but a Shiite Iran seeking to increase its sphere of influence in a region increasingly devoid of American troops. It is this fear of Iranian expansionism which has prompted the furious battle over Bahrain, a majority Shiite population ruled by a Saudi-friendly Sunni minority. Iran has very likely been fuelling the riots across the small island nation in the hope of encouraging regime change, a Shiite and Iran-friendly government, and thereby gaining an opening to project its influence in neighbouring Saudi Arabia. That’s also why the Saudis moved forcefully to support the Bahraini government in fending off protestors, and why the West watched silently. The rights of a few protestors in a tiny Middle Eastern nation are a small price to pay for holding back Iranian influence.

The growth of Iranian power is not just a Middle Eastern affair, either. Remember: Iran has a considerable naval presence in the Gulf, and with it, the ability to lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz, a channel for over two-thirds of the world’s oil supplies. To do so might be contrary to Iran’s immediate self-interest but it provides Iran with bargaining power, a kill-switch against any threats. This, in addition to the development of nuclear weapons, would present enormous complications in any attempt to take action against Iran in the future.

Does this sound like a nuclear, nation-state version of a suicide bomber? We need to stop seeing Iran as an unstable, fundamentalist regime itching to take out Israel. Only then will we see the real problem that it poses.

I agree entirely but in the end it is just Iran playing the same games the rest of the world is playing and being somewhat successful at it.

As far as Iranian power projection goes surely even that is limited much in the way Saddam Hussein's power was, the second they leap the border the oil loving west will be on their arse's like white on rice so all that is available to them is covert action and subterfuge and in all honesty if Middle Eastern nations are so fragile that they collapse over that then perhaps they should not have existed in the first place.

To a limited extent I think Iran's rise in the region should be seen by other nations in the region as a trigger for change, to strengthen and advance the freedoms they offer their people in order to prevent insurrection.

Originally Posted by Der Alte

Is Iran the boogeyman that American neo-conservatives and Israeli hardliners make it out to be? Surprisingly, it is – but not because of its nuclear program. Iran doesn’t want nuclear weapons to exterminate Jews; rather, Iran wants to increase its ability to project power and influence across the Persian Gulf.

This is the real problem with Iran: it has the potential to project enormous influence in the Gulf through conventional (and in the future, nuclear) means, but it cannot do so while Americans remain stationed in Iraq. As such, Iran has been working to destabilise Iraq and to encourage the United States to leave – which finally, it is. The ensuing Iraqi power vacuum, once filled by Saddam Hussein’s Sunni minority, can now be filled by Iran-friendly Shiites. With Iraq as a hapless buffer state, Iran will be free to project its influence throughout the entire Gulf. This is not a far-fetched idea – the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war just so that he could act as a buffer against Iranian expansion.

That’s why the concern of the Gulf states isn’t really Israel (which, for all intents and purposes, is an enemy in public rhetoric only), but a Shiite Iran seeking to increase its sphere of influence in a region increasingly devoid of American troops. It is this fear of Iranian expansionism which has prompted the furious battle over Bahrain, a majority Shiite population ruled by a Saudi-friendly Sunni minority. Iran has very likely been fuelling the riots across the small island nation in the hope of encouraging regime change, a Shiite and Iran-friendly government, and thereby gaining an opening to project its influence in neighbouring Saudi Arabia. That’s also why the Saudis moved forcefully to support the Bahraini government in fending off protestors, and why the West watched silently. The rights of a few protestors in a tiny Middle Eastern nation are a small price to pay for holding back Iranian influence.

The growth of Iranian power is not just a Middle Eastern affair, either. Remember: Iran has a considerable naval presence in the Gulf, and with it, the ability to lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz, a channel for over two-thirds of the world’s oil supplies. To do so might be contrary to Iran’s immediate self-interest but it provides Iran with bargaining power, a kill-switch against any threats. This, in addition to the development of nuclear weapons, would present enormous complications in any attempt to take action against Iran in the future.

Does this sound like a nuclear, nation-state version of a suicide bomber? We need to stop seeing Iran as an unstable, fundamentalist regime itching to take out Israel. Only then will we see the real problem that it poses.

I do not totally disagree with this opinion article from Sam Murray in The Sydney Globalist but in my opinion he minimizes, if not disregards, the religious aspect to much. Everything Iran does must pas a veto from the almighty clerics (ask Ahmadinejad). The clerics also have a very powerful army themselves called the Revolutionary Guards, including the Quds and Basij forces.
Who was propably working on a military nuclear device? Right, the Revolutinary Guard. No General of the other Armed forces, nor the government has any power over that force. The reason for their existence? To protect the country's Islamic system, IOW : Shiism. They call non-muslims and Sunnis heretics and believe that only they are the guardians of Mekka.
The Iranian clerics are fanatics but not stupid. They use the quds forces to stir trouble in non shiite countries but cannot be bold enough for large attacks, fearing retaliation from the west. But once they have a nuclear weapon the can defend themselves from retaliation.
Which western government dares to ignore an Iranian nuclear threat to destroy their capital if they decide to retaliate?

Iran will not use a nuclear device to directly attack their opponents (the west) but to use it as an defensive umbrella to safeguard their military expansion of Shiism. Do not forget that Islam almost always expanded by military force.

VDKMS:
I do not totally disagree with this opinion article from Sam Murray in The Sydney Globalist but in my opinion he minimizes, if not disregards, the religious aspect to much. Everything Iran does must pas a veto from the almighty clerics (ask Ahmadinejad). The clerics also have a very powerful army themselves called the Revolutionary Guards, including the Quds and Basij forces.
Who was propably working on a military nuclear device? Right, the Revolutinary Guard. No General of the other Armed forces, nor the government has any power over that force. The reason for their existence? To protect the country's Islamic system, IOW : Shiism. They call non-muslims and Sunnis heretics and believe that only they are the guardians of Mekka.
The Iranian clerics are fanatics but not stupid. They use the quds forces to stir trouble in non shiite countries but cannot be bold enough for large attacks, fearing retaliation from the west. But once they have a nuclear weapon the can defend themselves from retaliation.
Which western government dares to ignore an Iranian nuclear threat to destroy their capital if they decide to retaliate?

Iran will not use a nuclear device to directly attack their opponents (the west) but to use it as an defensive umbrella to safeguard their military expansion of Shiism. Do not forget that Islam almost always expanded by military force.

There is no tax for these kinds of stories. If I wrote story about the Zionist danger for the world as you wrote about the Shiism, I’d write stories more frightening than yours. They are just about 14 million people but they make upset the entire world. Like a small cancer which kill a strong body. They control the large powers and abuse them to reach their illegitimate interests. Don’t they? How many of the congress delegates and the Senators of the US are their hireling?
If you look at the history you can find easily how they were hated not just for Muslims but also before Islam and even before Christianity. History proves my opinion.

Originally Posted by hamidreza

There is no tax for these kinds of stories. If I wrote story about the Zionist danger for the world as you wrote about the Shiism, I’d write stories more frightening than yours. They are just about 14 million people but they make upset the entire world. Like a small cancer which kill a strong body. They control the large powers and abuse them to reach their illegitimate interests. Don’t they? How many of the congress delegates and the Senators of the US are their hireling?
If you look at the history you can find easily how they were hated not just for Muslims but also before Islam and even before Christianity. History proves my opinion.

Israel make upset the entire world? Exaggerating buddy.

As far as danger stories I believe more comes from muslim theocratic states than Israel at the moment.

The history you chant is full of stupidity when people thought only their god existed and would kill you if you do not believe it. Christain and Islamic people were just as hated in those times.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Iran will not use a nuclear device to directly attack their opponents (the west) but to use it as an defensive umbrella to safeguard their military expansion of Shiism. Do not forget that Islam almost always expanded by military force.

Oh come on Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, Fascism, Tribalism and any other "ism" you care to throw in there has expanded through military force hell I am pretty sure that if Pacifism thought it could expand through war we would be tripping over militant pacifists as well.

The only thing a nuclear device will safeguard is the existing regime in Iran and that will only last as long as they don't use it.

Originally Posted by MontyB

The only thing a nuclear device will safeguard is the existing regime in Iran and that will only last as long as they don't use it.

I agree on this and you basically agreed with VDKMS when you said this. They won't need to use the nuclear weapon, all they need is to have it and keep enemies guessing if they would use it or not, therefore allowing them to do anything they pleased so long as no one felt it was a major risk to intervene. Why do you think the Soviets were able to do what they do and U.S as well?

Considering it, I think Iran wants a great influence spread in the M.E.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

I agree on this and you basically agreed with VDKMS when you said this. They won't need to use the nuclear weapon, all they need is to have it and keep enemies guessing if they would use it or not, therefore allowing them to do anything they pleased so long as no one felt it was a major risk to intervene. Why do you think the Soviets were able to do what they do and U.S as well?

Considering it, I think Iran wants a great influence spread in the M.E.

What the hell have you been drinking?

There is no threat or "keep them guessing" policy to nuclear weapons, the USA lost in Vietnam but didn't nuke it, the Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan and did not nuke it either, why?

Because nuclear arsenals are there to protect the status quo and the only threat they pose is one of a last resort weapon, in other words there only value is as a "if I am going down I am taking you with me" weapon.

A thousand nuclear weapons will not give Iran any more power in the middle east than it has already simply because to use them means their own destruction.