The biggest threat to world peace is Israel followed by the USA and Europe.

The reason why they want to control Iran is that is has lots of oil and is one of the last few countries that have an independent banking system free of the BIS.ie Banking of International Settlements

China also has a Govt owned central banks and lots of State owned ones. The Rothschild Banking Empire want to control the planet.

A lot of unsubstantiated claims in this article and an awful lot of hypocrisy. Never fails to amaze me how completely different standards of behaviour are demanded of Iran compared to the behaviour displayed by those making the demands. Is the US, UK, or any of the other P5 members destroying or reducing their own nuclear weapon stockpiles? Somehow Iran supporting an ally in a neighbouring country (Syria) is a "rogue state" activity, while no mention is made of US support for opposition rebels doesn't even rate a mention.
If anyone in the middle east needs nuclear weapons to protect itself, its the Iranians. They face constant threats of attack from the Israelis and the US. I can't help feeling the whole region would be a lot safer if Iran had the bomb, after which such threats would cease.

An insightful comment on the Iranian strategy and the West's current impotence. Another thoughtful response by one of the best journalists in the UK is here:
https://www.embooks.com/blog/single/game-on-why-iran-goads-the-gullible-west

David Long,

Yep, sets it out very well.

And I'm sure the Saudis can do the same calculation. Wonder what their reaction will be. On the one hand they have their links with Pakistan which could get them all the technical expertise they need. But does it extend to actually purchasing devices?

On the other hand they do not have Iran's depth of scientific manpower.

It does however look as if we're going to see, or maybe already are seeing, a nuclear arms race between two Muslim theocracies.

An added complication is the inherent instability of the Saudi regime

An article that could have been written any time in the last ten years - nothing new here.

The author adopts the tone of a shockjock journalist rather than a scholar - hence "nightmare scenario". Odd how US-Israeli academics are so hawkish.

No mention of Israel's thermonuclear deterrent that would deter, hence nullify, any Iranian moves to utilise 6 or 7 crude uranium fission bombs.

No mention in the article of Saudi Arabia (because its America's friend?) which may be a greater concern to Iran than Israel.

Pete

People who only think about a subject after someone has gone to the trouble of telling them all about it should be careful about rushing into print. Ayatollah Khomeini was reported as saying that it would take only one nuclear bomb to destroy Israel but Islam would suffer only some damage from Israel's retaliation. Then, to top it off, all the Shia fanatics are rewarded by going straight to Paradise.
So, mutual assured destruction does not sound like an effective deterrent to me.
And remember, Shia Islam believe that the real or Shia Caliph will not return until after the event of fire - which to a fanatic Shia supporter might sound like a nuclear explosion.
Best not to let the Persians get the bomb - just in case they have some people in charge who are fanatics and don't think before they act.