It's not just the U.S. and Zionists, it's the pretty much whole world that do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons.  Besides perhaps Syria, who else supports it ?

OK, so let me re-phrase that, who else then ChantCD and perhaps Syria support Iran having nuclear weapons.

Yes. maybe North Korea, although this alliance is one of research and development.

Why would Russia want Iran to have nuclear weapons, where they are in range with current missile technology ?  Few realize that Iran and Russia are actually competitors when it comes to projecting their power over the Caspian sea States.

The issue is not one of nuclear weapons, but of nuclear capability.  Developing peaceful nuclear power is not an activity that is prohibited by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

That the US-Israeli Axis suspects the Iranian government of trying to gain nuclear weapons says more about their own collective mindset than anything else.  Afterall, if Americans and Israelis were treating the Arab world justly, what would there be to fear from an Iran with peaceful nuclear power?

The wider point I am trying to make is that it's not only what you call the US-Israeli Axis that is against Iran being nuclear or fosters suspicion on it's intention.

It's not the case at all. For one, Iran is not Arab, it's Persian.  And neighbouring Arab countries like Saudi Arabia feel threatened by Iran, much more in fact then Israel, since Israel has the means to defend itself.  Iran going nuclear, is likely to only trigger a nuclear arms race in the middle-east.  

Edit: Iran's interest of nuclear for arms is well docuмented, it's not a matter of mindset.

"The wider point I am trying to make is that it's not only what you call the US-Israeli Axis that is against Iran being nuclear or fosters suspicion on it's intention."

The US-Israeli Axis is leading the charge.  They are the chicken little screaming that the sky is falling.

Publicly yes.  The Saudis do not advertise though the press.  They very rarely do.  So what ?  The question is not who is the loudest, it's who supports or opposes Iran going nuclear.
 

"It's not the case at all."

One can only make this assertion if one is wilfully ignorant of geo-politics since, say, 1948.

It's not the case that it's only the U.S./Israel block that seek to restrict Iran.  Your blanket statement does not help showing the contrary.  The U.S. and the Saudis as had only the common interest of containing Iran since the fall of the Shah and the Islamic revolution in 1979.  It was done in the 80's with the Iran-Iraq war in which the U.S. was arming both sides, making sure no one gets the upper hand.  The Saudis where funding this war of attrition that kept both states in check. It was done in the 90's by basing U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. (it was not only to contain and protect against Iraq.)

"For one, Iran is not Arab, it's Persian."

It is Islamic.  That is the point.

This makes no sense.  It's not because it's a true statement that it makes a point.  The Shia Islam of Iran clashes strongly against the Sunni/Wahabi Islam of the Saudi.  So again, what is your point ?

"And neighbouring Arab countries like Saudi Arabia feel threatened by Iran, much more in fact then Israel, since Israel has the means to defend itself."

So, then you are implying that Israel has nuclear weapons.  Therefore, if it is okay for Israel, why is it not okay for Iran?

Rhetorical question: I already know the "answer".

No you don't know the answer.  Your mind reading powers are failing you.   I support the dismantling of Israel's nuclear arsenal.

Again, the pro-Zionists are going on the assumption that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, not peaceful nuclear power.  I wonder why?
...
It is totally a matter of mindset.  Why attribute a hostile motive to a nation that is pursuing its sovereign right to peaceful nuclear power, if one's own intentions arent already hostile?

Again, rhetorical question.

No not rhetorical.  Iran has been working toward gaining nuclear  arms secrets.

"...No not rhetorical.  Iran has been working toward ..."

Blah, blah, blah.  Whatever.

The point is this: there is no objective criteria by which one may claim that Iran is trying to gain nuclear weapons.  Period.  No "Ifs", "Ands", or "Buts" about it.

(And Time Magazine is far from an objective source.)

You can by choice or by intellectual laziness not look into the A. Q. Khan smuggling network activities with Iran, and overlook what is now in the public record and acknowledge by A.Q. Khan himself and the Pakistani Government also. You can ignore it, but by doing so, can't dictate what is objective truth on Iran's intention - or at the least, in the recent past - since they been caught red handed before and you wilfully look the other way.

The A.Q. Khan network is not a Time magazine story.  I could have presented it from any angle you want. But you don't need me, if you want to get your mind around it, you can find it all by yourself rather easily.

Edited to add: the above is by no means a smoking gun, and I do agree with you tot the extent that there is no proof that Iran is developing toward the bomb, but several indications point to the possibility.

Israel has nukes.  Everyone knows it.  And even if it DOESNT have nukes, they play the same kind of game of ambiguity that Saddam Hussein WAS ACCUSED OF playing which caused us to invade his country, overthrow his government, murder his sons, and hang him upon the verdict of a kangaroo court.

So, why, if Israel has nukes -- or DOESNT DENY having nukes and submit itself to the same kind of humiliating inspections demanded of Iraq and Iran -- should we not sanction, embargo, bomb, invade, and overthrow them?

(Rhetorical question.)

If we take Israel at their word -- or dont even bother asking them -- why did we subject Iraq, and why do we subject Iran to such hostile, obviously biased treatment?  Iran publically declares that they are seeking peaceful nuclear power.  Even if they are LYING THROUGH THEIR COLLECTIVE TEETH -- at least deserve the same benefit of the doubt that we give Israel until it can be PROVEN that they have nuclear weapons.

Anything else is simply unjust.

But I'm not reflecting on whether it's fair or not, which I find to be a naive consideration when speaking of geopolitics. I only point out that the opposition to Iran is not only from the US/Israel block. It's a global consensus. and that includes the Sunni Arab states.

You can broaden the discussion, but it bears no opposition to what I've been holding since the beginning of the thread.

Edit:  Can you clarify.  Do you support Iran having nuclear weapons ?

Do you support Israel having nuclear weapons?  I know you already stated "I support the dismantling of Israel's nuclear arsenal."  But that is a fαℓѕє fℓαg: no nuclear power will relinquish its nuclear arms, least of all Israel.  So your statement is meaningless.

You really are a piece of work.  First you falsely ascribe to me views that I do not hold...

So, then you are implying that Israel has nuclear weapons.  Therefore, if it is okay for Israel, why is it not okay for Iran?

... and upon correcting you, you go on stating that my views are but a fαℓѕє fℓαg and meaningless.  Is shiftiness and intellectual dishonesty hallmarks of your Catholicity also ?  

All this in effect, only to avoid answering my question.  Bravo !

If you find me playing games with you in this manner, do tell for I will apologize immediately.

____________________________________________________

Besides, we're mixing apples and oranges.  Iran is not trying to get nuclear weapons: it is trying to develope nuclear power.  There is a difference.

If the above is true, I agree.  There are some serious questions to look into that help make an opinion on whether they intend on getting nuclear armament or not, but you do not seem to be inclined to explore them. So we will let that be.

Do you think that Iran should not have nuclear power?  

I don't really care, but only if they comply to all requirements from the IAEA and get their nuclear fuel from a third party.

If not, based on what?

 

I don't support Iran making it's own fuel since it can be diverted to a military program that could spell disaster in a region that don't need another variable.  In this way, they would address their energy concern without retaining the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon.

What gives you the right to dictate to another sovereign country what kind of power you will "permit" it to have?

Your kidding right?  My opinion doesn't matter.  I can only share it. It's non-binding.  Does this mean I can't have an opinion ?  
Your outrageous Sir. (see above on your fαℓѕє fℓαg comment.  It's bunk.)  

____________________________________________________

Now that you've seen how easy it is to give an answer to a straightforward question... can you clarify your opinion on whether you support Iran having nuclear weapons ? - Yes I know, even if they are not, as you say in the process of doing this.

And don't worry to much about your answer, your opinion on the matter is just as meaningless as mine.  I'd just like to know what you think.