I'm in favour of the Iranian nuclear programme, even if it is aimed at producing weapons.
My reasons:
1 - The main objective of government -- at least of any serious, nationalist government -- is to maintain the order of the country and protect its people from both internal and external threats. Iran is a neighbor to a number of nuclear powers: there are Pakistan and India right in the east, and China a little further; there's Russia to the north; and there's Israel to the West. In the present, Iran has good relations with most of those countries. The issue is that this won't of necessity hold true in the future as there's no such thing as permanent friendships in international affairs. It would be wise of Iran, if it wants to protect its sovereignty and people from foreign attacks, to acquire nuclear capabilities and match the power of its most influent neighbors.
2 - Iran has been a permanent target of foreign aggression -- from wars to sanctions, to sabotage operations -- for more than 30 years now. And such aggression has been sponsored by a number of nuclear-armed states (mainly the US, France and Britain). This is strong indication that those countries harbour bellicose intentions towards Iran and that, in favourable circumstances, they would try and replicate in Iran what they did to Iraq. Just a proof of that is the inclusion of Iran in the same "Axis of Evil" as Iraq and North Korea. Since the Axis was composed, North Korea has acquired nuclear weapons and we no longer hear warmongering agitprop from the US establishment (apart from some radical figures like John Bolton) towards that country. Iraq, however, did not have any nuclear weapons and didn't develop one in the meantime, and we all know what has been made of it. The lesson for Iran is clear. Even honest Israeli military analysts and politicians understand the impetus behind Iran's nuclear program and that its nature is mainly defensive. Israeli scholar Martin van Creveld, for example,
said:
Wherever U.S forces go, nuclear weapons go with them or can be made to follow in short order. The world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy.
The most moral purpose of government is to protect its people. Considering Iran's history as a target of foreign aggression, one can only accept and understand that its government will do what it takes to protect itself and its people from further aggression, as would any other government in the same position.
3 - Even if Iran didn't have all those pressing security concerns pointed out above, I'd support a nuclear program. In fact, I think more countries should own nuclear weapons. There's no reason why ownership of nukes should be restricted to the UNSC countries. The argument that those states are more trustworthy than the rest in handling nuclear weapons not only reeks of racism but is also downright ridiculous, considering the very recent history of those countries in waging unilateral wars (US, Britain, Russia/URSS), inciting genocides in poor countries (
France), and employing nuclear weapons in actual wars and against civilian populations (the US). The reason those countries want a monopoly on nuclear weapons is that they want to retain their military superiority against the no-haves. But why should the no-haves be complicit in their plans?
