" UN nuclear chief attacks hostile US claims on Iran"

[eliteforce]

The AMerican media often makes this statement, "Iran is a state sponsor or terrorism." But in fact Iran supports only 2 militant groups: Hamas-which is supported mostly ideologically as they do not need Iran to provide the crude weapons they usually use like homemade rockets..and Hezbollah..these are not militants that commit "terrorism" in the sense like BinLadens/alqueda group-which sometimes launches attacks against civilian targets in other countries(not Israel).. they also are probably helping arm anti-occupation militants in Iraq..none of these policies really reflect an "extreme" policy, or a policy so extreme that you would suspect that Iran would give a nuclear weapon to a crazy group that would use it against for example the US..so this whole 'terrorism' argument to prevent Iran from obtaining more nuclear facilities is just an excuse, when the real agenda is that the US wants to maintain a superior strategic position vis-nuclear weapons.

[xero]

....the argument to prevent Iran from obtaining more nuclear facilities is just an excuse, when the real agenda is that the US wants to maintain a superior strategic position vis-nuclear weapons.

Well put.

From an ordinary US citizen perspective this is difficult to see objectively because of the deep sense of fear that 9/11 has created.......but if you look at it from an east perspective, the US attacked Iraq without a good reason (and you can argue that the US has a track record of unnecessary aggression on foreign soil) killing thousands of innocent citizens, so why wouldn't they want to try and strengthen themselves.

If I put myself in the shoes of an average proud, patriotic Iranian, I would want my government to have some "muscle" to protect my sovereignty. Nuclear capablity has proven to a very effective deterrent in the past.....balance of power is a good thing.