Iran has the right and should be allowed to produce nuclear weapons

I would not dare say that the Iranian government is not full of holocaust deniers and irrational leaders. I also would not deny that in probable likelihood, they are denying UN inspectors as they are pursuing certain nuclear activities. But I claim that they have just the same right to develop nuclear weapons as any other recognized sovereign state. I will make my conclusion thus: If your argument is that their right should be stripped (thus defeating the idea of a sovereign nation) because they are more dangerous, then I will show how they are not more dangerous than other current nuclear-armed nations. 1. You are mistaken in thinking that Iran is not part of the UN. They are in fact a member (Here is the UN’s official record http://www.un.org...) 2. You state that Iran is dangerous because of their proximity to their enemy (Israel). Explain how that is different than the situation in closer neighbors Pakistan and India, who both have been continuously engaged in conflicts since the 1940’s. (http://www.globalsecurity.org...). Pakistani leaders have even stated their willingness to use nuclear weapons offensively! (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...) Both of these countries posses multiple nuclear warheads, and both are considered ‘dangerous’ by your logic, so where is their right to nuclear weapons derived from, if not solely because of their sovereignty? If Pakistan, a country just as dangerous as Iran by your definitions, can have nuclear weapons why can’t Iran? Pakistan has even had problems with their credibiliy on terrorist associations lately. 3. Yes the Iranians have leveled threats at Israel and even claim to “blow them off the map”. Countries do this political grandstanding all the time. Look at the Cold War--with two countries housing the more nuclear warheads than of all other countries combined. Khrushchev and Nixon had fierce arguments and threats--even with Khrushchev remarking that they would “destroy” the United States! Look at the political grandstanding in the Cuban Missile Crisis. It’s all about flexing their muscles. But there are reasons to hold back—I discuss next. 4. You also state that you fear the Iranians would subsequently bomb Israel once they have the bomb. Did the US bomb the Soviets and vice-versa during the tumultuous times of the cold war? Has Pakistan bombed India and vice-versa during the last 60 years of their conflict? No. There are consequences for every decision. Mutually-assured destruction would be a big one. Do you really feel that Iran would bomb Israel, knowing that the Israelis have superior military power and already possess 60-80 nukes? http://www.fas.org... Summary: Much mainstream propaganda has been directed at the Iranian government in an attempt to block their sovereign right to nukes. The case, as I hopefully have shown, is that Iran is no different than any other country that has developed nukes. They should have the same opportunity to defense as any other—otherwise how could you call them a sovereign country (call them a semi-country then)? If you are going to recognize them as a country and bring them into the United Nations, then you have to recognize their right to develop weapons as any other country.Of course nuclear weapons should not fall into anybody's hands. You wouldn't give a nuke to Al-Qaeda or Hammas. But these are not sovereign countries, and they are not recognized as such. This is the difference with Iran. They are fully recognized and are full members of the international community. That right should be extended in light of this. They are no more dangerous than Pakistanis are or the Soviets were.Thank you for presenting an articulate debate and you have the last word...