> Couldn't possibly be that.
Are you kidding? The United States initially helped Saddam Hussein invade Iran, in a decade-long conflict that eventually claimed a million Iranian lives. The U.S. and other European powers even helped the Iraq use WMDs against Iran. And, get this: when Iraq attacked Iranian forces with chemical weapons, Iran did not retaliate in kind, despite possessing the technical capacity to do so. On top of all that, Saudi Arabian leaders claim they could acquire nuclear weapons in mere weeks. (regardless of the conditions under which they claim they would do so, the Saudi acknowledgement of their capability, is, itself, a nuclear threat -- on top of the threat already posed by other regional actors, who posses nuclear weapons.)
Now, you don't think *these* are plausible reasons for why Iran might want to develop a latent nuclear capability?
(note that "latent capability" is different from "fully functioning and deployed weapons.")
> History repeats itself.
Exactly, but not the way you describe. That repeating pattern is more like colonialism -- with its concomitant historical pattern of racism and white supremacy -- and not, as you claim, Antisemitism. Those tin-pot dictatorships that are (or were) all over the region? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Hosni Mubarek, etc...? They are *overwhelmingly* propped-up by European powers and/or the United States. Make no mistake: the Saudi regime is *brutal.* ( it can be argued that basic freedoms are far more curtailed in Saudi Arabia, than in Iran.) Heck, Saudi Arabia essentially operates a eugenics program, designed to breed more "Al-Saud" family members. Such policies are not in the interests of most Saudi citizens, and, in fact: they are robbing the people blind. But these policies are in the interests of the Al-Sauds, and their colonial benefactors.
Also, the entire settler/colonist process in Israel, itself, is far more akin to classic, race-based colonialism, than it is akin to resistance to racism (which includes: resistance to Antisemitism). You can even ignore the treatment of Palestinians to make this case:
1.) Israel helped the Apartheid South African government acquire weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Israel did this, despite the fact that the South African state was maintaining preparedness for a genocidal war of annihilation against Blacks, eg: they even went so far as to research the creation of bioweapons that would selectively-kill Blacks in the "race-war" that their leaders imagined could happen.
2.) Israel helped supply arms, training, and logistics to the Ladino/White Guatemalan regime, in the 1980s to 90's. It is widely acknowledged that this regime committed outright genocide against indigenous Mayans, during that county's civil war. Some estimates say that at least 200,000 Mayans were murdered or disappeared. Logistics included a computerized "passbook" system, that was used to limit the movements of Mayan Indians, in their own country. A similar system was supplied to South Africa, enabling the Apartheid regime to limit the movements of Blacks.
Now, before you claim "Israel (or other western powers) would never use nuclear weapons, first" -- consider the above two points: Israel has already helped other countries commit, or potentially commit, genocide. Not to mention: the United States, and many of the European powers active in the region, already have their *own* relatively recent history of mass-murder and genocide.
So, who should be trusted? Who will keep the peace? Iranian leaders -- regardless of how un-democratic they are -- have made the calculation that they cannot rely on the peaceful "good intentions" of these other countries. Problem is: based on historical fact, their calculations are probably correct.