El Baradei: Iran will have 8,000 centrifuges installed by year's end

Mar 2, 2003
2,677
0
#1
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/washington/12iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

There are questions repeatedly raised by 'western experts' about Iran's ability to run its centrifuge machines for long periods. Many of these questions seem informed by the knowledge (revealed publicly) that western intelligence agencies (in order to sabotage the program) have sold and otherwise tried to introduce defective and impure material into Iran's nuclear equipment.

The same way the reports about impurities in the UF-6 gas produced at Isfahan's Uranium Convesion Facility proved bogus, with Iran already using its UF-6 gas to produce low enriched uranium, I have a hunch that the skeptics (including those relying on western sabotage attempts) who imagine that Iran's centrifuges will explode if run for long periods will be in for surprise.

The rate of production of centrifuges in Iran, as confirmed by the IAEA, is 300 per week. The IAEA now expects Iran to be able to assemble and install 8,000 centrifuges by year's end. Iran has indicated that it would be able to have 54,000 centrifuges installed and operational in a couple of years.

In the meantime, if the machines Iran has installed can work properly and can be run continuously for long enough periods, its petty much game, set and match for Iran. It takes fewer than 1,500 centrifuges running non-stop for around a year to convert UF-6 gas to sufficient quantities of HEU (highly enriched uranium) for a single nuclear bomb. Iran has already more than that number assembled, installed, and running. The number of nuclear bombs that Iran could produce each year year (if it ever so chose) is then basically a function of what multiple of 1,500 centrifuges Iran has? With 8,000, Iran could produce around 5 nukes a year if it ever so chose. At the same time, Iran would be able to produce enough low enriched uranium to fuel a nuclear reactor on its own.

While Iran's official position is that its will never built nuclear weapons, my hope is that Iran has a secret covert program to provide it with a nuclear deterent. Iran faces real threats, including threats of nuclear weapons being used against it. The basis for those threats has nothing to do with the propaganda against Iran either, but relate to efforts to unravel this country and prevent it from becoming a more powerful actor in a region the US/Israel have decided to dominate for themselves. In this equation, appeasement by Iran won't work either.

Iran, as a country, is well past the stage that (regardless of the regime in power in Iran) the US/Israel can afford letting it develop in a natural course. From their perspective, Iran is too big a country, in too strategically an important region, with industrial capabiity, with direct control over substantial oil reserves and the second largest reserves of natural gas, and with the potential to indirectly control and influence much much more still. This is a country that they want to see unraveled and basically destroyed. The rest is all propaganda.

On the other hand, if Iran wins this challenge, the rewards awaiting it are enormous. Being able to free itself of the web created to choke Iran, Iran would be able to earn billions and billions of additional dollars just from export of natural gas and LNG. It would be able to export many other products it has been slowly but surely manufacturing inside the country to a host of countries in the region and beyond. From automobiles, to consumer goods, to military equipment, while building factories and facilities on a joint venture basis for many developing and less developed countries. Once immune from foreign threats, there will be hundreds of billons of dollars in foreign investment pouring into Iran itself, spuring additional growth.

Indeed, hopefully, Iran could one day (still quite a few years away from that day) help inaugurate a new currency, pegged not to the US dollar as most currencies are, but to the value of combustible energy. The latter something that Iran, with oil, natural gas, and nuclear fuel, would be able to offer and benefit from.

At the same time, the old silk road that once connected the far east to Europe through Iran and the Middle East, can be revived. And the trade this time would be equally rewarding and beneficial as in the past. The energy supplies that India and China, two of the world's fastest growing econonies, need is what Iran can offer. Europe, unless it wants to rely on growing Russian monopoly in the energy sector, will also want to look to supplies from Iran.

There is more. Much more. All of it, however, would require that Iran defeat the attempts currently underway to destroy the country from within and without. May Iran be up to the challenge it faces.
 
Mar 7, 2007
16
0
#2
That explains all the US Navy build up in the Persian Gulf. I wonder what price the Iranian people have to pay for having this regime to have nukes. Unfortunately the regime and their supporters think the west are bluffing and they wont dare to take actions. They are in for a very rude awakening. They think that once they build that first nuke they are scott free. Greatly mistaking. They are reading the cards totally wrong. Time will tell sooner or later but looks like a lot sooner than later. Poor Iranian people that don't have a say in it. With the record of this regime it is unthinkable that the west will allow it to happen. You just need to listen and it is crystal clear.
 

R_E_Z_A

IPL Player
Jan 16, 2004
2,916
0
#3
That explains all the US Navy build up in the Persian Gulf. I wonder what price the Iranian people have to pay for having this regime to have nukes. Unfortunately the regime and their supporters think the west are bluffing and they wont dare to take actions. They are in for a very rude awakening. They think that once they build that first nuke they are scott free. Greatly mistaking. They are reading the cards totally wrong. Time will tell sooner or later but looks like a lot sooner than later. Poor Iranian people that don't have a say in it. With the record of this regime it is unthinkable that the west will allow it to happen. You just need to listen and it is crystal clear.
Western propaganda is doing its job very efficiently. Afterall, they have the technology to go to Mars, what is twisting public's minds for them? easy pizzy :D

Iran is NOT building nuclear BOMB, were is the evidence??? Is it like the WMD of Iraq?? why some people are so easily decieved?? oops sorry, I got the answer and its "the power of western media" ;)
 

Mr Thick

IPL Player
Oct 21, 2002
2,704
0
#4
That explains all the US Navy build up in the Persian Gulf. I wonder what price the Iranian people have to pay for having this regime to have nukes. Unfortunately the regime and their supporters think the west are bluffing and they wont dare to take actions. They are in for a very rude awakening. They think that once they build that first nuke they are scott free. Greatly mistaking. They are reading the cards totally wrong. Time will tell sooner or later but looks like a lot sooner than later. Poor Iranian people that don't have a say in it. With the record of this regime it is unthinkable that the west will allow it to happen. You just need to listen and it is crystal clear.
Bache shodee? mehdi o bar o bach poshtemoonan hamaro mizaneem meterekoneem.
 
Mar 2, 2003
2,677
0
#5
Western propaganda is doing its job very efficiently. Afterall, they have the technology to go to Mars, what is twisting public's minds for them? easy pizzy :D

Iran is NOT building nuclear BOMB, were is the evidence??? Is it like the WMD of Iraq?? why some people are so easily decieved?? oops sorry, I got the answer and its "the power of western media" ;)
You are right that there is no evidence indicating that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Sadly, however, if Iran is truly naive enough to rely on the lack of such evidence, and truly believes it can somehow thwart the dangerous plans against it by living up to its NPT commitments, it has learned nothing from the Iraq experience. And it has failed to understand the basic issue. That being the following: the most dangerous situation for Iran is being in a situation where it is technologically close or capable of building nukes, but has not really built up such a deterent. As long as that is the case, Iran is in serious danger.

I don't know if Iran is indeed building nukes, but I hope it is. Indeed, the best policy for Iran is to have covert program to build nukes, for this covert program to have started a few years back and already born some fruit, while Iran publicly denies it has such a program. That would allow Iran the ability to pull its nuclear deterent when and if the situation arises were such a deterent is necessary, while at the same time, it gives Iran more manuever room to build up its civilian program to the point where it would also be capable of producing dozens (instead merely a few) nukes a year.

On the other hand, if Iran has indeed been keeping up with its NPT commitments, I am worried about the fate that could befall our nation.
 

R_E_Z_A

IPL Player
Jan 16, 2004
2,916
0
#6
You are right that there is no evidence indicating that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Sadly, however, if Iran is truly naive enough to rely on the lack of such evidence, and truly believes it can somehow thwart the dangerous plans against it by living up to its NPT commitments, it has learned nothing from the Iraq experience. And it has failed to understand the basic issue. That being the following: the most dangerous situation for Iran is being in a situation where it is technologically close or capable of building nukes, but has not really built up such a deterent. As long as that is the case, Iran is in serious danger.

I don't know if Iran is indeed building nukes, but I hope it is. Indeed, the best policy for Iran is to have covert program to build nukes, for this covert program to have started a few years back and already born some fruit, while Iran publicly denies it has such a program. That would allow Iran the ability to pull its nuclear deterent when and if the situation arises were such a deterent is necessary, while at the same time, it gives Iran more manuever room to build up its civilian program to the point where it would also be capable of producing dozens (instead merely a few) nukes a year.

On the other hand, if Iran has indeed been keeping up with its NPT commitments, I am worried about the fate that could befall our nation.
I fully agree with you and I also hope that Iran someday builds nuclear bomb just to use it as a deterant. However, I dont think this is the way the government of Iran is looking at this issue. They have repeatedly announced that nuclear bomb is against Islam. Unless there comes out a fatva before announcemnt of the bomb :D. By the wat, during Iran-Iraq war Iran was subject to all types of chemical wepons but refrained from using such mass destruction wepons and i think that policy still stands.
 
Aug 27, 2005
8,688
0
Band e 209
#7
I don't know if IRI is building a Bomb or not, but when you see some one buying humongous amount of GASOLINE (Petrol) and storing it without owning a single CAR it makes you wonder!!!
Which Reactor are we going to insert this FUEL in?
 

R_E_Z_A

IPL Player
Jan 16, 2004
2,916
0
#8
I don't know if IRI is building a Bomb or not, but when you see some one buying humongous amount of GASOLINE (Petrol) and storing it without owning a single CAR it makes you wonder!!!
Which Reactor are we going to insert this FUEL in?
Buhsher and Darkhovin reactors when compelet will be thirsty for fuel. :drunk:
 
Aug 27, 2005
8,688
0
Band e 209
#9
Buhsher and Darkhovin reactors when compelet will be thirsty for fuel. :drunk:
I agree and there will be mega kilowatts of electricity..All Hail...
But is there any valid indication that these reactors will be ready to get HOT before we start piling up Fuel Rods? thanx
 
May 12, 2007
8,088
11
#10
"Bozak namir bahar miad kompoze ba khiar miad."
Russions have stopped their help to finish Bosher project and UN is planning more sanctions on Iran. In 20 years Iran will be forced to import oil. I do hope Iran has already a-boomb perhaps few they have bought from Ukrain or some eastern country. Otherwise Iran is going the same way as Iraq.
 
Last edited:

pansari

Bench Warmer
May 24, 2006
1,323
0
#11
Motori Jaan,

The global demand for Uranium have increased greatly in the past few year (infact uranium mines on the stock market check out how much they have gained). Iran is buying up all the uranium it can get its hands on....why you ask? firstly economically because of the increased price of oil they can afford it now (relatively speaking) and if you know that within the next 10-15 years India and China will have over 50 reactors come online driving the cost up, you should stock pile now.

Correct me if im wrong......Iran has completed the nuclear cycle already, but only on a laboratory scale, Busher i think is the closest reactor and the russians are dragging their feet (if we Iranians had violated a contract like this the world would be in an uproar saying that we can't be trusted etc...) but once busher comes online I think we will see a progressive increase in the frequency of reactors and thus the need for large amounts of fuel.


Side note from IRNA
"Ahmadinejad added the 40 percent of the local energy consumption is used in generating electricity while 51 percent is used in the transportation sector and these rates are very high. He added that plans should be made to decrease them."

40% of local energy is used to produce electricity ! wow imagine if we what a array of power plants could do to Iranian economy and energy grid !
 
Jun 7, 2004
3,196
0
#12
Side note from IRNA
"Ahmadinejad added the 40 percent of the local energy consumption is used in generating electricity while 51 percent is used in the transportation sector and these rates are very high. He added that plans should be made to decrease them."

40% of local energy is used to produce electricity ! wow imagine if we what a array of power plants could do to Iranian economy and energy grid !
Not withstanding the main topic of this thread, be careful about the words people use before drawing conclusions from them.

AN uses the word "local energy" as opposed to oil.
This is the real picture: Iran's electricity production is 87% via gas and hydro. There are still a few old diesel plants but they are being phased out and replaced by gas plants. In other words practically speaking oil is not used for producing electricity in Iran.

Iran exports oil. Iran does not export gas (the minute gas exports to Turkey are offset by imports from Turkmanistan.) Iran has the capability to produce virtually limitless amount of gas. The issue with gas is not production but transport. Iran can only produce a limited amount of oil, nearly all of which are thanks to the Shah's regime as very very few oil fields have been developed by the IR and nearly all the production comes from oil fields developed during the Shah's.

So there is zero economic justification for a nuclear power plant. In fact even if the IR managed the nuclear program like any normal competent organization (which they are not) and did not pay 10X the going rate for 5 times a slower pace of progress than any normal competent organization, Iran would loose money on the nuclear program.

As it stands Iran has lost 10s of billions of dollars in direct costs and hundreds of billions of dollars in indirect costs for progress achievable by any normal competent organization in a matter of 3-4 years. For example, from the same link SK posted, which is basically the oppoiste of his own post :) writes:
"If all those machines were working — which would be a tremendous challenge for Iran, given the highly sensitive nature of the equipment and the technical obstacles that have plagued Iranian engineers for years — they could produce enough uranium for roughly three nuclear weapons a year, nuclear experts say. But that is a worst-case scenario that assumes Iran could operate the equipment as well as Pakistan did in the late 1980s."
Of course some who did not follow the link may have mistaken SK's own writing for the actual article.

Now, do not get me wrong, I am all for Iran having a nuclear bomb right now Shah, IR, or anyone else. The question is at what cost. And as far as my post here is concerned, the question is understang the facts and not falling for bullshit.

There is zero economic justification for the nuclear program even if IR were a competent bunch. That is why Sepah is basically in charge. Given the level of incompetence and corruption among IR in particular Sepah then it is essentially an economic insanity.

Of course it is no one's business, including Israel, Europe, or Us's, how the IR wishes to throw away money, except of course the Iranian people's where that money belongs to in the first place.

It is quite clear without any doubt that this is not about economy or welfare of Iranian people but about power, power of Sepah at the tremendous expense and on back of all other Iranians especially the poor.
 

Bauvafa

Bench Warmer
Oct 26, 2004
1,987
0
#14
The energy demand is increasing globally with the rise of China and India. Fossil fuel reserves are pretty much well discovered and mostly developed and operational. There are no huge reserves anywhere in the world that hasn't been discovered. All that points to energy crisis in the future (within a few decades) unless other forms of energy are produced. One such option is nuclear energy and there is a race between major world powers to 1) Sign up major contracts for building reactors across the globe and 2) monopolize the energy produced. Those countries that fall behind in producing self sufficient energy at home will become the next generation of "4th world" countries. There are also hidden efforts to deny OPEC countries of such technology.
 
Last edited:

TheAli

Bench Warmer
Jul 8, 2003
1,592
0
3-rahe Farmaniye
#15
You are right that there is no evidence indicating that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Sadly, however, if Iran is truly naive enough to rely on the lack of such evidence, and truly believes it can somehow thwart the dangerous plans against it by living up to its NPT commitments, it has learned nothing from the Iraq experience. And it has failed to understand the basic issue. That being the following: the most dangerous situation for Iran is being in a situation where it is technologically close or capable of building nukes, but has not really built up such a deterent. As long as that is the case, Iran is in serious danger.

I don't know if Iran is indeed building nukes, but I hope it is. Indeed, the best policy for Iran is to have covert program to build nukes, for this covert program to have started a few years back and already born some fruit, while Iran publicly denies it has such a program. That would allow Iran the ability to pull its nuclear deterent when and if the situation arises were such a deterent is necessary, while at the same time, it gives Iran more manuever room to build up its civilian program to the point where it would also be capable of producing dozens (instead merely a few) nukes a year.

On the other hand, if Iran has indeed been keeping up with its NPT commitments, I am worried about the fate that could befall our nation.
Iran needs electric cars too. :)

BTW, I am almost sure Iran already has nuclear bombs (bought from the black market - not good quality but probably good enough!!!) and the intelligence agencies of the West most probably are guessing that. This is the reason we will never see a war between Iran and the West in the near future.

Agar deghat koni bahs-haye "jang" va in harfa ham moddatiye ke jam' shode chon ye bomb biofte tu Tel Aviv tamame milliard-hayi ke gharb kharj karde dar teyye 50 saale akhir be baad mire.
 

ashtar

National Team Player
Aug 17, 2003
5,425
13
#16
What are you guys talking about? Nuclear bomb as deterrent to whom? Somebody please explain to me how and in what circumstance can Iran use a nuclear bomb as a deterrent or otherwise.

It is stupid and impractical to think that Iran could or would use a nuclear bomb against any of its immediate neighbors. Does anybody honestly think that in case of another war that Iran would drop a nuclear bomb on its own doorstep or backyard? They might be mad, but they’re not stupid. Even North Korea isn’t stupid enough to threaten its Southern neighbor with a nuclear bomb.

Even if Iran had a bomb it has no means of delivering it intercontinentally. Russia with all its military might is becoming a sitting duck against the US missile shield project and will no longer have the capability to strike the West. Even if Iran could deliver one or two of these bombs West can literally turn the entire middle east, much less Iran, inside and out hundreds of times with their conventional weapons alone, not to mention their nuclear weapons. So, a couple of crude nuclear bombs will never be a deterrent to West. If anything it will invite a much more furious wrath in case of any conflict.

So, this only leaves deterring Israel. Now, who in their right mind thinks that Iran would or should destroy Islam’s third holiest site (never mind risk killing and radiating millions of innocent people including neighboring Muslims) as a means of deterring Israel from a conventional strike against Iran? It’s as ludicrous as suggesting that Islamic Republic should bomb Mecca or Medina as a means to deter Saudi Arabia! It’s like blackmailing your local dry cleaner with the threat that if he doesn’t pay up you will shit in your own pants and then have him dry clean it for you.

Even if Islamic Republic was not in power in Iran, anyone who thinks that Iranians should indiscriminately kill millions of innocent non-Iranians as means of defending themselves are simply out of their f..ing minds.

When some asshole named Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran it did no justify nor anybody in their right mind thought of retaliating against innocent Iraqis with chemical weapons. By the same token if some other asshole decides to bomb Iran with conventional or nuclear bombs it does not justify Iran stooping to the same level and losing its culture and civilization to retaliate in the same uncivilized manner.
 
Mar 2, 2003
2,677
0
#17
Some quick points.

First, the very same pro Israeli groups that are pushing the US to take military action against Iran would be the first to use their enormous influence to push for dialogue and reconciliation if they thought Iran had nuclear weapons.

Second, the deterent value of nuclear weapons is based ultimately on the fact that no one could be assured whether a war with a nuclear power might not get out of hand. That makes going to war with a country with nukes a harder sell politically.

Finally, Iran is implicitly facing nuclear blackmail already, with the US relaxing its rules for using nuclear weapons and openly debating the idea of using such weapons against Iran. Those threats by the US and/or Israel can become even more explicit. Those kind of threats would not be made so openly by any politician in the US if the country at issue had nukes.

The issue of actually ever using nuclear weapons, even in self-defense, as opposed to relying on them to deter an adversary, is an entirely different issue. It does implicate various moral and other questions, some of which cut across the kind of weapons being used and implicate the 'morality' of war more generally.
 

ashtar

National Team Player
Aug 17, 2003
5,425
13
#18
Some quick points.

First, the very same pro Israeli groups that are pushing the US to take military action against Iran would be the first to use their enormous influence to push for dialogue and reconciliation if they thought Iran had nuclear weapons.

Second, the deterent value of nuclear weapons is based ultimately on the fact that no one could be assured whether a war with a nuclear power might not get out of hand. That makes going to war with a country with nukes a harder sell politically.

Finally, Iran is implicitly facing nuclear blackmail already, with the US relaxing its rules for using nuclear weapons and openly debating the idea of using such weapons against Iran. Those threats by the US and/or Israel can become even more explicit. Those kind of threats would not be made so openly by any politician in the US if the country at issue had nukes.

The issue of actually ever using nuclear weapons, even in self-defense, as opposed to relying on them to deter an adversary, is an entirely different issue. It does implicate various moral and other questions, some of which cut across the kind of weapons being used and implicate the 'morality' of war more generally.
First of all there will never be a shortage of nut jobs who will seek military means to resolve their issues with other countries. Look at Israel itself. Do you think Israel’s nukes are deterring its enemies from trying to destroy it? No. If anything it’s making its enemies seek deadlier and more destructive means in their conflict against it. What is deterring Israel’s neighbors from f..ing with it is not Israel’s nukes but rather the fear of its conventional military which it has already demonstrated twice against its neighbors. If Israel did not have nukes there will be less people in Iran today pushing for nukes as a deterrent and thus Israel would have been much safer than it is now. The same rule applies to Iran and its potential enemies in the future.

2nd, a “harder sell politically” has never been a deterrent to any military conflict. The only deterrent for a politician supporting a war is the economic and possible strategic consequence of that war. Number of innocent lives lost or environmental factors or the magnitude of destruction is never a deterrent for politician’s decision to support a war. Those politicians with an ounce of brain and trace amount of morality don’t need added threat of nukes to deter them from a military conflict. Such politicians are always rare and in the minority to begin with. Selling a war to public on the other hand, as Nazis put it, is the easiest thing in the world: all you need to do is scare them by telling them the enemy wants to kill them and they will support any war.

The ultimate goal of any deterrent ought to be to make the nation safer. Having a couple of nukes against possible enemies that have hundreds if not thousands of deadlier arsenal of weapons will only invite deadlier and worse means of destruction in to any possible would be conflict as opposed to making one safer and deterring a war.
 
Aug 27, 2005
8,688
0
Band e 209
#19
Motori Jaan,

The global demand for Uranium have increased greatly in the past few year (infact uranium mines on the stock market check out how much they have gained). Iran is buying up all the uranium it can get its hands on....why you ask? firstly economically because of the increased price of oil they can afford it now (relatively speaking) and if you know that within the next 10-15 years India and China will have over 50 reactors come online driving the cost up, you should stock pile now.

40% of local energy is used to produce electricity ! wow imagine if we what a array of power plants could do to Iranian economy and energy grid !
Pansari jAn,
Person like me with an elevated level of economic illiteracy should be the last person worthy of a chime in economic topics but allow me to express my simple mind using simple words trying to figure out why 2+2 equals to 5 when it comes to IRI ill fated energy plans chart.
First presumption is IRI is solely and wholeheartedly is after abundance of energy which Mother Nature has imbedded in uranium.
Almost entire amount of imported gasoline is being consumed by transportation sector at the time we all know Iran does not have mass electric vehicles and will not be able to achieve such a daunting task when global technology is decades (may be lot more) away from fulfilling the long dream of manufacturing practical electric cars/trucks. So we will continue importing gasoline from abroad after extracting energy from reactors while Iran is literally a gas station nation.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to see IRI conducting some refinery and oil transportation expansion program parallel to nuclear activities? I know there are 3 different small scale refinery being constructed at the present moment all by private sector which none will have considerable impact on Iran’s increasing dependency on foreign oil since all 3 refineries are targeted for producing petroleum by-products like motor oil and such.
Why do we see so much daily hype from IRI state men about achieving uranium enrichment, giving 1000’s of speeches about minute by minute progress and tell the world exactly where we are regarding total enrichment success but they always shy away from answering a question about estimated time of Reactors completion which supposedly are primary consumers of this well celebrated enriched fuel?
Why did they hide this program from the world and NPT for decade till some one from the opposition below the whistle? According to NPT doctrine the other signatories should contribute to the nation’s peaceful nuclear program if the program corresponds to NPT’s rules and regulation when first rule is for the program to be transparent.
But if we accept that IRI is after nuclear weapons then magically and automatically all DOTs get connected without a question mark.
I’ve heard 2 speeches from Rahbar who clearly mentioned that possession of WMD is against Islam but then again he is the same Rahbar giving speech in Mashhad who clearly said “Negotiating with USA will never happen even though it has been a long time dream of some elements inside Iran and government” this speech was given 10 days before US and IRI were sitting face to face and negotiating in Baghdad.
I have NO doubt in my mind that IRI is after Nuclear Bomb. That is the reason why domestic low grade uranium doesn’t seem to be sufficient.
This program is being planed and conducted to increase IRI’s power and has nothing or very little to do with economic prosperity no matter what sugar coaters tell me.
BTW: What does local energy mean? Hydro-Electric, Natural Gas, Coal, Geothermal sources, Windmill, Mineral Oil? Your conclusion could only be valid if he would clearly say “ 40% of our produced oil is being consumed to generate electricity”.
 
Jun 7, 2004
3,196
0
#20
The energy demand is increasing globally with the rise of China and India. Fossil fuel reserves are pretty much well discovered and mostly developed and operational. There are no huge reserves anywhere in the world that hasn't been discovered. All that points to energy crisis in the future (within a few decades) unless other forms of energy are produced. One such option is nuclear energy and there is a race between major world powers to 1) Sign up major contracts for building reactors across the globe and 2) monopolize the energy produced. Those countries that fall behind in producing self sufficient energy at home will become the next generation of "4th world" countries. There are also hidden efforts to deny OPEC countries of such technology.
The above are generalizations based on current hype that are untrue and more importantly not applicable to Iran's situation.

Based on proven current reserves and not on any new discoveries, Iran has enough natural gas to serve its energy needs for hundreds of years. This is what a nuclear reactor would replace.

There is enough natural gas around world, based on existing proven reserves for over a hundred years. There is enough oil around the world to serve the world's needs for about a hundred years. And there is enough fossil fuel of the other sort, coal to alst the world many hundreds of years. The issue is about cost of production, i.e. about economics and not some scientific prediction that these are running out. So again, there is zero economic justification for Iran develop nuclear energy.

Other issues are that these resources are not distributed evenly and some countries have a lot and others less. And more recently concerns about global warming.

What is interesting the current hype has been fostered by US oil companies and their friends but bought by people around the world, for a second time, the first being in the late 70s.