In all likelihood, Iran currently does not have a nuclear weapon. The CIA and the UN agree: they do not have a nuclear weapon, and there is no conclusive evidence that they are developing one.
But if they do feel a need to develop a nuclear weapon, it makes perfect sense. It’s a rational response: they feel a need to defend themselves. The US has been provoking Iran for a long time, and recent threats of sanctions only make the situation worse.
It’s warmongering, plain and simple. It’s much like the big fuss everyone made over the WMDs in Iraq. The WMDs did not exist. There was never much evidence that they did. Furthermore, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
We were already bombing Iraq long before 2003. Watch Ron Paul talking about the impeachment of President Clinton.
And a significant portion of the Middle East’s resentment towards America is due to the huge number of innocent people that were killed under the Clinton Administration (and earlier).
Here Ron Paul explains his opposition to the war in 1999:
Again, it’s a fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. President Bush even admitted that, though he continued to subliminally draw a connection between the two.
10+ years of undeclared war is not making the US military stronger. On the contrary, it’s causing major problems.
1980-2011 — The U.S. supported Egyptian President Mubarak, a dictator
1982 — The U.S. gets involved with a civil war in Lebanon
1990 — The U.S. stationed troops in Saudi Arabia
1993 — The U.S. stationed troops in Somalia
The 1990s — U.S. sponsored sanctions on Iraq are said to cause the starvation of Iraqi children
2003 — The U.S. war on Iraq based on no evidence (there was no evidence; it was only speculation of WMDs and group think)
The war started in 2003, and now, nearly a decade later, we’re finally bringing the troops home. But even with the war supposedly ended, the US is still leaving thousands of security contractors in the country. 
If the US attacks Iran, it would actually strengthen the anti-American sentiment in Iran, unify the terrorists, and enable them to recruit new people into their ranks. 
The saddest thing is that it’s not just President Obama who wants to attack Iran. It’s the American public.
It’s your mindset that needs to change.
And you need to vote for the people who are actually going to change US foreign policy.
Unfortunately, the US will eventually be forced to end these wars, because it will encounter an economic collapse when the dollar fails. In some ways, it’s not terribly unlike the one the Soviet Union experienced after they were dragged into a war in Afghanistan.
Unlike the Soviets, the Americans will be able to hold out for a lot longer due to a tradition of capitalism, free markets, and an entrepreneurial spirit. In one sense, these assets are liabilities, because they have enabled the US government to wage unjust wars for far too long.
Interestingly, this pattern of causing unintended consequences is not new. It’s quite a common theme to see the very tactics used to gain and maintain power end up causing a country’s downfall. I don’t know whether there’s a technical or historical name for this pattern, but there should be. It’s quite pervasive.
In other words, what government does in order to hold on to power works short-term; but it comes back to bite them in the long term, and rightfully so.
This theme, while often seen in history, is also explored in fiction. Take The Hunger Games. The Hunger Games themselves are used by the Capitol to control the people of the districts. But it is these very games that cause the people to rebel and fight back.
At the end, President Coin tries to have one last Hunger Games. That proved to be her downfall. And blowing up the children to end the war and cause people to turn against the Capitol? It makes perfect sense that she would try to frame the Capitol that way.
 QUOTE: Upwards of 17,000 military personnel and private security contractors will remain in Iraq to guard diplomatic personnel, continue training Iraqi forces, maintain “situational awareness” and other functions. This is still a significant American footprint in the country. And considering that a private security contractor costs the US taxpayer about three times as much as a soldier, we’re not going to see any real cost savings. Sadly, these contractors are covered under diplomatic immunity, meaning the Iraqi people will not get the accountability that they were hoping for. Source
 QUOTE: Kroenig refers to a government inviting “disaster,” but in the eyes of most Iranians (and most nations around the world) a U.S.-led attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would appear to be an unprovoked act of aggression. Even if Iran’s government could have avoided the attack by yielding to U.S. terms, political dissidents would not be able to make that argument in the months and years following such an attack for fear of being labeled disloyal. Indeed, the more damaging the resulting conflict was, the more difficult criticizing the government would become. In order for the opposition to gain a hearing with most of the public, they might criticize the government for its failure to defend the country adequately, but they would gain nothing by advocating a more accommodating policy. As a rule, political openness does not fare very well during national emergencies and wartime, and this is obviously even more true of authoritarian political systems where there is not much interest in political openness in the first place. Source
I recently read The Hunger Games. US sanctions on other countries, like Iran, bring out nationalism. They actually make things worse. Similar to the way the Hunger Games, instigated by the Capitol, actually ended up having the opposite of the intended effect
In the short term, the Hunger Games managed to pit the districts against each other; but in the long term, it is the hatred of the Hunger Games that united the districts against the Capitol. So it is with US foreign policy: sanctions on other countries actually end up stirring up hatred against the US, and help dictators to solidify and unify their power.