As always, Gwynne Dyer said it first

Fareed Zakaria, this week:

Following a civilian nuclear strategy has big benefits. The country would remain within international law, simply asserting its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a position that has much support across the world. That would make comprehensive sanctions against Iran impossible. And if Tehran's aim is to expand its regional influence, it doesn't need a bomb to do so. Simply having a clear "breakout" capacity—the ability to weaponize within a few months—would allow it to operate with much greater latitude and impunity in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Gwynne Dyer, 2007:

Many countries have similar enrichment facilities to upgrade uranium as fuel for nuclear reactors, and that is what Iran now says it is doing, too. If the Iranian government also knows that, in a crisis, it could run the fuel through the centrifuges more times and turn it into weapons-grade uranium, well, so do lots of other governments. It is called a "threshold" nuclear weapons capability, and it is a very popular option.

And he said the same thing in 2006, too.

So how many people want to sign up for the anti-Iranian crusade, against a country that is pursuing only something that it is manifestly, explicitly entitled to under international law?