was captured by the Persians. A Roman emperor he was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerian_(emperor)

I saw this very bas relief with my own eyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shapur_I_Valerian_Bas_Relief.jpg

Not much since Genghis Khan? I think the Shah Abbas would disagree. Some of the most magnificent architecture in the world is in Isfahan, including the Sheikh Lutfollah.

The Persians were also instrumental in assimilating the mongol hordes, converting them to Islam and building on their legacy in a peaceful and prosperous way.

And of course the US wants Iran to be either a.) weak or b.) a controllable ally. That's in our national interest. And no, I am not being cheeky.

^{"Sí che dal fatto il dir non sia diverso."}

-Dante

From one of my customers:

Persian: "Persia had a great empire, before it fell"
Q: "What happened to the Persian Empire?"
A: From Persian "Genghis Khan".

Not my opinion. My Persian client.

Great building and great cultures are not necessarily synonymous. For example, Bavaria under Mad King Ludwig. Built some beautiful castles, great culture? Not so much.

The "mad" king after all also sponsored Wagner whose operas are still staples of the Met.

Also you should give the Bavarian parliament some credit for removing him from power after running up the royal debt.

In all likelihood Bush Jr. was as mad, if not more so, than Ludwig yet I did not see such enterprising creativity from the esteemed Congress to pry his fingers from power.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire.
and
The Russian Empire to the East.
The French to the West
The British over the Channel.
And the Ottomans in Turkey, beaten back from Europe by the Austro-Hungarians about 200 years earlier.

Certainly not Bavaria.

Bush was in no way like Mad King Ludwig. More like Oliver Cromwell, a religious nut, militaristic, completly lacking in humiility, and parroted Cromwell's gentle treatment of the Irish.

... Bush was like Mad King Ludwig. He was far worse. Ludwig just spent like a drunken soldier on fun stuff. Much more forgivable. The only thing in common is that technically neither of the two men were mad.

that since 2001, the US has been busy occupying two of Iran's neighbors. That might have some slight effect on Iran's thinking.

However, I don't think one can attribute Iran's pursuit of a nuclear capability simply to the desire to keep the US out of its affairs. In 2003, if the NIE is to be believed, they ceased the weapons development part of their program, in large part because of that same American presence. The program itself long pre-dates 2001, tracks back through pre-dominantly regional security concerns and originates with the Shah's larger desire to be the regional hegemon and quasi-independent [i.e., with explicit US support as part of the dual pillars strategy] guarantor of regional security for the world in the post-British withdrawal Gulf. Fast-forward it to the recent past and it's found anew the Shah's ambition and is also all tied up with the massive economic re-organization of Iran in the fallout from the Revolution and the rise of the Pasdaran [a convenient shorthand] and like establishments.

All of this, and the polling data related in the original article being linked to, a rather long-winded way of saying - it just ain't so simple as "it's all down to the US and the west". There's an awful lot going on here with potent internal drivers, many illusory and quite counter-productive in the long term. The notion that it's all down to the outsiders seems to lead many to what I think is the comforting illusion that if the outsiders simply change their behaviour the Iranian behaviour will magically become less problematic - and I don't see that happening.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

Most things are dreadfully complicated and i doubt seriously that this issue can be boiled down to just Iran's dealing with the West.

But it has become clear that about the only thing that can save you from a preemptive strike by the American Empire is being armed with nuclear weapons.

I think that Iran's motivations and desires in this are quite complicated, but i think that the US position is very simple. Anything that detracts from the global hegemony is a threat that will/must be countered. Going against the US in anything is a defacto declaration of war for a nation like Iran. But doing something like building a nuclear weapon has the possibility to seriously constrain or God-ordained right to stomp around wherever we want.

To add to Lex's response, our presence and posture both historically and now lend a certain urgency to Iran's nuclear position that wouldn't exist with respect to merely regional concerns. Other than our proxies (Israel and Iraq during the past war with Iran) nobody really threatens the Iranian position of strength in the region.

I would argue further that their particular strength comes from the perception that the Iranian regime is the only regime in the area (Israel excepted) that has widespread popular support. To the extent that we urge and are responsible for regime change unrest leading to an excess of regime paranoia we undermine one of the greatest restraints on Iranian nuclear development vis their regional position.

I am woefully ignorant of the geography in the region, other than knowing Afghan is extremely mountainous, Iraq is desert, Iran had mountains in the North.

indicate, most especially during the Fatamid period, Egypt was a prime mover and actor in the events of the region. And then there were the Mamlukes--who just happened to beat off the Mongols at the Battle of Ayn Jalut.

^{"Sí che dal fatto il dir non sia diverso."}

-Dante