To give a criticism from another angle than afew, this has been the publicly stated policy of Iran since at least 1992. You may argue that it is not economic, but such an argument doesn't convince me given my knowledge of the economic irrationalism of another regime. (Hungary was supposed to become a land of steel, altough neither iron ores nor demand was up to it. Later, a grand programme to build lignite-fired power plants was started, only there wasn't enough lignite and mining it was enormously expensive.)

Iran claimed that the Arak reactor is for medical radioisotope production. The issue is that Iran already has a zero-power research reactor in Esfahan under IAEA control but is not using it actively, so their claim about the Arak reactor doesn't hold.

I don't get your argument. What does the current non-use of research reactors have to do with the use of one from 2014 on? And, as said above, as Iran wants to control the full fuel cycle, would building an own reactor with own technology and own-produced fuel, rather than just use Chinese-supplied technology and fuel, be part of that? Especially as the HWZPR is small and not fitted with hot cells.

This also brings me to the question of timing. Arak would not be ready by 2014 - and the EU-3+USA dismissed an Irani offer to suspend centrifuge enrichment for two years, provocately demanding a 10-year moratorium instead (let everything built rust, yeah that's acceptable), as well as Ahmadineyad's offer to let the enrichment facilities be run as joint facilities with foreign provate companies. Thus neither of your two fears would have had to be an issue now, or anytime when there is IAEA oversight. In my opinion, we are seeing a rush towards war, this time with wider European help (government change in Germany comes handy, and Chirac was always a cynic enough).

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}