Thank you.
Very briefly, the issue is nationalism. As I mentioned, this is a great civilization, a regional power, and they really want to be on the cutting edge of science, technology, and political power. For this reason, we know that some political authorities play the card of nationalization of the oil industry--Mohammad Mossadegh, in the 1950s--and make a comparison between oil nationalization and the current nuclear policy. They simply suggest that it's about national prestige, national identity, and security for the state.
Almost all the people, even the opposition, support national rights for having a nuclear capability. No matter whether they are reformists or hard-liners, or even some of the opposition, they suggest this is a national right and that it is based on NPT's articles. They suggest this is a legitimate thing with respect to nationalism.
My point is that Iran has a legitimate right to the enrichment of uranium, but at the same time Iran has a legitimate right to enrich democratic values and institutions. We should not sacrifice one type for the other one. We should follow uranium enrichment, which is a national right, and also enrichment of democratic values and institutionalization of democracy.
Even some realists in the United States suggest that sooner or later the world will be facing a nuclear Iran. Of course, I'm not supporting this personally. I'm a big believer in pacifying the nuclear issue. A nuclear-free Middle East would be the perfect and ideal policy. For the people of Iran, even a great number of the opposition, the nuclear issue is not the first and foremost priority, but at the same time it's a nationalist issue and they support Iran's legitimate right for this.