The news that Iran had gained access to the complete nuclear fuel cycle was met with a harsh and unusual reaction by the Persian Gulf littoral states which was even harsher than the negative response of the Western media.

Dozens of articles have been published in these countries’ periodicals about the alleged danger of Iranian access to nuclear technology, in which the authors ignore the positive impact of this great scientific achievement and exaggerate the dangers.

The most significant issue discussed by the political analysts of the Persian Gulf littoral states on television talk shows during the past week is the proximity of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant to the Arab countries on the Persian Gulf.

These political analysts have expressed concern about the possibility of a Chernobyl-type accident at the nuclear power plant.

In fact, the location of the Bushehr Power Plant was determined by experts from the United States and other Western countries during the 1960s after years of study, research, and analysis.

The Bushehr region was considered the best location for the construction of a nuclear power plant because it is not located on earthquake fault lines.

In addition, the foundation of the Bushehr Power Plant will not sink due to the solidity of the soil in the region, which increases the safety of the site.

In contrast, Israel’s Dimona Nuclear Power Plant is located in the Negev Desert where the soil is loose, increasing the danger level.

Therefore, concerns should be voiced about the safety of Israel’s nine nuclear power plants which are located in the limited geographical area of Palestine.

The other issue being discussed by the political experts of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf is the fact that Iran is becoming a regional power.

In fact, the only country that should be worried about the militarization of the Persian Gulf region is the Islamic Republic of Iran, because the Arab states of the Persian Gulf have signed military, defense, and cooperation treaties with the United States and other Western countries that have actually paved the way for the permanent presence of U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf.

Obviously, the presence of the U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf waters poses some threats to the national security of Iran. The only way to resolve such a situation is for Iran and the six member countries of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council to sit down and formulate a common security strategy.

Over the past three decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran has always been a good neighbor of the small Arab states on the southern coast of the Persian Gulf, has defended their rights, and has never tried to attack them. In fact, Iran has always believed it has a common destiny with them.

Therefore, if the Arab states on the southern coast of the Persian Gulf that currently believe that the United States is their security guarantee change their views, a new chapter can be opened in their security and defense cooperation with Iran.

This cooperation can lead to the withdrawal of the warships of the U.S. and other Western countries, which have imposed a great financial burden on the Persian Gulf littoral states and have caused a negative environmental impact on the region.

Clearly, the U.S. military presence in the region is not at all meant to maintain peace and security but to create tension between the Persian Gulf littoral states.

The Arab states of the Persian Gulf should be more worried about Israel’s 250 nuclear warheads and the fact that a number of long-range Israeli missiles are aimed at regional countries.

Therefore, the Persian Gulf littoral states should try to establish a common security system with Iran in order to guarantee regional security and the safe passage of ships in the Persian Gulf because a powerful and stable Iran is to the benefit of these countries.