"This whole Iran-links to terrorism is a nothing more than mumbo jumbo used to get support from people."
O.K. Then why do you say-
"Iran-links to terrorism is nothing more than begger's (Iran) attempt to expand its power and influence in the face of the world's superpower."
followed by-
"Even if Iran was super secular and free of Muslims, it will still use terrorism to expand its influence inface of conventional US military might. Therefore, Iran's links to terrorism is not function of Iran being under the rule of Islamic Republic, but just the way things works."
Mumbo jumbo, eh? Worse, did you ACTUALLY consider what your fingers were typing-all in one paragraph?!
Upon this foundation rests the remainder of your argument about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons regardless of it's government's temporal character. Maybe, maybe not. You can't be so certain that such a policy would absolutely prevail. Already, it appears unachievable should the west (namely America) decide irrevocably that Iran will not have a nuke. As such, it can be reasonably postulated that the continued pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran can only result in war- a decidedly and generally bad condition for the Iranian people.
I remain unconvinced that America's will in this matter can be prevented by Iranian diplomacy, force of arms, subterfuge, or any combination therein.