Given that the NPT permits fuel manufacture under the "peaceful use" provisions (and hence lets any country who is doing it get a long way towards being able to put together a bomb, even if it's only a big, heavy, clumsy, inefficient and dirty sort of bomb) the US are in effect demanding that Iran give up their treaty rights, give up the right to produce nuclear fuel.
If that becomes the "new world order" then it sets up a situation where Iran and any other country which wants to use nuclear power, has to pay lots of money, probably to some dodgy corporation, to get their nuclear fuel, even if it's made from their own local uranium. Nuclear enrichment and still more so reprocessing, is rather expensive to do, and I'm sure that the corporations doing it will be charging a pretty penny to cover their costs.
So there is an argument that this becomes a form of economic exploitation. Certainly any country who can make their own fuel is probably going to want to for purely economic reasons, even if they have no intention of making nukes.
With both peak oil and climate change to take into account, there are a lot of reasons why even an oil-producing country would want to stockpile nuclear fuels against the long-term prosperity of their country. There are strong arguments against using nuclear as a bridge fuel, but there are arguments for too and they could very reasonably cause many other countries, especially those with uranium ores of their own like Iran, to take that strategy. Denying them the right to manufacture fuels is denying their right to peaceful economic development etc.
To me, because I am very dubious about nuclear power anyway, this is an argument for getting rid of all nuclear fuel manufacture. Someone who accepts nuclear power though, has to find a way to deal with the problem of separating the peaceful and warlike uses for highly enriched nuclear fuels.
