Iran steps nearer confrontation By Paul Reynolds World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website Iran says its nuclear programme is for purely peaceful purposes Iran's decision to resume nuclear research after a voluntary suspension during the last two years is another step in the delicate and dangerous diplomatic dance over its nuclear future. It will be taken as a sign in the West that Iran is determined to pursue its ambition of developing the technology to enrich uranium - a technology that can be used both for civil and military nuclear use. But in keeping with the two-steps forward, one-step back approach Iran has adopted, it is still proceeding with some caution. As well as announcing this move on research, it has agreed to further talks with Russia next month on a compromise proposal from Moscow that enrichment of Iranian nuclear fuel be carried out in Russia - despite the breakdown of talks last week. 'Patience failing' Iran's tactic is always to offer further talks even when, perhaps especially when, an impasse is reached. It did so last year after the breakdown of negotiations with the EU3 - Britain, France and Germany - which had been trying to turn a temporary suspension of Iranian enrichment work into a permanent cessation. Those negotiations have not resumed because Iran has not re-suspended all its nuclear activities. It remains to be seen whether the resumption of research on nuclear fuel - in conjunction with its August decision to start the process of preparing uranium ore for enrichment - will trigger a referral to the Security Council by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that the world is "running out of patience with Iran". But he said that in December as well. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier was more pointed and said: "This marks a breach of Tehran's commitments. It cannot remain without consequence. We have had over the past weekend two very, very ominous signals from the Iranian government." (The other was the breakdown of talks with Russia.) 'Not frightened' Iran has so far managed to outwit its Western opponents but at some stage - if it goes on like this - the moment of decision might come. Then the issue of whether the West could get enough support for a Security Council referral, from Russia and China especially, would be tested. The IAEA agreed in principle last September that Iran should be reported to the Council in view of its past, undeclared activities. But it has yet to do so in practice. And even then the Security Council is likely to issue a warning first before moving to any sanctions, which would be mainly economic. Not that Iran appears to be worried. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a speech on 9 January that Iran would not be "frightened by threats". He did add that he supported the concept of getting Western support for Iran's nuclear power plans, support which has been offered on condition that Iran does not develop the enrichment cycle itself. But he also said that Iran would not give up its nuclear rights. The latest move can also be seen as part of the new militancy by the Iranian government under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The president has already caused a shock by his denial that the Holocaust took place, and his call for Israel to be "wiped off the map". The long-term prospects in this drawn-out crisis therefore remain dangerous. The United States and Israel are determined not to allow Iran to develop a nuclear bomb, something that Iran denies that it intends to do. But the US and Israel might regard even the acquisition by Iran of enrichment technology as a step too far.
I didnt read the first post but I have a say, Iran has right to develope Nuclear Missiles or any weapons of mass catastrophe until US surrenders its all WMDs under the command of UN with every nation in world following them, but first USA should take that step, because US is the greatest threat to mankind.
North Korea first, followed by Pakistan, than China, India, the EU Nations (France, the U.K.), Israel, and than the two largest countries together (Russia and the U.S.). That would be a dream come true. As for the U.S. being the greatest threat to mankind, no. Just a threat to Iran, North Korea, Syria, and any terrorist supporting dictatorship. Nuclear proliferation was something the Iranian president said he wanted to stop. And yet he is actively persuing enrichment technology. Perhaps it really is for peaceful purposes, but how do they expect the world to trust them? Saying things like the holocaust is fake and Israel should be wiped off the planet do not garner trust with the world community. If they agreed to extreme oversight and allow Russia to do their enrichment for them, I think most countries would allow it. Iran would get what they claim to want, nuclear power, and the world would be secure in knowing they are not possibly developing a nuclear bomb.
Yeah, I agree with QuarkMoon. If Russia takes up the task of enriching uranium to 3-5% U-235 quality, they would have little other choice other than to use it for nuclear energy as it is too low of quality needed for a nuclear weapon. Iran doesn't want this though...and that's what troubles me. Makes me really think they want to atleast have the ability to make a nuclear weapon. But them making it and using it is also highly probable.
And yet, that very thing has been happening since man first stood upright on the African plains. So how do you figure that issue of "right"? Just who or what actually gave out all of those "rights"? And equally important, just who enforces that "right"? "Might makes right." "Rights come from the muzzle of a gun." Baron Max
It is worth remembering that trillion$ was spent to build a nuclear deterrent for the US . Iran isn't a threat, any more than Iraq was. They can build all the nuclear weapons they want; they won't dare use them against America , or against any nations the US claims to protect. The US does not need to invade Iran, and more than it needed to invade Iraq. All they need to do is send a message to Iran saying, "Go ahead; build all the nukes you want. But the day you use them we will turn Iran into a sheet of green glass
Iran has all the right to have and use nuclear technology, it also has the right to own nuclear weapons. All independent countries have the right to arm themselves for self defence, and as we observe the activities of the USA I see that Iran has valid concerns about its' security. The USA has military ships in the gulf and military bases in countries all around Iran. Furthermore since when does the USA has the right to determine which country can have nuclear tech and which not? Last I remember the USA has been the only country in the world to actually use nuclear weapons against another country.
And why do people think it's only the USA that is at risk and doesn't want Iran to develop nuclear weapons? The EU, Russia, they all don't want Iran making nukes. The last few talks haven't even included the United States. It's not just the U.S. saying no, it's the Western World (and Russia) saying a big fat NO!
They still have no authority over an independent and sovereign country. If they don't want, too bad, but any military intervention would be illegal according to international law, except if Iran attacks someone first or UN allows it. As illegal as the war in Iraq is, the difference though is that in Iran most people like their government, so there can be no easy victory. Besides after seeing what's happening in Iraq right now (chaos, lawlessness, terrorism, explosions), I doubt that even those who don't support Iran's gov. will greet invading forces. So in order to win the supposed war in Iran, the USA would have to cleanse the country. But then it would be genocide.
What country do you live in? If you live in the EU, North America, or Russia, your government is also against it and your government is also saying NO. And military action is not on the radar, except in the minds of the conspiracy nuts. First will come harsh international sanctions, after which military action might be considered.
I am not my government and I didn't vote for it. I live in the EU. Harsh international sanctions, huh? Well, it's risky, because all islam countries will not like it, and that would only put additional pressure for them to set back their differences and unite against the "crusaders".
Are they not already united against the U.S.? Can we actually be hated more in the middle east? The allies we have will remain our allies because they too are against Iran developing nukes, the rest will just continue to hate us. Hopefully, a new president in 2008 will change our perception in the world, because I think the hatred is toward Bush, not the people (at least I hope not).
The people voted Bush in (for the second time, so no excuse "we didn't know"). So at least 50% of the USA deserves to be perceived just like Bush. Besides the USA really has broken international law and the war in Iraq is illegal. Double standarts all the way. Why isn't the USA against Israel having nukes? All know Israel has them and it's all but a peaceful country. And it's not that your "allies" are full of love towards the US either, it is pretty much disliked in Europe too as far as I get it. So across the world, and especially in the Middle East, the USA is seen as the agressor, not Iran (and rightfully so, I think). So which country should we fear most? Actions speak for themselves, imo.
Remember, it was the first time he was elected. He stole the election in 2000. And the 50% are ignorant, they got scared into voting for Bush so he could finish the job in Iraq. The only people that deserve to be viewed like Bush is the 22% who voted for "moral issues". Those people should be slapped repeatedly with a spiked gauntlet. Again, all the blaim is being put on the U.S. And yet many of the world super powers are supporting the U.S. in Iraq. Why aren't they hated? Remember Tony Blair? He was reelected in the UK, and was our biggest ally and the main reason why the U.S. was able to go ahead with the invasion. Many countries have sent troops to Iraq. And yet no one hates them. If someone beat up your brother, not only would you be angry at the person who beat him up, but also the people who got in a few kicks themselves. As for Israel, I agree, they shouldn't have them. But you have to use common sense, Israel may not be friendly to the middle east, but they are friendly to the U.S. That's why the U.S. isn't fighting for them to disarm, and the same reason why the U.S. isn't fighting for Russia, the UK, France, China (huge trade relationship), Pakistan and India (again, huge trade relationship) to disarm. As for your statement that the U.S. is seen as a aggressor, that is true, but to say Iran isn't seen as an aggressor is not true. If it were, so many countries wouldn't be talking with Iran to stop persuing enrichment technology and uranium, with many talks not even including the U.S.
Actually I don't understand why so many see Iran as the great evil. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ok, so there was the Tehran embassy case during the revolution, but apart from that?? Maybe you can fill it in for me?
That and supposed ties to terrorism. Not to mention the daily U.S. flag burnings and "Death To America" chants. Oh, and the election is being viewed as a "mock election".
Exactly the same can be said about the USA actually, only there you hear "death to Saddam" etc chants. Ties with terrorism - Afghanistan (during the 80s), Nicaragua, Vietnam, ... Flag burnings - in countless of countries, including the USA ( http://www.theodora.com/flags/new8/flag_burning_1.html ) Mock elections? How about the USA?
