Nuclear Crisis

[Rasputin]

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Monday that Tehran will continue to pursue nuclear technology, despite a U.N. Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment by the end of the month or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran has made its own decision and in the nuclear case, God willing, with patience and power, will continue its path," Khamenei was quoted as saying by state television.

He accused the United States of putting pressure on Iran despite Tehran's assertions that its nuclear program was peaceful. "Arrogant powers and the U.S. are putting their utmost pressure on Iran while knowing Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons," he said.

Khamenei's declaration came on the eve of Iran's self-imposed Aug. 22 deadline to respond to a Western incentives package for it to roll back its nuclear program.

INSIDE IRAN : A reporter's perspective

He accused the United States of pressuring Iran despite Tehran's assertions that it was not seeking to develop nuclear weapons, as Washington and several of its allies have contended.

"Arrogant powers and the U.S. are putting their utmost pressure on Iran while knowing Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons," he said.

Iran on Sunday said it will offer a "multifaceted response" to the incentives proposal. It insisted that it won't suspend uranium enrichment altogether.

The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution last month requiring the halt to enrichment under threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions.

Also on Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel pressed for a "solid answer" from Iran on the package.

"I still hope that it will be positive, although some signals have been very confused," said Merkel, whose country drew up the package with the five permanent Security Council members.

The proposal includes promises that the United States and Europe will provide civilian nuclear technology and that Washington will join direct talks with Iran.

Tehran says uranium enrichment does not violate any of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and that its nuclear program aims to produce electricity.

Khamenei accused the West of wanting to obstruct scientific progress in the Islamic world and called for Islamic countries to stand together in the face of such pressure.

[Rasputin]

Iran to reply to atomic offer

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Monday Iran would press ahead with its pursuit of nuclear energy, indicating it will not heed a UN demand it stop enriching uranium or face possible sanctions.

Khamenei, who has the final word, did not mention enrichment by name but senior officials have repeated in recent days that it would not be stopped, with the deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation joining the chorus on Monday.

"Considering the technical advancement of Iranian scientists, the suspension of uranium enrichment is not possible any more," Mohammad Saeedi was quoted as saying on Iran's Fars News Agency.


Saeedi said Iran would formally reply on Tuesday to a nuclear package offered by six world powers, in return for an end to enrichment, that is aimed at allaying the West's fears that Iran wants atomic bombs.

Khamenei said Iran would pursue its nuclear plans.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has made its decision and, in the issue of nuclear energy, will continue its path powerfully ... and it will receive the sweet fruits of its efforts," state television quoted him as saying.

The United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany presented the package in June, offering Iran economic and other incentives if it first halted uranium enrichment, a process that has both military and civilian uses.

The U.N. Security Council has demanded Iran halt enrichment by August 31 or face possible sanctions.

[Rasputin]

Iran will respond to the P5+1 proposal by Tuesday, August 22. The Iranians are expected to neither give a firm approval nor a categorical rejection. Rather, Tehran will likely seek to initiate negotiations with the West without agreeing to suspend enrichment activities, making that eventuality a conclusion of negotiations rather than a prerequisite to them. Washington can choose to treat this response either as the end of the diplomatic process on the nuclear issue or as an invitation to pursue diplomacy with greater seriousness than it has in the past.

The Bush Administration has repeatedly stated that an Iranian failure to accept the proposal should be viewed as a definitive indication that Iran is not serious about negotiations. That position would lead to a quick move to push its negotiating partners in the P5+1 to join in economic and diplomatic sanctions against Iran, accompanied by the further heightening of tensions with Iran and, with the military option being moved to forefront.

But the developments of recent weeks cast a new light on the question of how the United States should respond to the slight opening from Tehran on a negotiated settlement. The circumstances surrounding the Israeli-Lebanese conflict and the results of that war suggest that the framework in which the administration has been viewing the problem has been distorted by its exaggerated belief in the efficacy of military force.

Evidence now indicates that both the Bush White House and Israel have been assuming that Iran can be brought to heel on the nuclear issue by the threat or actual use of force. That assumption leads to the conclusion that no real diplomatic give and take with Iran is necessary or desirable.

Both Israel and the United States were hoping that the decisive use of force by Israel against both Hezbollah’s arsenal and Lebanese society would have the effect of changing the balance of power between the U.S.-Israeli alliance and Iran. By taking away what Israeli Ambassador in Washington Daniel Ayalon called “a powerful tool” for Iran, the Israelis hoped that the destruction of Hezbollah’s rocket force would either intimidate Tehran or make it easier to strike a military blow to its nuclear sites. The Bush White House seems to have agreed with that strategy.

The belief in the White House that Israel’s military superiority in the region could be used to gain leverage over Iran is paralleled by a belief that the United States can bring its decisive military superiority over Iran to bear if necessary in order to deny Iran a nuclear option. That helps to explain why Washington has been reluctant to consider offering Iran security assurances in return for nuclear concessions.

The Europeans have understood from the beginning of their negotiations with Iran that there was no possibility that Iran would make substantive compromises on its nuclear program without a major shift in U.S. policy involving security guarantees for Iran. They have suggested to Washington repeatedly that it offer such guarantees – most recently in the final round of discussions on the P5+1 proposal in Vienna at the end of May. But the Bush administration has resisted even the suggestion of a security guarantee, apparently in the belief that U.S. military supremacy gives it an alternative.

But the fact that the Israeli war in Lebanon has, by all accounts, strengthened Iran’s hand in the region and weakened that of the United States and Israel should underline the dangers of a military approach to the problem of Iran’s nuclear program. Military action has backfired in both Iraq and Lebanon, indicating that it will likely backfire if it is used against Iran as well.

The Europeans have been suggesting all along that the only way to solve the Iranian nuclear puzzle is to deal with it in the broader context of security in the Middle East – including Iran’s policy toward Israel – through direct negotiations between Washington and Tehran. Such negotiations, if pursued with sufficient seriousness, might well lead to what has been called a “grand bargain,” in which the wide range of conflict areas between Iran and the US are addressed, rather than to narrowly focus on uranium enrichment only.

Though such a bargain may have seemed to some to be too ambitious, events in Lebanon – as well as the broader developments in the Middle East over the last three years – suggest that it is less ambitious – and more realistic – than the administration’s aim of forcing Iran to give up its rights under the non-proliferation treaty without any counter-balancing security concessions.

The more the larger implications of both options are examined, the more attractive becomes the option of grasping a conditional acceptance of the P5+1 proposal by Iran as an opportunity to engage Tehran diplomatically and take steps to prevent possible future weaponization. The option of cutting off the diplomatic process would reduce U.S. flexibility and increase the temptation – for lack of an alternative aside from backing down – to resort once more to the use of force in a situation where the risks are high and the probability of success extremely slight.

[Rasputin]

Iran says it wants nuclear energy to fuel its economy. The US says it wants to build an 'Islamic bomb'. But what do Iranians think about the deepening crisis? Given rare access, Simon Tisdall spoke to people on the streets of Tehran - and to the men in charge of the country's nuclear programme

Tensions between Iran and the west have rarely been greater than they are today. On the one side, President George Bush has accused Iran of being behind the attack by Hizbullah on Israel that sparked the Lebanon war; and both the US and Britain say that Iran is bent on developing nuclear weapons. On the other, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has claimed that the Bush administration is trampling on the rights of Muslims throughout the world; the US is the "Global Arrogance" (the term which has replaced the "Great Satan" in the Iranian lexicon) in which Washington's plan for a "new Middle East" is simply a scheme to subjugate the region to US and commercial interests.

Just last week, an article by Seymour Hersh, the respected US investigative reporter, which claimed that the war against Iran's proxy Hizbullah was a premeditated US-directed warm-up for an attack on Iran itself, stoked fears in Tehran that a US air assault on its nuclear facilities, even regime change, are moving to the top of the agenda. Officials in Tehran worry that, after Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran is seen by Bush as "unfinished business" - and that, urged on by Israel, he is determined to destroy what both countries see as the looming threat of an "Islamic bomb". They hear Bush's talk of "Islamic fascists" - and wonder whether he will soon be gunning for them.
There is a way out. Tomorrow the Iranian government will present its long-awaited response to the west's last-ditch compromise offer on nuclear power. This package, belatedly backed by the US, offers Iran a range of incentives from implicit security, territorial guarantees and an end to sanctions, to new commercial and technological collaborations. But first, Bush insists, Iran must suspend all uranium enrichment operations, which Washington believes are connected to its attempts to acquire bomb-making capability.

So far, Iran has insisted that it will not accept any such pre-conditions. Officials say they are willing to resume negotiations with the west - but on equal terms. So when Ahmadinejad delivers Iran's formal reply at a Tehran press conference, the stage will be set for an epic clash that could reverberate across the Middle East and far beyond. So far, the story has mostly been reported from the outside, and from a western perspective. But what are the prospects for war and peace as seen from inside Iran? For the past two weeks the Guardian has been given unprecedented access to explore what ordinary Iranians think about the most pressing issue facing their country - and what some of the country's most powerful men believe will happen next.

'Diplomatic chess'

In a high-ceilinged, thick-carpeted inner sanctum of Iran's fortress-like Supreme National Security Council building in central Tehran, Ali Larijani patiently spells out the factors that will play a part in Iran's decision. The CIA would dearly love to penetrate inside these walls. Perhaps it already has; visitors' mobile phones and other electronic devices are confiscated.

Larijani is an important man in Iran. As secretary of the security council and chief nuclear negotiator, it is he, and his predecessor, Hassan Rowhani, who have by turns tantalised, teased and infuriated the west during three years of discussions on the nuclear dossier. Iran plays a long and astute negotiating game, which Larijani likens to "diplomatic chess". Officials say they learned at the feet of masters: the European powers who exploited Persia during the 19th century "Great Game". Britain is still referred to as the "Old Fox".

Larijani has a daunting reputation as the dour former head of state television whose programme schedules were both morally edifying and utterly tedious. His appointment by Ahmadinejad was seen in the west as representing an ominous shift towards recalcitrance. But in person he is charming and courteous.

"There are many reasons why Iran is seeking nuclear power," he says. "The history of our nuclear activity dates back 45 years to the time of the ex-shah's regime. But after the Islamic revolution, some western countries condemned Iran and cancelled their nuclear agreements with us. For example, the Americans had concluded an agreement for a research reactor in Tehran and also to provide the fuel. But they cancelled the agreement and did not give back the money. The Germans did the same. So the lesson was: we have to be self-sufficient, to provide fuel for ourselves."

He continues: "We don't see why we should stop the scientific research of our country. We understand why this is very sensitive. But they (the west) are categorising countries. Some countries can have access to high nuclear technology. The others are told they can produce fruit juice and pears! They say: 'Don't seek a nuclear bomb.' We don't have any objection to that. But unfortunately officials of some countries such as the UK say, 'We don't want you to have the knowledge for nuclear technology'. This is not logical. And we don't pay attention to this."

The Americans' contradictory impulses are to blame for the standoff, he says. "After September 11 2001, they faced a problem in Afghanistan. They requested assistance from Iran and we gave it. But after the problem ended in Afghanistan, they called us the 'axis of evil'. This paradox has always been their way. They want to kiss one side of our face, but at the same time they also want to slap the other side."

Iran is still willing to negotiate, Larijani concludes, but it will not give up its nuclear power programme. Nor will it yield to preconditions such as Bush's demand for an immediate suspension of uranium enrichment. "If they are going to seek an imposed agreement by putting pressure on us, we will not accept it. If the atmosphere is not proper, we may delay our reply. If you try to cultivate a flower in salty land, it does not grow."

For Larijani, the bottom line is respect. And the evident lack of it in Washington, magnified by loose talk of enforced regime change, is one of many reasons why Iran is going nuclear.

A changing society

Tehran is a city of elegant parks. And none is more serene than Saee Park, off Vali Asr Avenue, one of the capital's main thoroughfares. Known as the "lovers' park", it is where young and not-so-young couples sit at dusk beneath a canopy of fragrant chinar, cypress and pine trees, exchanging gossip and intimacies, sharing ice creams and swapping phone numbers.

According to Reza, 27, and his girlfriend, things are more easy-going socially than they were 10 years ago. They attribute the change to the presidency of Mohammad Khatami, Ahmadinejad's reformist predecessor. Despite Ahmadinejad's conservative instincts, the new government has been unable to put the street culture genie back in the bottle, Reza says.

"There's more personal freedom. You don't get harassed like you used to. The young people are changing the older people's attitude. They have to accept it - they have no choice, so they go with the flow." And in a country of 70m, where two-thirds of the population is under 30, the trend appears irreversible.

The present hardline government is not popular among many inhabitants of Saee Park. They complain about its failure to expand and diversify an economy that is roughly 80% state-controlled. Younger people worry about careers and jobs, about the difficulties of foreign travel and internet censorship, about the lack of things to do and places to meet. Leila, 27, says she would like to go to parties, to clubs; she would like to sing. "But they won't allow female singers, did you know that? Female vocalists are banned. They say they are too alluring to men. Poor men! They have weak brains!"

Yussuf, 63, has a different perspective. "I was a metallurgist until I retired. I trained in the US during the Shah's time. I worked all my life. But now I have to take part-time jobs because my pension isn't enough. This government is no good, they're all no good." Yussuf has another complaint: the government is sending money to Hizbullah in Lebanon that would be better spent at home, he says. "First you must look after your own people."

His friend, Ali, agrees. He wants to know into whose pockets Iran's record oil revenue is going. "Some of them [the governing elite] are buying cars for $100,000. Think of that! Did they get that money by working?"

All the same, Ahmadinejad's personal brand of nationalist populism, typified by his defiant handling of the nuclear issue, has many admirers in Saee Park and beyond. "Why don't they just leave us alone and let us live under our own rules?" asks a 32-year-old engineer.

"Iran has the right to nuclear power," chanted a crowd in Ardabil, in northern Iran, last week. During a series of nine rallies addressed by Ahmadinejad, the sentiments expressed by ordinary people are the same. Western attempts to deny Iran nuclear technology are "an obvious attempt to keep us down, like they want to keep all the developing countries down," says Majid, a 30-year-old teacher in Tehran. "We don't want nuclear weapons. But we want to build our country. What's wrong with that?"

[Rasputin]

Iranians may be cut off from the modern western world in many ways, but they are well versed in the long history of western intervention in Persia. From the Treaty of Golestan in 1813, by which Russia took control of Iran's Caucasus territories, to the 1953 CIA-led coup that toppled Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddeq, from the US embassy hostage siege to the Iran-Contra scandal, a tale of national subjugation and degradation forms the context in which Iran looks at the west. And Iranians hear, in derogatory western talk of "mad mullahs", an echo of a 19th-century British diplomat's sneering reference to "incomprehensible orientals". It smacks of disrespect.

And now, with Washington's neo-conservatives on one side and Ahmadinejad's neo-conservatives on the other, this mutual antagonism and misunderstanding is coming to a head. In some analyses, it has brought the two countries to the brink of military conflict. If the US attacks, experts say it is likely to take the form of "precision strikes" on the four main nuclear facilities and possibly Iranian armed forces and Revolutionary Guard bases, too. But Pentagon planners know Iran has the potential to retaliate, as the unexpected success of Hizbullah in Lebanon has shown. This week the US ambassador to Iraq highlighted what he said were Iranian attempts to push Shia militants into attacks on coalition forces in Iraq. And Baghdad is only one possible theatre for Iranian reprisals should the US pull the trigger.

Mohammad Saeidi is a practical man. Sidestepping the political, ideological and historical aspects of the nuclear dispute with the west, the vice-president of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation is focused on a set of problems that must be solved logically if the country and its people are to develop to their full potential. "The country's oil and gas reserves will last a maximum of another 25 or 30 years," he says. "Therefore we have to provide other resources."

About 7,000 people work in Iran's atomic establishment - principally in Tehran and at the Bushehr, Arak, Isfahan and Natanz complexes. Saeidi says there are plans to build 20 nuclear power stations in all, at a cost of $24-$25bn. The first, at Bushehr, built with Russian help, is expected to come on stream next year. Saeidi says that in going nuclear Iran is only following the example of other countries with growing populations and rising energy demand. Nuclear power is cheaper, and its raw component, naturally occurring uranium, is in plentiful supply in Iran's central deserts.

It is the cascade of 164 centrifuges constructed at Natanz that has drawn most international attention since Ahmadinejad announced last April that Iran had mastered the processes for uranium enrichment. It was Natanz that finally prompted the US to join with European negotiators in offering the compromise incentives package that is now on the table. But like Larijani, Saeidi stresses the research stage nature of this work - and the ongoing inspections of Natanz and other plants by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

To try to divert nuclear material for bomb-making purposes without the UN knowing would be "impossible", he says, and if a deal is struck, Tehran would be ready to reintroduce spot checks. But, in any case, bomb-making is not Iran's aim, Saeidi says - even if it had the capacity, which it does not. Overall, independent experts tend to agree that, at present, Iran does not have the wherewithal to build a nuclear weapon. But that does not mean it will not in future.

Saeidi denies that Iran kept its facilities at Natanz secret, as claimed in 2003 by the Bush administration. He says there was no legal necessity to notify the IAEA before nuclear material had entered the plant. "Natanz is a very large factory. You cannot hide it. It wasn't secret."

He also denies receiving help from Pakistan, now or in the past, despite a spate of disclosures concerning the proliferation network run by the Pakistani scientist, AQ Khan. "We don't have any relation to Pakistan on the nuclear issue. All the equipment and components we are using are made by Iranian companies and factories."

Needless to say, such statements are disputed by the US and other western governments who suspect that Iran may be running a hidden, parallel uranium enrichment programme using more advanced centrifuges. They worry it is also experimenting with plutonium reprocessing. But all such claims are met with a flat denial.

"We don't have any secret programme. We don't have any secrets," Saeidi says. Iran does not want the bomb, he and other officials insist; and it has no plans to build one. What it does want is a plentiful future supply of nuclear energy to fuel the rise of a new, more powerful nation - and in this ambition, it will brook no obstacles.

Ahmadinejad's vision

The man who could make all the difference is Ahmadinejad himself. He insists that Iran's intentions were not to make a bomb - "Iranians have mastered the complete cycle of uranium enrichment by themselves. But we will use it for peaceful purposes, for nuclear power. This is our right and no one can take this right away from us." But the man best known in the west for his desire to "wipe Israel off the map" and his questioning of the Holocaust, this blacksmith's son who rose to be mayor of Tehran before unexpectedly winning the presidency a year ago this month, is a controversial figure inside Iran, too. Many people, largely among the working class and in rural areas, adore him. Others, particularly among the intellectual elite of Tehran, fear his devout Islamic beliefs and his conservative political instincts will further isolate the country.

For Iran's president is a true believer. He maintains that the 1979 revolution that overthrew the shah was besmirched and betrayed after the death of its leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, by pragmatists and corrupt mercantilists, by pro-western compromisers and reformists. Ahmadinejad's famously humble lifestyle, emphasised by his rumpled jackets and unkempt beard, offers but one clue to the fundamentalist spirit that moves him. Tehranis say his vision is a return to the ideals of 1979, including a reinvigorated social conservatism, a revived popular piety, and a principled rejection of the Christian and Zionist "crusader" west.

Many political moderates, western diplomats and ordinary citizens say Ahmadinejad's vision is to turn the clock back to a more honest and more dutiful time. And what better way to demonstrate the uplifting virtues and potency of this religious retrenchment than defiance of the west over the nuclear issue? Here is a golden opportunity to re-affirm Iran's compromised independence and dignity - and restore both the international respect and the religious values that Ahjmadinejad believes the revolution has squandered since 1989. This is Ahmadinejad's chance.

It may be naive to believe that Iran's government, surrounded by nuclear-armed neighbours and directly threatened by the US, is not seeking to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. "The Americans have been seeking regime change in Iran ever since the victory of the revolution," say Larijani. Given such widespread convictions, and the example of several other countries that have built atomic weapons without facing serious penalties, Iran's leaders might be thought remiss in not seeking to arm themselves.

But more naive, perhaps, and potentially even more destabilising, is Ahmadinejad's apparent belief that by confronting the west over the nuclear issue, he can revive the purist, Khomeini-era ideal of fundamentalist Islamic revolution in a country that is changing rapidly. Most Iranians support the government's pursuit of nuclear power. But most oppose the intolerant theocracy that is Khomeini's legacy.

In his brilliant new book, Confronting Iran, Ali Ansari portrays the growing "secularisation" of Iranian society as an unstoppable force. "Fewer and fewer people show an interest in organised religion," he writes. And in Tehran the evidence of that is everywhere. Iran is a rich country, poorly run. Slowly but surely its people are demanding and obtaining change. Iran does seem destined once again to be a great regional power, but that destiny is likely to be attained despite its religious leadership - and despite the Bush administration's counter-productive bullying.

Ahmadinejad, the articulate champion of Iran's national rights, is a potent figure. But Ahmadinejad, the would-be visionary leader of a resurgent revolution awaiting the coming of the Hidden Imam, is living a dangerous illusion. And it is Iranians, not the US air force, who should be allowed to shatter his dream.

[Rasputin]

Iran set the scene for confrontation with the UN security council yesterday by declaring it would reject demands to suspend uranium enrichment as the price of an agreement over its nuclear programme.
The announcement pre-empted tomorrow's anticipated formal Iranian response to an international incentive package and appeared to dash hopes of a deal.

The package, put together by the security council's five permanent members - the US, Britain, France, Russia and China - plus Germany, promised civilian nuclear technology in return for suspending uranium enrichment, a process that can be used for producing atomic bombs.

"We are not going to suspend enrichment. The issue was that everything should come out of negotiations, but suspension of uranium enrichment is not on our agenda," said an Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi.
A security council resolution passed last month gives Iran until August 31 to suspend enrichment or face the prospect of embargoes.

However, Mr Asefi said the world's fourth-largest crude producer, which is currently reaping the benefit of high oil prices, was prepared for "all possibilities. If Europe imposes sanctions, it will destroy the bridges behind it and will deprive itself of work in the future."

[Rasputin]

Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, has said his country will press ahead with its nuclear programme.
He was speaking a day before Tehran is scheduled to give its formal answer to an international proposal of incentives for Iran to halt uranium enrichment.

Iran had "made its own decision" and would "continue its path", state television quoted the leader as saying.

President Bush said he hoped the UN would impose sanctions if Iran did not stop enrichment by the end of August.

The UN Security Council has threatened unspecified economic and diplomatic sanctions if Iran does not stop enriching uranium by this deadline.

Iran is due to give its formal response on Tuesday to a proposal from Russia, China, France, Britain, Germany and the US aimed at ending the row.

The suggested package offers Iran a partial lifting of economic sanctions, together with assistance with civilian nuclear technology, in return for a suspension of uranium enrichment.

'Arrogant powers'


Enriched uranium is used as fuel for nuclear reactors, but highly enriched uranium can also be used to make nuclear bombs.

Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is for civilian use only.


There is concern in the West about the Arak heavy water plant
"Arrogant powers, led by the United States, are fearful of progress of Islamic countries in various dimensions," Ayatollah Khamenei was quoted as saying on Monday.

"Therefore... even though they know Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons, they are piling on the pressure to prevent our scientific progress."

President George W Bush said the US was waiting for Iran's formal response to the proposal, but urged the UN to move swiftly if Iran did not meet the 31 August deadline.

"In order for the UN to be effective, there must be consequences if people thumb their nose at the United Nations Security Council," he said.

But correspondents say Iran is fully aware that the UN will find it hard to agree on economic sanctions, with Russia and China opposed and with the West fearing the move would provoke higher oil prices.

'Multi-faceted response'

Separately, the deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, Mohammad Saeedi, said on Monday that suspension of uranium enrichment was "no longer possible", according to the Iranian Fars news agency.

He also said a heavy water production plant at Arak would become operational "in the near future".

Heavy water is used to moderate the nuclear fission chain reaction in certain types of nuclear reactor, but can also be used to produce plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear bombs.

On Sunday, foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said a resolution to the issue would have to come out of negotiations, but a halt to uranium enrichment was "not on the agenda".

He said Iran said it would give a "multi-faceted response" to the international incentives proposal, but did not elaborate.

Iran has said that it will respond to any possible sanctions with a painful response - which may involve a cut in its oil production.

[Rasputin]

VIENNA, Austria - Iran has turned away U.N. inspectors wanting to examine its underground nuclear site in an apparent violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, diplomats and U.N. officials said Monday.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidentiality of the information, told The Associated Press that Iran's unprecedented refusal to allow access to the facility at Natanz could seriously hamper international efforts to ensure that Tehran is not trying to make nuclear weapons.

The revelation came on the eve of Iran's self-imposed Aug. 22 deadline to respond to a Western incentives package for it to roll back its disputed nuclear program. The United Nations has given Tehran until the end of August to suspend uranium enrichment.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) _

Meanwhile, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Tehran will continue to pursue nuclear technology, despite a U.N. Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment by the end of the month or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has made its own decision and in the nuclear case, God willing, with patience and power, will continue its path," Khamenei was quoted as saying by state television.

Khamenei's declaration came on the eve of Iran's self-imposed Aug. 22 deadline to respond to a Western incentives package for it to roll back its nuclear program. The United Nations has given Tehran until the end of August to suspend uranium enrichment.

He accused the United States of putting pressure on Iran despite Tehran's assertions that its nuclear program was peaceful. "Arrogant powers and the U.S. are putting their utmost pressure on Iran while knowing Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons," he said.

Iran on Sunday said it will offer a "multifaceted response" to the incentives proposal. It insisted that it won't suspend uranium enrichment altogether.

The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution last month requiring the halt to enrichment under threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions.

Also on Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel pressed for a "solid answer" from Iran on the package.

"I still hope that it will be positive, although some signals have been very confused," said Merkel, whose country drew up the package with the five permanent Security Council members.

The proposal includes promises that the United States and Europe will provide civilian nuclear technology and that Washington will join direct talks with Iran.

Tehran says uranium enrichment does not violate any of its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and that its nuclear program aims to produce electricity.

Khamenei accused the West of wanting to obstruct scientific progress in the Islamic world and called for Islamic countries to stand together in the face of such pressure.

[Rasputin]

Iran has responded "positively" to a joint U.S.-European offer aimed at resolving a long-running crisis over the country's nuclear research program, government-controlled media reported Tuesday.
"Where there were ambiguities in the proposal, we tried to interpret it positively and logically to pave the way for fair negotiations," state television quoted Ali Larijani, the country's top nuclear negotiator, as saying.

Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, delivered the country's answer in a personal meeting with ambassadors from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China and Switzerland, which represents American interests here. The USA broke off diplomatic relations with Iran during the 1979-1981 hostage crisis.

The USA and its European allies proposed a package of economic and security incentives for Iran to abandon research activities that could lead to development of nuclear weapons.

The United Nations Security Council passed a July 31 resolution threatening economic sanctions on Iran if the country would not halt its uranium enrichment program by the end of August. Iran's government released no details of its response Tuesday, but in recent days, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had insisted defiantly that Iran would not halt its enrichment effort.

Tuesday's response, which had been awaited for several weeks, criticized the UN resolution as lacking "legal justification." But state television quoted Larijani as saying, "Iran is ready to seriously pursue negotiations from August 23, despite the fact that the other side has breached its promises."

Larijani called on the United States, its European allies, Russia and China to "immediately return to the negotiating table."

The Western package must be clarified in talks, Mohammed Saeedi, deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said in comments published Tuesday.

Incentives offered by the West don't mention the part of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty that affirms signatories' right to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, Saeedi said.

"One ambiguity is the deliberate failure to mention Article 4 of the NPT in the package. Instead, it has repeatedly referred to other parts of the treaty that are mainly deterrent. Why Article 4 has not been mentioned?" Saeedi asked.

Analysts here said the Iranian government is looking for a face-saving way out of the nuclear standoff through technical negotiations over precisely what type of enrichment work would be prohibited.

"I do believe, at the end, Iran would accept the proposal with minimum modifications," said Davoud Bavand, a professor of international law at Alameh University in Tehran.

Iran hasn't shown any signs of backing down from its position so far. The country on Monday turned away International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors from an underground site meant to shelter its uranium enrichment program from attack.

Military exercises are continuing in the country's south. State television broadcast footage Tuesday of tanks, infantry troops and tracked vehicles. Ahmadinejad also was shown criticizing "the arrogant powers" for trying to impose "their way of thinking on the rest of the world."

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

Iran's semi-official news agency reported today that Tehran has "rejected suspension of its nuclear activities" as demanded by the United Nations Security Council but has proposed a "new formula for resolving the issue through talks."

The details of the new formula were not immediately apparent.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator delivered Tehran's response to the ambassadors of Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia and Switzerland and was briefing them on the substance, reported Iran's Fars news agency.

Diplomats in Washington, Tehran and European capitals had said yesterday that the Iranian government is willing to enter negotiations and to consider a freeze of the program, but it will not accept a freeze as a precondition for the talks.

Earlier this month, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution giving Iran 30 days to stop the program or face the threat of sanctions. U.S. officials have said they would push for strong financial sanctions against the Tehran government if it does not cooperate and that they expect support from Europe.

The Iranian position is nearly identical to its initial reaction to the offer, which was presented in June and includes a package of U.S.-backed economic and political incentives. U.S., British and French diplomats concluded yesterday, after receiving word of Iran's intention, that the government simply bought time to advance its nuclear program, rather than scale it back as the U.N. resolution requires.

In Tehran, the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said yesterday that the nuclear program is peaceful and will continue. "The Islamic Republic of Iran has made its own decision, and in the nuclear case, God willing, with patience and power, will continue its path," Khamenei was quoted as saying by state television.

Mohammad Saeedi, the deputy director of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told an Iranian news agency that "under current circumstances, the suspension of uranium enrichment is not possible." Still, he said Iran's response would be "very comprehensive" and would provide "a suitable opportunity for the West to solve the nuclear dossier through negotiations."

President Bush said yesterday that he would wait for the formal reply, but, anticipating the rejection, he urged the United Nations to respond forcefully. "There must be consequences if people thumb their nose at the United Nations Security Council, and we will work with people in the Security Council to achieve that objective," he said.

But even some of Washington's closest allies worried yesterday that the effort was becoming more difficult, complicated by the recent fighting in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah, which is backed financially and militarily by Iran.

"The Iranians are extremely confident following the outcome of the Israel conflict," said one senior European official, who agreed to discuss sensitive details in the matter on the condition of anonymity. "Their Syria-Iran-Hezbollah axis has gone from minority player to lionized hero of the Arab street."

A U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said senior U.S., French, German and British diplomats agreed during a conference call yesterday to press for sanctions.

Even before fighting broke out in Lebanon, many Security Council members seemed skittish about imposing financial measures against a major oil exporter.

For years, the Bush administration has tried to convince allies to pressure Iran to give up a program that the Tehran government insists is for generating electricity, and not part of a covert nuclear weapons effort.

But Iran, rich in oil and natural gas, built its nuclear program in secret over 18 years. It was forced to acknowledge the large-scale program and accept an outside investigation after an Iranian exile group, listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization, publicly revealed the location of Iran's largest nuclear facility, in Natanz, four years ago.

Since then, inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency have been trying to determine the scope and history of Iran's nuclear efforts. They have conducted hundreds of inspections, uncovered Iranian experiments with plutonium and uranium, and exposed a secret relationship between Iran and Pakistan, which was instrumental in the development of Iran's nuclear program.

The inspectors, however, have been unable to confirm Tehran's claims that its nuclear energy program is peaceful. Yesterday, officials in Vienna, where the IAEA is based, said Iran had refused a request by inspectors in the past week to view construction progress at the Natanz site, a vast complex that houses uranium-enrichment efforts.

Inspectors, preparing to report on Iran's program to U.N. members next month, are trying to determine how much uranium the Iranians have enriched in the last several months. Although Iran is advancing its nuclear efforts, U.N. inspectors, as well as analysts working for U.S. and British intelligence, believe the Iranians are technically poor at enriching uranium.

Based on what is known about Iran's program, Western intelligence believes that it will be years before Iran can manufacture enough uranium for a nuclear bomb.

[Rasputin]

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, has said his country is ready to start "serious talks" with six world powers on Wednesday.
Iran has submitted a written response to the demand by the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany to suspend uranium enrichment.

It has until the end of August to suspend enrichment in exchange for incentives, or risk possible sanctions.

Iran denies Western claims that it is developing a nuclear weapons programme.

Tehran has always maintained that it has a right to civilian nuclear technology, and Supreme leader Ali Khamenei made it clear on Monday that Iran would reject international pressure.

Although Mr Larijani has spoken of "serious talks", what the Security Council needs to know is whether Iran is willing to suspend uranium enrichment by 31 August or not, says the BBC News website's world affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds.

If it is not, or gives no clear response on this, the US and its allies will take it as a "no" and will press for sanctions, though these would need a separate council decision, our correspondent adds.

'Clear choice'

The US, UK, Russia, China, France and Germany have offered Iran a package of incentives - including the offer of help with civilian nuclear technology. The details of Tehran's written response have not been made public.

The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said the Iranian document was "extensive" and required "a detailed and careful analysis."

The US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said the choice facing Iran was clear.

"They can either take up the very generous offer that the five permanent members and Germany have extended to them, and if they do there's a possibility of a different relationship with the United States and others.

"But if they don't we've also made it clear that their unwillingness to give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons will result in our efforts in the Security Council to obtain economic sanctions against them."

Iranian officials had previously said the response would address ambiguities over its right to nuclear technology.

Enriched uranium is used as fuel for nuclear reactors, but highly enriched uranium can also be used to make nuclear bombs.

Iran points out that as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) it is entitled to a nuclear power programme and says it has broken no rule.

But the Western powers accuse Iran of concealing an enrichment programme, and Washington has refused to rule out military action.

[Rasputin]

China and Russia have said negotiations are the only way of easing tension over Iran's nuclear programme, following Tehran's offer of talks on the issue.
But France has insisted that talks can restart only if Tehran halts its uranium enrichment programme first.

Iran has offered "serious talks" with six world powers, in response to a UN resolution which set a deadline of 31 August for the programme to be halted.

It faces possible sanctions amid claims it is making a bomb, which it denies.

Tehran maintains it has a right to civilian nuclear technology.

The US, UK, Russia, China, France and Germany have offered Iran a package of incentives - including help with civilian nuclear technology - in exchange for suspending enrichment.


Iran's leaders insist the nuclear programme has a civilian purpose

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said on Tuesday that his country was ready for "serious talks" on the issue - but did not give any more details of its response to the offer.

Beijing said it hoped all parties would show calm, patience and flexibility so that negotiations could be resumed, and said it was "carefully studying" Iran's reply.

"China has always believed that seeking a peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic talks is the best choice and in the interests of all parties concerned," the Chinese foreign ministry said.

The Iranians know the rules of the game: first a suspension of sensitive nuclear activities

Philippe Douste-Blazy
French Foreign Minister

Russia echoed the Chinese stance, stressing its commitment to a negotiated solution to the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme.

Russia will continue "seeking a political, negotiated settlement concerning Iran's nuclear programme," Interfax news agency quotes a Russian foreign ministry spokesman as saying.

The US gave no immediate reaction to Iran's response. "We're giving it careful consideration and a careful review, as it deserves," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

But in Paris, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said fresh talks were dependent on Tehran first suspending its nuclear activities.

"As we have said all along, and as Mr Larijani well knows, the return to the negotiating table is tied to a suspension of its uranium enrichment activity," he said.

"The Iranians know the rules of the game: first a suspension of sensitive nuclear activities."

Sanctions threat

Although Mr Larijani has spoken of "serious talks", what the Security Council needs to know is whether Iran is willing to suspend uranium enrichment by 31 August or not, says the BBC News website's world affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds.

While the US has been playing poker in the region, Iran has been playing chess

Nadim Shehadi
Chatham House expert


Iran 'boosted' by US-led wars
Iranian press defiant
European press berates Iran

If it is not, or gives no clear response on this, the US and its allies will take it as a "no" and will press for sanctions, though these would need a separate council decision, our correspondent adds.

Iranian officials had previously said the response would address ambiguities over its right to nuclear technology.

Enriched uranium is used as fuel for nuclear reactors, but highly enriched uranium can also be used to make nuclear bombs.

Iran points out that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) it is entitled to a nuclear power programme and says it has broken no rule.

But the Western powers accuse Iran of concealing an enrichment programme, and Washington has refused to rule out military action.

Iranian leverage

Meanwhile, a report by UK-based think tank Chatham House says Iran can afford to continue equivocating in the dispute over its nuclear programme because of its regional supremacy.

"The US-driven agenda for confronting Iran is severely compromised by the confident ease with which Iran sits in the region," the report says.

The report argues that Iran has emerged as the biggest beneficiary of the US-led "war on terror" in the Middle East.

Recent US-led wars have "eliminated two of Iran's regional rival governments - the Taleban in Afghanistan and the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq in April 2003".

The report says the US "has failed to replace either with coherent and stable political structures".

Iran wields more influence than the US in Iraq, the report said, and is also "a prominent presence" in Afghanistan.

[Rasputin]

Iran will soon announce an atomic breakthrough, the semi-official Mehr news agency has reported, a day after the country responded to an offer aimed at resolving a nuclear standoff.

"This great scientific achievement is the fruit of a long-term research project ... It will be formally announced by a top official," Mehr quoted an informed source as saying Wednesday.

"The announcement will highlight Iran's mastery of different areas in nuclear science and will reinforce Iran's position as a nuclear country," the report said.

Amid a fanfare of publicity, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced in April that Iran had successfully enriched uranium to 3.5 percent and mastered the nuclear fuel cycle.

The United States suspects Iran is using a civilian nuclear programme to secretly develop atomic weapons, but Tehran says it only wants to produce electricity.

The United Nations Security Council has given Iran until August 31 to halt enrichment and reprocessing activities, or face possible sanctions.

Iran on Tuesday responded to an offer from six world powers of negotiations on trade, technology and security benefits if Iran freezes its strategic nuclear fuel work.

[mike435]

why is iran doing this to itself