Nuclear Crisis

[Rasputin]

Iran has failed to stop enriching uranium despite a UN deadline calling for a halt to its nuclear programme, the UN nuclear agency says.
The International Atomic Energy Agency said Tehran began a new round of uranium enrichment in recent days.

Six world powers are set to meet next week to decide on the way forward. The US is pushing for sanctions.

A senior Iranian nuclear official said the IAEA report showed Tehran had been co-operating over its nuclear work.

Iran would continue enriching uranium "within the framework of research and under the control of the IAEA", Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's atomic energy agency, said.

'Unsatisfactory'

US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, described the report as a red flag and said it provided ample evidence of Iranian defiance.

He questioned Iran's refusal to say why it wanted uranium metal when "the only real use for uranium metal is a nuclear weapon".

It is time for Iran to make a choice - we've made our choice

US President George W Bush

Mr Bolton said the UN Security Council must now be ready to impose sanctions on Tehran, but said no action would be taken until EU talks with Iran next week.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is due to hold face-to-face talks with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani.

The talks will come a day before a meeting of the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany on the issue, diplomats say.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said his country deplored Iran's "unsatisfactory" response, but added that he remained "convinced that the path of dialogue should remain open".

Russia and China, which can both veto action at the Security Council, have previously urged patience and said they would not support severe punishments.

'Consequences'

"Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities," the IAEA report was quoted as saying.

"Iran has not addressed the long outstanding verification issues or provided the necessary transparency to remove uncertainties associated with some of its activities," the report added.


Iran will not back down an inch: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

The report said Iran started one new round of enrichment on 24 August, diplomatic sources say.

But inspectors have found no "concrete proof" that the nuclear programme "is of a military nature," one official told journalists.

Mr Saeedi said the report "does not satisfy us completely" but "indicates that the US's groundless claims were based on the US officials' illusions".

"This report carries no sign Iran's nuclear programme is not peaceful," he added.

US President George W Bush warned that there would be "consequences" for Iran if it did not meet the deadline.

"It is time for Iran to make a choice," he told a meeting of US veterans in Salt Lake City.

"We've made our choice. We will continue to work closely with our allies to plan a diplomatic solution, but there must be consequences for Iran's defiance and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tehran would not yield to international pressure to halt its programme.

As the UN deadline expired, he denounced the US for trying to impose its will on Iran.

"The Iranian nation will not succumb to bullying, invasion and the violation of its rights," he told a crowd of thousands in the north-west.

Iran maintains it has a right to a nuclear programme which, it says, has a purely civilian aspect.

Western powers accuse Iran of trying covertly to develop a nuclear bomb.

[Rasputin]

Iran Won't Stop Enrichment Without Secuirty Guarantees

Paris, France - The deadline set for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment by the UN Security Council has passed. But sanctions are not only unlikely, they're illogical.

China and Russia have repeatedly said they don't believe sanctions could solve the problem, partly because Iran has developed strong economic ties with them on mostly oil and natural gas contracts. They are not going to endanger their crucial interests and tremendous investments.

Last year a Chinese state-run company, signed a 25-year contract to import 110 million metric tons of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) from Iran. This was followed by another contract between Sinopec and Iran, signed in October of the same year. The deal worth $100 billion, adds an extra 250 million tons of LNG to China's energy supply, extracted from Iran's Yadavaran field over a 25-year period.

In 2001, Iran-China trade volume stood at $3.3 Billion, and in 2005, the volume of Iran-China trade hit $US 9.2 billion. China currently holds the second rank among top exporters to Iran (2005) with 8.3% of the total market, after top ranked Germany. Iran's imports from China rose by 360% between 2000 and 2005.

The government of Iran, in its entirety, sees its "peaceful" nuclear program as a matter of national identity now, a sign of Independence and sovereignty, which has been one of the most important themes of the revolution in 1979 .

Stopping enrichment is the ultimate goal of the entire negotiation process. By complying, Iran would lose its game before it even started. If the 5+1 countries would like to convince Iran to give up on such a crucial issue, they have to offer more than some economic promises.

This, in my opinion, could only be a solid guarantee by the U.S. that it would abandon its policies to topple the Islamic Republic either by military force or internal unrest with ultimately a non-violent revolution fueled by various American foundations -- another velvet revolution.

Such a guarantee will be good news for the organic pro-democracy activists, if backed up by meaningful signs such as dismantling the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) and stopping funding quasi-human-rights advocacy groups such as IDHCR which pursue regime change under cover of documenting violations of human rights, as was reported earlier this year by Washington Post's Karl Vick and David Finkel from Tehran.

U.S. regime change policies have been damaging the moderates and pro-democracy movement by enabling the Islamic Republic to paint them as instruments of America seeking to destabilize and topple the regime. Iran wont stop until this does.

[Rasputin]

French PM Dominique de Villepin has expressed disappointment at Iran's decision to disregard a UN deadline for stopping sensitive nuclear work.
"We cannot accept that Iran does not respect commitments it has made in the past," Mr Villepin said after talks with Italian PM Romano Prodi in Rome.

Mr Prodi said France and Italy should co-operate over the "Iranian problem".

The US wants UN sanctions against Iran over its failure to meet a 31 August deadline to stop enriching uranium.

Six world powers are set to meet next week to decide on the way forward.

The UN nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said on Thursday that Tehran had recently begun a new round of uranium enrichment.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Iran "will not give up one iota" of its nuclear work.

Iran maintains it has a right to a nuclear programme which, it says, has a purely civilian aspect.

Western powers accuse Iran of trying covertly to develop a nuclear bomb.

'Iranian problem'

Mr de Villepin said the world had to show a united front to persuade Iran to abandon its controversial nuclear work.

"We think it is possible to go forward with dialogue but it is important that the international community show Iran the necessity to change position," he said.

His Italian counterpart, Mr Prodi, said both men agreed Iran was "one of the great challenges to resolve".

Co-operation between the two countries had to extend to the "Iranian problem", he said.

Italy has historically had good ties with Tehran and is still Iran's biggest European trading partner, commanding a strong presence in its energy market.


'Red flag'

An IAEA report released on Friday said: "Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities."

"Iran has not addressed the long outstanding verification issues or provided the necessary transparency to remove uncertainties associated with some of its activities," the report added.

But inspectors have found no "concrete proof" that the nuclear programme "is of a military nature", one official told journalists.

An Iranian official said the report "carries no sign Iran's nuclear programme is not peaceful".

The US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, described the report as a red flag and said it provided ample evidence of Iranian defiance.

Mr Bolton said the UN Security Council must now be ready to impose sanctions on Tehran, but said no action would be taken until EU talks with Iran next week.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is due to hold face-to-face talks with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani.

The talks will come a day before a meeting of the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany on the issue, diplomats say.

[Rasputin]

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is expected to press Iran on Saturday to help shore up the Hizbollah-Israel ceasefire, but diplomats say the talks will also cover Iran's nuclear standoff with the West.

Annan's visit to Iran takes place two days after the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reported Tehran had failed to meet the U.N. Security Council's August 31 deadline to halt uranium enrichment.

The United States, which accuses Iran of seeking atomic bombs, said on Friday it was consulting European governments about possible sanctions against the Islamic Republic, but the EU signalled it wanted to see more dialogue with Tehran.


Ahmad Fawzi, a spokesman for Annan who has been on a week-long Middle East trip to bolster the Hizbollah-Israel truce, told Reuters by telephone from Qatar's capital Doha the main purpose of the visit to Tehran was to discuss Lebanon.

But Fawzi said: "Certainly the issue of the (Iranian) nuclear programme will be visited."

Iran is one of the main backers of the Lebanese Hizbollah guerrilla group, and Annan is expected to urge a commitment to a ban on exporting arms to the guerrillas as demanded by a U.N. Security Council resolution that ushered in the August 14 truce.

Although Iran funded and armed Hizbollah in the 1980s, it now says its support is primarily moral and political. But analysts say Hizbollah is equipped with Iranian arms and used them in the 34-day war against Israel.

An Iranian official said Annan had requested meetings with top officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but gave no information on which ones had been arranged.

[Rasputin]

Annan has already visited Lebanon, Israel, Syria, another Hizbollah ally, and Qatar, the only Arab state currently with a seat on the U.N. Security Council. In Damascus, Annan said Syria promised to enforce the arms embargo on Hizbollah.

Before Annan began his tour, U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said: "It is clear that Iran has an influence on certain parts of Lebanese society, and we would hope to use that influence positively."

PEACEKEEPERS

A first batch of 880 Italian troops will land in Lebanon on Saturday as part of U.N. plans to increase the existing 2,000 peacekeepers in Lebanon to 15,000 to help enforce the ceasefire. Italy will be the biggest troop contributor with 3,000.


Iran says its nuclear programme is solely for power generation and remained defiant on Friday while reiterating it was open to talks over the issue.

"If the Western countries try to prohibit our nation's advance in peaceful nuclear technology by making frowning faces, they shall face this nation's anger," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted by state TV as saying in a speech.

The United States is the driving force behind possible sanctions but Russia cast doubt on whether the Security Council could reach a quick consensus and said threatening Iran would lead to a "dead end".

The five countries with permanent seats on the Security Council -- China, Britain, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany would meet in Berlin on September 7 to discuss the way forward, the French Foreign Ministry said.

The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, said any sanctions should target Iran's leaders.
"We are in consultations with the EU and other governments about what the first sanction resolution could be," Bolton told reporters in New York, saying one option was to start with a small number of sanctions and escalate them over time.

"Another option is a very tough sanctions resolution as the first one. We haven't made any decision on that point and I am not aware that any European government has made any decision on that point," said Bolton.

In Europe, governments expressed varying degrees of disappointment at Iran's stance but were united in keeping sanctions at arm's length.

"We think it is possible to go forward with dialogue but it is important that the international community show Iran the necessity to change position," said French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin.


British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said her goal was a negotiated solution on the basis of an offer by Britain, China, Russia, France, Germany and the United States of a package of incentives if Iran ceased uranium enrichment.

Last November, Annan cancelled a trip to Tehran in response to a call by Ahmadinejad that Israel "be wiped off the map". A U.N. official said Annan last visited Iran in 2002. Ahmadinejad was elected president last year.

Annan will return to Doha from Tehran for talks with Qatari officials about implementation of the Security Council resolution to cement the Hizbollah-Israel truce.

[Rasputin]

posed that question to an American friend I met over lunch in a recent trip to Florida and while his affirmation of Iran was not a shocker, he was quiet confused and surprised to learn otherwise. And there lies the problem with our so called "civilized western society" where misinformation and disinformation is systematically and intentionally implanted in the consciousness of the unsuspecting public by the so called mainstream media.

If you don't believe this, then just pick any story on any given day about Iran's nuclear activity and somewhere in the narrative you will undoubtedly come across this or very similar statement:

"Iran refuses to suspend its uranium enrichment activity, which can produce among other things, the material for atomic bombs. Tehran insists that its nuclear program is for generating electricity but the West believes Iran wants to make nuclear weapons."

The above assertion is then dutifully repeated by every media outlet -- Newspapers, Radio and TV Stations on daily basis in order to create the impression of a dangerous and outlaw nation led by a mad man bent on acquiring the nukes to blow up the world. No doubt the propaganda is working as evident by the results of a Los Angeles Time /Bloomberg pole conducted in April that found about half of those surveyed support military action if Iran continues its nuclear activity.

Historical Review
Before determining whether Iran is in violation of the NPT [1] [2], we must first review a little history -- On the morning of August 6, 1945 the United States dropped the first nuclear weapon code named "Little Boy" on the city of Hiroshima, followed three days later by the detonation of a second nuclear bomb "Fat Man" on Nagasaki, Japan incinerating 214,000 people [3].

Having built and used the ultimate weapon, the US adopted a failed policy of monopoly and exclusion by even refusing to cooperate with its closest wartime ally Britain which independently along with France developed their own nuclear weapons. By 1964, there were five declared nuclear weapon states with Soviet Union and China posing the first proliferation fear for the west. In 1965, the Geneva disarmament conference began considering a draft non-proliferation treaty which led to the introduction of the formal treaty which was then opened for signature on July 1, 1968 and entered into force on March 5, 1970. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was charged with the primary task of verifying that parties to the NPT are complying with its terms.

Key Articles of the NPT
Article I requires the nuclear weapon states undertake not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices and not to assist, encourage or induce any non-nuclear-weapon state to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Under Article II, each non-nuclear-weapon state pledges not to receive, manufacture, or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive assistance in their manufacture.

Article III obliges each non-nuclear-weapon state to accept comprehensive international safeguards through agreements negotiated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The intent of these safeguards is to deter and detect the diversion of nuclear material for nuclear explosive purposes.

Under Article IV, parties may engage in peaceful nuclear programs in a manner consistent with Articles I and II and are expected to assist the nuclear programs of other parties. It emphasizes that nothing in the Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the parties to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.

Article VI obligates the nuclear weapon states to pursue plans to reduce and liquidate their stockpiles and all parties to pursue good-faith negotiations on effective measures relating to ending the nuclear arms race at an early date, to nuclear disarmament, and to achieving a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Article VII recognizes the right of any group of states to conclude regional treaties ensuring the total absence of nuclear weapons in their respective territories.

So if you haven't figured it out by now uranium enrichment is a central tenet guaranteed by article IV of the treaty as an "inalienable right" granted to all non-nuclear states. It is the process that produces the fuel to run a nuclear reactor in order to produce electricity which is conveniently dismissed as "among other things" in the news example sited above. It is also the carrot without which there is no incentive for countries to join the NPT as they would be accepting an apartheid system that rewards nuclear states without any practical benefits for the non-nuclear members. The right to utilize nuclear technology without developing nuclear weapons is vital for the treaty to remain credible and enforceable.

The United States, on the other hand, is in material breach of article VI which requires the nuclear weapon states to "pursue plans to reduce and liquidate their stockpiles of nuclear weapons". To the contrary, U.S. has secured funding, and is actively pursuing development of a new generation of nuclear weapons [4] [5] and has never allowed inspection of its nuclear facilities by IAEA.

Iran is only refusing the Security Council's demand to give up its right under the Article IV to enrich uranium which it did voluntarily for a period from November 2004 until August 2005 for what it called "confidence building" measures. Having failed to win any meaningful economic or diplomatic incentives from the west for giving up what is practically guaranteed and practiced by every other member state, it resumed that lawful activity earlier this year. In its August 22nd reply to the incentive package offered by the permanent members of Security Council plus Germany, it called for negotiations to consider such action again, but not as a precondition but rather part of a serious and reverential dialogue.

[Rasputin]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad confirmed his defiance of the UN Security Council's call for his country to cease the enrichment of uranium. Iran's refusal to obey the Security Council's ultimatum now places the onus back on the US and the council.

The major challenge facing the international community is a race against the clock. The current strategy of sanctions combined with negotiations is the best avenue; however, with every passing moment Iran comes closer to becoming nuclear. If this point is reached, the entire strategic equation will change. Time is of the essence.

Within the next few weeks it is likely that the US will implement sanctions either through the Security Council, or if it is unable to receive the support of the entire council, through a private coalition of countries from the international community. After the implementation of the sanctions, Iran will be expected to respond. Iran will have to decide whether or not to continue its enrichment program and defy international pressure or concede to the international community by stopping the program.

Iran's clear objective is the attainment of nuclear capability, but it is only willing to attain this without sacrificing too much, either in the way of sanctions or military action. Iran's continued defiance of the Security Council and its stated willingness to negotiation is its attempt to attain both these objectives.

The real test will be: If Iran continues to push forward with its enrichment program even in light of sanctions, will the US live up to its commitment to prevent Iran from going nuclear? If this situation arises, it will create heightened tensions as military options are considered. Military actions would not be limited to the targeting of nuclear facilities; it would most likely also focus on other targets, such as airports, naval bases and other strategic infrastructure.

If this happens, Iran will face a moment of truth. Facing the threat of a credible military option, Iran will have to determine whether or not it is willing to possibly risk its future prosperity in pursuit of its nuclear ambitions.

When this moment of truth arrives, there will be enough leaders in Iran who would consider the situation rationally, who are capable of calculating the relative risks and rewards. The Iranians do not want to be in a situation where they regret straining the patience of the international community.

Although the recent rhetoric coming from Iran sounds like the expression of fundamentalist positions, cooler heads do exist in the Iranian establishment. These individuals would consider reaching an agreement with the international community. The unknown, however, is who will prevail in this internal debate within the Iranian government. One cannot tell in advance.

Iran's current attitude toward the US suggests that the Iranians feel that the Bush administration could not stomach military action against Iran in the present political environment. Iran does not yet feel the pressure.

As the situation develops and the pressure on Iran increases, it is probable that Iran will respond to military threats with threats of its own. Escalating tension and a potential crisis situation might arise. However, it is doubtful that Iran will risk the well-being of its people when faced with real military threats from the US and other countries. Iran has proven that it is a nation that rationally assesses situations based on what is best for it. Until now, Iran has been acting within the bounds of rationality, and there is no reason to assume that it would make decisions that could bring about calamity.

[Rasputin]

LAPPEENRANTA, Finland (Reuters) - The European Union agreed on Saturday to try to clarify Iran's nuclear stance within two weeks and Iran told visiting U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan it wanted fresh negotiations on the issue.

Annan's visit to Iran takes place two days after the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reported Tehran had failed to meet the U.N. Security Council's August 31 deadline to suspend sensitive uranium enrichment work.

The United States, which accuses Iran of seeking atomic bombs, said on Friday it was consulting European governments about possible sanctions against the Islamic Republic, but the EU signaled it wanted to see more dialogue with Tehran which says its atomic activity is aimed at producing power.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana will meet Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, next week to try to clear up ambiguities in Tehran's reply to the major powers' offer of broad cooperation if it stops the nuclear work.

"If the meeting goes well and Iran accepts the philosophy of the cooperation project we presented to it in June, I think we will be able to start a more formal negotiation," French Sunday newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche quoted Solana as saying.

Slovenian Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel said after the 25 EU ministers discussed the Iranian issue in Finland on Saturday: "We give Solana two weeks for his clarification talks."

But Solana told reporters: "There's no deadline, whenever we finish ... We are going to start in the coming days and I hope that it will be very short. We don't need many meetings."

Other EU ministers said Solana would report back to them in Brussels on September 15 and they had agreed not to take any action against Iran before then.

Annan met Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Larijani, who is also the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, on Saturday.

Annan described his talks with Larijani as "constructive."

Larijani said: "Both sides agreed that it would be better to move by negotiations and we hope that Kofi Annan's very high capabilities could be used in that way," the semi-official ISNA students news agency quoted him as saying.

EU WANTS SOLUTION THROUGH DIALOGUE

The United States is the driving force behind possible sanctions but Russia has cast doubt on whether the U.N. Security Council could reach a quick consensus and said threatening Iran would lead to a "dead end."

In Finland, ministers declined to speak publicly about what sanctions they might apply if Tehran did not comply.

But Czech Foreign Minister Cyril Svoboda said a coalition might have to impose sanctions unilaterally if the United Nations was unable to agree on punitive measures.

"It will be very, very difficult, but ... please, we need to stick together with the United States," he told reporters.

In reaction to the prospect of sanctions, Iran's deputy foreign minister for economic affairs, Alireza Sheikh-Attar said: "Putting Iran under sanctions will damage the big countries which consume oil. We have a plan for different scenarios to combat any possible sanctions."

World leaders and foreign ministers are set to discuss next steps toward Iran at their annual gathering in New York.

The five countries with permanent seats on the Security Council -- China, Britain, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany would meet in Berlin on September 7 to discuss the way forward, the French Foreign Ministry said.

[Rasputin]

Defiance, divisions and dilemmas

No one was surprised this week when Iran failed to meet the UN's deadline to halt uranium enrichment. From President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad downwards, Iranian officials had made it defiantly clear long in advance that there would be no backing down on this key demand. But the predictability of the event does not mean it does not matter. By ignoring the UN security council and its nuclear agency, the IAEA, Iran is cocking a snook at the rest of the world over an issue of profound importance: the danger that nuclear weapons will spread in the already volatile Middle East and encourage others elsewhere to follow suit.

Tehran insists it wishes only to use nuclear power to generate electricity as it is entitled to do under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The problem is that few believe that because of its long record of evasion and concealment, and evidence that what it is doing only makes sense if its true goals are military. Still, a US senate committee pointed recently to gaps in the intelligence picture of Iran as big as those which were uncovered after the war in Iraq.
Iran may be short on trust, but otherwise it is in an enviable position. The Islamic Republic emerged the clear winner from the US invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban. In Iraq the demise of Iran's hated Ba'athist enemy has brought the country's Shia Muslim majority to power in Baghdad. Now the war in Lebanon between (nuclear-armed) Israel and Iran's protege Hizbullah has exposed the limits of conventional power in defeating well-equipped Shia fighters who are riding a wave of hostility to Israel and the US. For some, the whole dismal episode was an ominous dress-rehearsal for what might happen if Iran itself ever came under attack. And Iran knows too that cutting its oil exports could trigger another 1970s-style shock that would be devastating to the world economy.

Mr Ahmadinejad and colleagues can also see that with Iraq bleeding, none in the US except the most diehard neocons have any appetite for regime change in Tehran, though some in Washington think there is a military option. Israel, its suspicions of Iran sharpened in Lebanon, has signalled it might try a rerun of the bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. International law, military effectiveness and political sense should all rule that out.

Iran's intransigence means that sanctions will now be considered by the security council but will be very hard to agree. The fragile unity that produced a UN-endorsed package of economic and technological incentives for Iran is unlikely to survive for long. Russia and China have made clear their opposition to punitive measures. Britain and France, backed by the EU, both said yesterday that they saw the need for more diplomacy. In a situation where there are so few good options, simply playing for time isn't a bad choice.

Sanctions would in any case almost certainly be counter-productive and useless if not multilateral. (Bilateral US sanctions, it is worth recalling, have been in force since after the revolution in 1979). The smarter choice would be to take up Iran's offer of "serious negotiations" to test whether it might halt enrichment by some other route - though that would have to include a tight UN inspections regime to allay suspicions. Any such effort should be accompanied by intensified contacts with Tehran. The current visit to the US of the former Iranian president. Mohammed Khatami. is a timely reminder of his call for a "dialogue of civilisations" in 1998. But he may not even meet Jimmy Carter, let alone George Bush.

Iranian confidence, international divisions and the sheer importance of what is at stake here make this a fiendishly difficult tangle. That must be a spur to creativity, not a counsel of despair. Like it or not, Iran's nuclear defiance poses a huge challenge to the battered credibility of the UN. It cannot just be ignored.

[Rasputin]

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Sunday Iran wanted to find a negotiated solution to its nuclear dispute with the West but would not freeze uranium enrichment ahead of any talks.

"On the nuclear issue, the president reaffirmed to me Iran's preparedness and determination to negotiate and find a solution to the crisis," Annan told a news conference in Tehran.

Annan added that Ahmadinejad had told him Iran "does not accept suspension (of uranium enrichment) before negotiations", as demanded by the U.N. Security Council.

The U.N. chief has been touring the region seeking to shore up the cease-fire that halted a 34-day war in Lebanon. His Iran leg of the trip also came just days after Iran failed to meet a U.N. Security Council deadline to halt sensitive nuclear work.

The U.N. chief held talks on Saturday about the Lebanon truce and the nuclear standoff with senior Iranian officials, including chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, and met with Ahmadinejad on Sunday.

Iran failed to heed an Aug. 31 deadline set by the U.N. Security Council to halt uranium enrichment, a process which can be used to make fuel for power stations or material for warheads. It now faces the threat of sanctions.

The United States said on Friday it was consulting European governments about possible sanctions against the Islamic Republic, but the EU has signaled it wants more dialogue and has agreed to try to clarify Iran's stance within two weeks.

Ahmadinejad has been a staunch opponent of compromise over Iran's nuclear program, which the West says is aimed at building atomic bombs but which Tehran insists is only to produce electricity.

Psychological game
U.N. officials said Annan had also requested to meet Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the highest authority under the Islamic Republic's system of clerical rule. Khamenei has also said Iran would press ahead with its atomic plans.

U.N. officials said early on Sunday that no meeting with Khamenei had been scheduled so Annan was expected to leave Iran later on Sunday without seeing him.

Iran has repeatedly shrugged off the threat of sanctions, saying they would hurt industrialized countries more than Iran, the world's fourth largest oil exporter, because such a step would drive already high oil prices higher still.

"I think the issue of sanctions is more like a psychological game," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told a news conference. "Right now we should think about solving the issues through negotiations."

Iran has insisted on holding more talks to resolve the dispute, although some Western diplomats have viewed that as a tactic by Tehran to stall and avoid taking action.

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana will meet Larijani in the week ahead to try to clear up ambiguities in Tehran's reply to the major powers' offer of broad cooperation if it stops the nuclear work.

The United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany had offered Iran a package of economic and other incentives to halt enrichment, which Iran insists is its national right that it will never abandon.

[jjbb]

[mike435]

why does iran need to enrich uranium if it dosent even have the viacle to use it?

i think this is one reason why it is obvious iran is going after the bomb.

[donsaeid]

I support my countries process toward becoming world power. and im proud of my country and all other who has any bad to say about iran can simply go and burn in hell

ZENDE BAD IRAN

ZENDE BAD IRANI

[Rasputin]

I support my countries process toward becoming world power. and im proud of my country and all other who has any bad to say about iran can simply go and burn in hell

ZENDE BAD IRAN

ZENDE BAD IRANI

World Power ?! Kodam ''world power'' ? Beh gheir az U.S.A , India Pakistan ham (beh hamraheh U.K RUSSIA FRANCE CHINA) Bomb-e Atom daran,pas Inha ham 'world Power'' hastan ?!

Yek nokteh keh moteasefaneh mardom-e Iran khabar nadaran,ineh keh Uranium hich arzeshi joz dar sakhtan-e aslaheh nezami nadareh (agar madraki hast keh neshoun mideh zeddeh in harf ro,khahesh mikonam neshoun bedin !!!!!).

In nirouy-e hastei,chizi boudeh keh M R Shah az sal-e 1974-77 az American and French Companies gerefteh,Khoda ro shokr hich chizi naboudeh keh ''akhounda'' toush bonyan gozar bashan ! Akhoundha faghat ba dadan-e 4.5 Million $ yek seri Basic Information ro az yek daneshmand-e Pakistani kharidan !

---
Hich kas (Irani) mokhalefeh Ghodratmand shodan-e Iran nist ! vali hich irani-e vatan parasti ham hazer nist,in ghodrat-e hastei ro dar ekhtiar-e Akhoundhayeh Ghassi-al ghalb bebineh ! Gheir az in..bahs,bi mored hast va ghafieh bi javab !!!

[Rasputin]

&A: Iran nuclear stand-off
Iran failed to abide by a 31 August UN deadline to halt its uranium enrichment programme, the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded in a report to the UN Security Council.
Western powers are to meet to consider their next step, which might include seeking sanctions against Iran.


What did the IAEA report say?

The report said that Iran started a new round of uranium enrichment on 24 August, just a few days before the UN deadline.

It also said that Tehran had not "provided the necessary transparency to remove uncertainties associated with some of its activities".

Iran had granted access to nuclear facilities but had not provided all the information requested, it stated.

Inspectors had been unable to "confirm the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme".

What has been the reaction?

A senior Iranian nuclear official, Mohammad Saeedi, said the report backed up Tehran's claim that it was pursuing a peaceful nuclear programme.

The US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, questioned why Iran would want uranium metal when "the only real use of uranium metal is a nuclear weapon". Iran's possession of plans for using such metal is one of the issues under investigation.

Mr Bolton said the report provided "ample evidence of (Iranian) defiance" but added that the US would delay taking action until after the EU and Iran had held talks.

France's Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said his country deplored Iran's "unsatisfactory" response, but added that he remained "convinced that the path of dialogue should remain open".

What is the next step?

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is to meet Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani. Iran had earlier offered "serious talks" about a package of incentives but refused the pre-condition that enrichment had to be suspended.

The UN Security Council could now consider sanctions, though imposing them would require a separate decision. Russia and China have been reluctant to go down that path. The US already imposes sanctions on Iran, especially against its oil industry.

What kind of sanctions might be considered?

In the first instance, the US and its allies could push for limited sanctions such as travel and financial restrictions on Iranians involved in nuclear work.

More serious sanctions would be on trade links with Iran, such as a ban on goods with a nuclear or dual use application. If there was no UN agreement on these, then the US might ask others to impose them by themselves. The US already does. The one sanction that would really hurt Iran would be a ban on the export of petroleum to it. Despite its oil wealth, it imports much of its finished petroleum products. But getting suppliers to stop would be hard.


What is Iran's position on enrichment?

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a country has the right to enrich its own fuel for civil nuclear power, under IAEA inspection.

Iran says it is simply doing what it is allowed to do. It argues that it needs nuclear power and wants to control the whole process itself. It says it will not use the technology to make a nuclear bomb.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stressed that Iran will not yield to international pressure, and he has denounced the US as "tyrannical".

"The Iranian nation will not succumb to bullying, invasion and the violation of its rights," he said after the deadline had expired.


Why is the West so worried?

Western powers fear that Iran secretly wants to develop either a nuclear bomb or the ability to make one, even if it has not decided to build one right now. So they want Iran to stop any enrichment. The same technology used for producing fuel for nuclear power can be used for producing fuel for a nuclear explosion.

The West says that Iran cannot be trusted because it hid an enrichment programme for 18 years.


What is the offer the US and other western countries have made to Iran?

The package has not been made public but is believed to include promises of support for civilian nuclear power in Iran with the provision of light water nuclear reactors. According to media reports, there is also a crucial new offer which might allow Iran the chance of carrying out limited enrichment by itself one day.

This would depend however on the IAEA being totally satisfied that Iran's intentions were peaceful.

The US would also lift restrictions on the sale to Iran of US made aircraft parts. This would enable Iran to buy Boeing parts, and parts used by the European Airbus but made in America, to upgrade its civilian airliners. US agricultural technology would also be made available. There would be support for Iranian membership of the World Trade Organisation.


How soon could Iran build a bomb if it decided to do so?

Estimates from the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London vary from between about three to five years up to about 15 years, depending on Iran's abilities and intentions. But first it would have to take the decision to go down that path. That would mean enriching uranium much more highly than it says it has done so far.

Might the US attack Iran?

The US says it wants a peaceful solution. An attack would not only risk Iranian retaliation, it would be hard to justify legally. The US is said to have plans but it has plans for many contingencies and it has not taken a decision.

What is the background to this confrontation?

The IAEA reported in 2003 that Iran had hidden a uranium enrichment programme for 18 years, and the current dispute dates back to then.