Nuclear Crisis

[Rasputin]

Western members of the IAEA called on Iran to commit itself to stopping all enrichment activities permanently, but it has refused to do so and has now abandoned a temporary ban as well. So these countries want Iran reported to the Security Council under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on the grounds that its past behaviour broke the treaty and it cannot now be trusted.

Iran says it is now in compliance with the treaty and that it should be allowed, under inspection, to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes since the treaty allows countries to do this.



Does Iran intend to build nuclear weapons?

Iran says its policy is "Yes" to enrichment but "No" to nuclear weapons. A fatwa against nuclear weapons has been issued by the Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei. The sceptics argue that Iran has no need to make its own nuclear fuel as this can be provided by others, so they conclude that Iran must be intending one day to make a bomb.

One other possibility is that Iran wants to develop the capability but has left a decision on whether to actually build a nuclear weapon for the future.


Could Iran leave the NPT?


Yes. Article X gives a member state the right to declare that "extraordinary events" have "jeopardised the supreme interests of the State." It can then give three months notice to quit. That would leave it free to do what it wanted.

And, in fact, on 7 May, its parliament threatened to force the government to withdraw if the standoff was not resolved "peacefully".


What about fears for regional conflict?

There are fears of a broader, possibly military, crisis. The US has said publicly that it will not permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons. President Bush has said that he wants diplomacy to solve this, but that nothing is ruled out.

There have been press reports that Israel, which bombed an Iraqi reactor in 1981, has begun the planning for a possible raid. But like the US, Israel says that diplomacy is the priority.


Brazil has announced that it is now enriching uranium. Is there a double standard?

Like Iran, Brazil has a right under the NPT to enrich uranium for nuclear power fuel. It is doing so under IAEA inspection as is required. However, the political background is quite different because Brazil is not seen as a threat and its peaceful intentions are believed. Nevertheless, there will be those who do see double standards here.

Do not existing nuclear powers have obligations to get rid of their weapons under the NPT?

Article VI commits them to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament." The nuclear powers claim they have done this by reducing their warheads but critics say they have not really moved towards nuclear disarmament.

Critics also argue that the US and UK have broken the treaty by transferring nuclear technology from one to another. The US and UK say that this is not affected by the NPT.

Does not Israel have a nuclear bomb?

Yes. Israel however is not a party to the NPT, so is not obliged to report to it. Neither are India or Pakistan, both of which have developed nuclear weapons. North Korea has left the treaty and has announced that it has acquired a nuclear weapon capacity.

[donsaeid]

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 !!!

toam mesle mike mipichoni harfe adamo.

1. i know more than you about shahs afford to get nuclear reactors. (be sure)

2. uraniume ghani shode ( ta hadde 3-5 %) estefade mishe be onvane sookht dar reactor haye hastei.

3. and i becoming a power as i see it doesnt has anything to do with you having the bomb. look at japan and germany having power has to do with tecnology to do and thats what they dont let us. Look at turkey. first they say that be more free and we let you start talking with EU about membership, after that more and more "pish shart" mizaran ke bayad amali beshe ghabl az shoroe mozakerat. masalan koshtare aramanero be rasmiat beshmare!!!! what does it have to do with EU!
same about iran. first goftan taligh bendazin ye moddate kotah. bad goftan yekam moddatesho tolani tar konin. alan migan aslan shoma in tecnology ro mikhain chikar berin khiarshor va pofaketo dorost konid. ma baraton in karo mikonim va 100 barabar geroontar miforoshim beheton.

Ghabool kardane in shooroot va support tahrime iran is a bad thing. very bad thing.

i want my country to be much more free then it is now. but on which cost? like iraq? like afghanistan? i want to see one like Ukrina

[donsaeid]

دود سياه دودكش 1+5

:هرچند تعبير "برخواستن دود سياه از دودكش 1+5" ، به مراسم تعيين رهبر كاتوليك هاي جهان برمي گردد كه طي آن، مشاهده دود سياه از دودكش واتيكان به معناي عدم همگرايي و اتفاق نظر درانتخاب پاپ جديد و مشاهده دود سفيد به معناي انتخاب پاپ جديد مي باشد ، اما اين تعبير درمورد همگرايي 5 كشور عضو دائم شوراي امنيت و داراي حق وتو، بعلاوه آلمان در ارتباط با مسئله هسته اي ايران نيز مصداق دارد.


پاسخ رسمي 21صفحه اي ايران به بسته مشوقهاي گروه 1+5 ، درتاريخ 31مرداد(22 اوت) و در آستانه نشست اين گروه پيرامون تصميم قطعي درمورد مسئله هسته اي ايران ، معادلات جهاني در اين رابطه را دگرگون ساخته و با اتمام مهلت شوراي امنيت سازمان ملل براي ايران به منظور تعليق غنيسازي اورانيوم در 9شهريور (31 اوت) ، احتمال توافق اساسي تمام اعضا برسر تحريم و اعمال فشار برايران بسيار كم است .
در اين راستا هرچند تعبير "برخواستن دود سياه از دودكش 1+5" ، به مراسم تعيين رهبر كاتوليك هاي جهان برمي گردد كه طي آن، مشاهده دود سياه از دودكش واتيكان به معناي عدم همگرايي و اتفاق نظر درانتخاب پاپ جديد و مشاهده دود سفيد به معناي انتخاب پاپ جديد مي باشد ، اما اين تعبير درمورد همگرايي 5 كشور عضو دائم شوراي امنيت و داراي حق وتو، بعلاوه آلمان در ارتباط با مسئله هسته اي ايران نيز مصداق دارد و به نظر مي رسد پس از پاسخ رسمي ايران به بسته پيشنهادي1+5 در تاريخ از پيش اعلام شده، برخواستن " دودسفيد " به نشانه همگرايي اين كشورها درجهت اتخاذ تصميم هاي اجرايي تنبيهي برعليه فعاليتهاي هسته اي ايران درقالب قطعنامه شوراي امنيت ، فعلاً منتفي است.
بر اين اساس عليرغم آنكه هنوز مفاد محرمانه پاسخ رسمي ايران منتشر نشده است، اما كليت اين پاسخ از دو جنبه، اهميت ويژه اي دارد .
اول آنكه ؛ ايران از همان ابتداي دريافت بسته مشوقها درتاريخ 16خرداد (6 ژوئن) ، اعلام كرد مفاد اين بسته را در تيمهاي كارشناسي بررسي خواهد كرد و پاسخ خود را تا آخر مرداد ماه (22 اوت) به طرفين غربي اعلام خواهد كرد و لذا پاسخ ايران در زماني كه اعلام كرده بود ، تبليغات گسترده غرب را تحت عنوان " وقت كشي ايران " در پاسخ به بسته مشوقها خنثي نمود.
دوم آنكه ؛ مفاد پاسخ ايران قطعاً "تأثير تأخيري" خواهند داشت ،يعني با پايان مهلت 9 شهريور براي تعليق غني سازي و ادامه فعاليتهاي غني سازي در ايران ، تلاشهاي طرفين غربي براي صدور قطعنامه دوم كه ماهيتي شديدالحن تر از قطعنامه اول (1696) خواهد داشت با تأخير مواجه مي شود و اين امر از تشتت افكار و اظهاره نظرهاي ضد و نقيض مسئولان 1+5 ، بخوبي قابل مشاهده است .
از ديگر سوي ؛ تأكيد مقامات ايراني براي بازگشت به مذاكرات، در قالبي "جديد و غيرفرسايشي" از نكات قابل توجه در ماهيت پاسخ ايران مي باشد كه رويكرد جامعه جهاني براي حل مسئله هستهاي ايران در قالب "اصول ديپلماتيك" و "مذاكرات چند جانبه" را افزايش مي دهد.
علاوه بر اين، آنچه در اين زمان روند تصميمگيري كشورهاي 1+5 را تحت الشعاع قرارداده است و اصطلاحاً از خروج دودسفيد از دودكش 1+5 جلوگيري ميكند، "منافع ساختاري" هر كدام از اين كشورها در ارتباط با ايران است كه در صورت اعمال تحريم برعليه تهران مورد تهديد جدي واقع خواهد شد. اين احساس نگراني غرب از واكنشهاي سران 1+5 به پاسخ ايران بخوبي مبرهن است.
"فيليپ دوست بلازي" وزير امورخارجه فرانسه، اگرچه در واكنش به پاسخ ايران اظهار داشت "پاسخ تهران به پيشنهادات جامعه جهاني رضايتبخش نيست و به انتظارات پاسخ نميدهد" ، اما در ادامه صراحتاً تأكيد كرد ؛ مقامات ايراني براي گفتگو و ازسرگيري مذاكرات آمادگي دارند و فرانسه نيز قصد دارد گفتگو را از سربگيرد .
همچنين ،" فرانك والتر اشتاين ماير" وزير امورخارجه آلمان نيز در اظهارات مشابهي بر حل مسئله هسته اي ايران در چارچوب ديپلماتيك و روشن و با شركت كشورهاي اروپايي تأكيد كرد.
در همين زمينه ، "چين" نيز كه در اثر تحريم احتمالي ايران منافع زيادي را از دست ميدهد ، با نگراني روند فعلي را پيگيري مي نمايد ، چراكه اقتصاد اين كشور درحال حاضر 14درصد از نفت خام خود را از ايران وارد ميكند و تراز تجاري بين ايران و چين در سال جاري به بيش از 10 ميليارد دولار مي رسد . دراين راستا و درصورت تحريم ايران ادامه فعاليت حدود 100 شركت چيني كه اكنون درحال كار بر پروژههاي زيرساختي ايران هستند ، با مشكل اساسي روبرو مي شود .
انگلستان هم به عنوان يكي از همراهان اصلي امريكا دربرابر ايران و ايفاي نقش تعيين كننده در تصويب قطعنامه 1696، به نوبه خود از تحريم ايران متضرر مي شود و دركنار تهديد فعاليت شركتهاي انگليسي در ايران، مشروعيت سياستهاي اين كشور را در تقابل جدي با افكار عمومي مردم ايران و همانند ايالات متحده قرار مي دهد .
روسيه نيز به عنوان مخالف اصلي اقدامات تنبيهي برعليه ايران و شريك تجاري ديرينه، بر اساس همكاريهاي و روابط نزديك با تهران مي كوشد با بدست گيري نقش تعيين كننده در مسئله هستهاي ايران، منافع خود را همچنان حفظ نمايد.
ايالات متحده نيز به عنوان اصلي ترين حامي اقدام تنبيهي برعليه ايران، پس از ناكاميهاي متعدد در افغانستان و عراق و همچنين عدم موفقيت در تسهيل اهداف خود در مقابله و تضعيف حزبالله لبنان، بخوبي براين امر واقف است كه درصورت رويارويي با ايران در قالبهاي تحريمي و تنبيهي ديگر ، منافع امريكا در منطقه استراتژيك خاورميانه در معرض مخاطره جدي قرارگرفته و قطعاً هزينه هاي حضور در خاورميانه چند برابر حال حاضر خواهد شد.
اما آنچه مشخصاً دولتمردان امريكا را نگران كرده است، تداوم "استراتژي مقاومت" از سوي ايران در برابر تحريمهاي احتمالي و در نتيجه ايجاد كره شمالي ديگري در منطقه خاورميانه اما با شاخصه هاي اسلامي است كه با توجه به نقش تعيين كنندگي درمنطقه به "محور مبارزه" و "سمبل به چالش كشيدن" سياستهاي واشنگتن بدل خواهد شد.
عليرغم آنچه ذكرشد ، آنچه نقش "عامل بازدارنده" را در معادلات تصميم ساز فوق و از سوي ايران ايفا مي كند، قطع همكاريهاي خارج از عرف و بيش از حدانتظار كنوني ايران با آژانس بين المللي انرژي اتمي است كه مي تواند از يك سو، نظارت بين المللي فعلي بر فعاليتهاي غيرنظامي ايران را متوقف كرده و از ديگر سوي، اعتبار اين ارگان بين المللي را درعرصه جهاني متزلزل نمايد.
در اين راستا، ارسال پرونده هسته اي ايران به شوراي امنيت و تصويب قطعنامه 1696 ، بي شك از مصاديق اقدامات غير قانوني و سياسي اعضاي 1+5 است و ايران مي تواند با استناد به تبصره 1 ماده 10 از پيمان NPT ، كه تصريح مي دارد " چنانچه هر يك از اعضاء پيمان تشخيص دهد حوادثي فوق العاده مربوط به موضوع اين پيمان، منافع عاليه كشورش را به مخاطره انداخته است اين حق را خواهد داشت كه در اعمال حق حاكميت ملي خود از اين پيمان كناره گيري نمايد و اين عضو بايد كناره گيري خود را با اطلاعيه قبلي 3 ماهه به كليه اعضاي پيمان و به شوراي امنيت ملل متحد اعلام نمايد " ، از اين معاهده خارج شود.
آنچه مبرهن است ، درمجموع و براساس موارد فوق اتفاق نظر و اجماع اعضاي 1+5 ، درجهت اعمال اقدامات تنبيهي برعليه ايران "پروسه اي زمانبر" و البته "چندسويه" مي باشد و لذا فعلاً دودسفيد از دودكش 1+5 برنمي خيزد!

* كارشناس مسائل سياسي

[Rasputin]

The August 31 deadline set by the P5 +1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) for Iran's answer to its package of carrots and sticks has passed. Iran, as much as it has tried to confuse matters, has obviously rejected the West's overture, and done so defiantly. Now the EU has opened talks with Iran, supposedly for two weeks.

What's another two weeks, after all, following some three years of avoiding and delaying the obvious - namely, that the Iranian regime is bent on building a nuclear weapon and daring free nations to try to stop it? Speaking to the American Legion on Friday, US President George W. Bush succinctly presented a three-part indictment: "The Iranian regime arms, funds, and advises Hizbullah, which has killed more Americans than any terrorist network except al-Qaida. The Iranian regime interferes in Iraq by sponsoring terrorists and insurgents, empowering unlawful militias, and supplying components for improvised explosive devices. The Iranian regime denies basic human rights to millions of its people. And the Iranian regime is pursuing nuclear weapons in open defiance of its international obligations." In short, Iran must be confronted because it is supporting terrorism, violating human rights, and seeking nuclear weapons.

Though Bush's foreign policy is supposedly controversial, there seems to be a growing level of agreement regarding the danger that he describes. First, there is the 15-0 vote in the Security Council a month ago that created the ultimatum that Iran is now defying. And even as staunch a Bush foe as The New York Times , in an editorial yesterday, did not try to argue with his goal of depriving dangerous regimes of dangerous weapons. Instead it proposed an alternative method of achieving this objective: "The only approach with even the remotest chance of success is to persuade these regimes [Iran and North Korea] that they do not need nuclear weapons to ensure their survival, and that there will be real rewards for good behavior." It is not clear where The New York Times has been the past month or so, as the US and its allies have done precisely this - so much so that proliferation experts warn that if Iran accepted the lavish package of nuclear technology the West is offering, Iran could cheat its way to a bomb.

The latest mantra of the maybe-we-haven't-made-a-good-enough-offer crowd is that the US must open unconditional talks with Iran. This theory pretends that the Iranian regime would give up its nuclear ambitions if only it could be convinced that the US would let it oppress its people in peace.

The problem with this theory is that the US has done better than say that such a deal is available to Teheran, it has demonstrated it. In addition its generous package of carrots, the example of Libya demonstrates that an unequivocal and verifiable abandonment of a nuclear program produces instant relief from Western pressure on a former rogue regime.

After years of punishing sanctions imposed by a unified Security Council, and after the fall of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, Libyan "madman" Muammar Gaddafi decided to convincingly dismantle a nuclear program the West did not fully know he had and forswear terrorism. As a result, sanctions have been lifted and the US has opened normal relations with Tripoli.

The Iranian regime is certainly bellicose, but no one ever accused it of being obtuse. It knows full well that the Libyan option is open to it. What it does not have is a reason to take the Libyan option if it can obfuscate and scare its way out of sanctions and obtain a nuke in any case.

[Rasputin]

The New York Times , the EU, and even the Bush Administration would no doubt be thrilled if Iran decided to take the Libyan option. But what chance is there of that happening before a single sanction has been imposed, and before the West has demonstrated that the price of defiance will be too high for the regime to tolerate? The problem is not that the mullahs are hard of hearing; the problem is that the West has not given them sufficient reason to listen.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

Going forward – I wish Ms. Rice would lay out the five-point plan for America’s own re-emergence as a force for the good on the international scene -- (1) heartfelt and sincere apology for all the wrongs and destruction that America, by mistake or intent, has heaped on the rest of the world in the last forty years – wars, consumption, pollution; (2) pledge to pay for the reconstruction of all the physical damage caused by the US, directly and indirectly, anywhere in the world, without precondition or reciprocity; (3) pledge to enforce every UN resolution, including any that goes against Israel’s Zionist interests; (4) re-establishment of compulsory military service in the United States and recruitment of American youth into construction, literacy and health corps for service across the globe; and (5) lifting of all sanctions and embargoes and renunciation of trade and investment sanctions as an instrument of national policy. Who am I kidding? This lot cannot even spell half of the stuff I am talking about, much less get them.

While Iran won the Atom Cup tournament, it will not advance to a higher level of play, however. For a foreseeable future, Iran will be recalcitrant, good-for-little, jingoistic and contrarian – for it is ruled by a government so steeped in the darkness of its rude self-righteousness that no amount of candles, nuclear or other, would ever enlighten it. This is also the condition of the United States for now. But at least, here, in November 2006 there is a chance that things may improve and, in November 2008, to change for the better. But, then, I am not holding my breath.

[Rasputin]

Why Iran sees no rush for a nuke deal

In the diplomatic swirl around Iran's controversial nuclear program, a meeting set for Wednesday between Tehran's top negotiator Ali Larijani, and European foreign policy chief Javier Solana, was meant to bring a rare moment of clarity.
But that meeting was postponed until Friday, the day after senior negotiators of the UN Security Council's permanent five members and Germany are expected to meet in Berlin to discuss economic sanctions in response to Iran's nuclear fuel work.

Iran appears in no rush, emboldened by a combination of factors, say analysts, which range from an ironclad belief in the rightness of its nuclear case, to record-high oil prices, and the state of conflicts in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan that Tehran believes have given Iran an advantage over US and Israeli foes.

"Iran does not feel the need to compromise on this; they are creating facts on the ground [by efforts to enrich uranium]," says Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst for the Brussels-based International Crisis Group.

"If this argument was taking place in 2002, when oil was $25 per barrel and the Iraq war was not yet prosecuted, Iran's calculations would be much, much different," says Mr. Sadjadpour. "I don't think in Washington there has been a recognition of the repercussions of the Iraq war - that it has essentially given new life to this regime in Tehran."

Pressure on Iran mounted Wednesday, despite divisions over the extent to which the six Western powers were willing to impose sanctions, much less resort to eventual military force.

"Iran's response is not satisfactory," German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Wednesday. "We won't close the door to negotiations but we, the international community, won't stand by and watch as Iran harms the rules of the UN nuclear authorities."

Last year, Iran ended a 2-1/2-year suspension of uranium enrichment efforts. Such work can yield nuclear fuel for power plants or - if enriched to a much higher level - for atomic weapons, which the US claims is Iran's true aim. In April, conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Iran had achieved low-level uranium enrichment suitable for nuclear power plants.

Now on the table is a US-EU incentives package, hand-delivered to Iran last June, that requires Iran to stop enrichment work before talks can begin. Iran has ruled out such a suspension, ignoring a Security Council deadline last week, and has responded with a 21-page counterproposal.

The postponed Larijani-Solana meeting was intended to clarify outstanding questions on both sides before Thursday's Berlin meeting, between the US, Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany. Russia and China have not yet endorsed UN sanctions. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov - whose government is building an $800 million nuclear power plant for Iran - balked again on Wednesday, saying "use of these [sanctions] or not still needs to be defined [and] commensurate to the presence of a real threat to international security."

"Both Iran and the West are making a mistake by not beginning the negotiations," says Nasser Hadian-Jazy, a political science professor at Tehran University. "Larijani will tell Solana: 'Suspension [of uranium enrichment] should not be the precondition to begin negotiations, but the result of negotiations."

Iranian leaders remember with disdain the dynamic during Iran's 2-1/2-year voluntary suspension, which it agreed to during negotiations with the EU. Back then, Iran had to "almost beg" the EU to schedule meetings, says Mr. Hadian-Jazy. Because Iran had already suspended its enrichment work, "the West was not under any pressure of time, and delayed the meetings," says Hadian-Jazy. "But if this one cascade [of Iranian centrifuges, to enrich uranium] is running, then the West will be under the pressure of time, and the chances of finalizing a deal are much more."

That view is bolstered in Iran by a belief that it is being singled out for censure - even though as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is allowed under safeguard to have the complete nuclear fuel cycle.

"The argument of nonproliferation experts [is] against enrichment, saying Iran will acquire the know-how to enrich that can be applied to a nuclear weapons program," says Sadjadpour of ICG. "Iran is saying: 'We already have that know-how. The genie is already out of the bottle...it's a fait accompli.' "

As the nuclear diplomacy unfolds, Presidents George Bush and Ahmadinejad have jacked up their antagonistic rhetoric. "The world's free nations will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon," Mr. Bush said Tuesday, adding that Iran's leaders were "tyrants" as dangerous as Al Qaeda that would not be permitted to attain "the tools of mass murder."

Ahmadinejad replied on Wednesday: "I am telling him [Bush] that all the world is threatening you since the general path that the world is taking is toward worshipping God and divinity.... The massive stream is moving and you are nothing in comparison to God's will."

Such confidence in Tehran hearkens back to the fiery anti-Western sentiment that defined the first years after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"The Iranian view at this moment is that they are on a winning streak," says Ali Ansari, an Iran expert at St. Andrews University in Scotland, and author of "Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Next Great Conflict in the Middle East."

"They feel they've done it themselves, and in fact they haven't - they've just been the beneficiaries of pretty incoherent policies from Washington," says Mr. Ansari. "The trouble we face now is that the US and Iran have given themselves red lines, and someone is going to have to climb down," says Ansari, adding that Iran expects the US to do so. "Iranian politicians do not fully understand the depth of the negative image of Iran in America."

[Rasputin]

Key Iran talks 'set for Saturday'

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana says his key nuclear talks with Iranian envoy Ali Larijani will now take place on Saturday, but he announced no venue.
Talks had been tentatively set for Wednesday in Vienna but Iranian envoys said they had been postponed for several days.

The talks follow Iran's refusal to meet a 31 August UN deadline to stop uranium enrichment, sparking sanctions calls.

Six world powers have offered Iran a range of incentives to stop enrichment.

Berlin talks

Mr Solana told reporters in Denmark: "I have said it will be in two days. Today is Thursday so it will be Saturday. I prefer not to say the place."

Iran says its nuclear programme is purely peaceful but the US and other Western nations fear Tehran may make nuclear weapons.

The five UN Security Council members plus Germany, who offered the incentives package to Iran, are meeting in Berlin on Thursday to discuss a strategy on the issue.

The US has said a UN vote on sanctions could come this month.

Russia and China have previously opposed sanctions, but Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov indicated on Wednesday that Moscow was considering the possibility.

However, BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says both the Russians and the Chinese are still stressing the importance of negotiations.

[Rasputin]

This is more about national pride than nuclear weapons

Khomeini's house stands at the end of a narrow alleyway in Jamaran, a hot and dusty village assimilated in recent years into Tehran's northern suburbs. At the entrance, a soldier in a tatty uniform stands lugubrious guard - a photo of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah in Lebanon, stuck to the glass pane of his sentry box. Beyond the gated compound, the Alborz mountains rise dry and overbearing, a bit like the old man himself.

Khomeini - leader of the 1979 Iranian revolution, founder of the Islamic Republic, and self-appointed scourge of the west - moved to Jamaran from the religious capital of Qom in 1980 on his doctors' advice. Here he lived in what was said to be exemplary simplicity until his death in 1989, preaching at an adjoining mosque and occupying a modest set of rooms that still contain a couch, a Qur'an and a very large mirror.
It was from this house on the hill in Jamaran that the imam defied the western powers that had manipulated Persian politics for nearly 200 years. It was from here that he directed the eight-year war against Iraq and its US and European backers, a war that threatened to strangle the revolution at birth. It was from here that he developed his ideas of an Islamic socialism raising up the poorest in society. And it was here that Khomeini enacted his novel theory of velayat-e faqih, a theocracy with democratic underpinnings protected by the guardianship and ethical guidance of the clergy.

Jamaran these days is a spiritual and ideological reference point for the most devout among Iran's Shia faithful. And Khomeini's stern legacy provides the key to understanding one of the most prominent among them - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, current president, former Basij militiaman, and the new bogeyman-in-chief of the Bush administration.

Since his election just over a year ago, Ahmadinejad has striven to revive the stricter standards of the revolution that he believes were compromised after Khomeini's death. He has put hardline supporters and clerics in dozens of key government, state-sector and diplomatic posts, purged liberals and secularists from teaching jobs, and put a mullah in charge of Iran's oldest university.

Reformist parties that dominated the Majlis (parliament) during the middle-of-the-road presidency of Mohammad Khatami are now reduced to a largely impotent rump. Fundamentalist allies control most of the main organs of state. And despite speculation to the contrary, Khomeini's successor as supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who tipped the vote in Ahmadinejad's favour last year, remains firmly behind him.

Ahmadinejad is also emerging as a confident and skilful leader in his own right. During a series of public rallies in Ardabil province last month, he communicated easily and directly with exuberant crowds. Western caricatures portraying him as a "messianic dictator" or "mad mullah" are patently absurd. While his views on Israel and the Holocaust outrage many in the US and Europe, to many in Iran and the Arab world they seem unexceptional. Some observers in Tehran say that by articulating them so uncompromisingly he has actually enhanced his popularity.

But Ahmadinejad is far from invulnerable. By some estimates, only 15% of Iranian voters actively support his form of fundamentalist thinking and the religious parties that promote it. Secularisation of society is proceeding apace in the cities. His executive powers are limited, constitutionally and by the coalition of interests that comprises his government.

For most Iranians the most pressing issues are economic, and in this area Ahmadinejad has yet to deliver on his campaign promises. One embarrassing example is the fact that Iran, Opec's second-largest oil producer, has been considering petrol rationing this autumn due to a shortage of refining capacity.

Yet Ahmadinejad's main political resource is not Khomeini's controversial legacy. Neither is it his personal faith or his common touch. It is the strongly felt, growing sense of national pride found among Iranians at all levels of society.

Every Iranian knows of the machinations of Russia, France and especially Britain that kept Persia in a state of quasi-colonial subjugation for almost two centuries. In fact Britain - "the Old Fox" - is blamed to this day for most of Iran's external difficulties. Most see hostile US government attitudes since the revolution as a continuation of that victimisation. And the vast majority view attempts to halt or stymie the country's nuclear programmes as merely symptomatic of unchanging western "imperialist" or "hegemonistic" tendencies.

Ahmadinejad has successfully harnessed the Iranian people's nationalist passion to the nuclear issue - in many ways an unintended gift from his most powerful enemy, George Bush. His seductive message is that, at long last, Iran is strong enough to reject the demands of the great powers that have for so long bedevilled and warped its nationhood.

The president used another present from Washington - Israel's war on Lebanon - to tap into the same rich vein of national and religious chauvinism. Wherever he went in Ardabil, the flags of Hizbullah, Iran's creation, flew alongside those of Palestine and Iran. In his speeches he lambasted the "triangle of evil" (the US, Britain and Israel) that sought to subjugate all Muslim countries.

The US's complaints about Iranian meddling in Iraq, its claims that Tehran is sponsoring terrorism, its sanctions and insulting talk of "Islamic fascists", its attempts at democracy promotion in the Middle East - all are used by Ahmadinejad to burnish the image of a brave, exemplary developing country standing up to a bullying superpower.

Viewed from inside Iran, the idea that Ahmadinejad's government will bow to western insistence that it suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities as a precondition for resumed multilateral negotiations seems unrealistic. But at the same time, from this perspective, Iranian hints of significant concessions on its nuclear activities if negotiations resume look more credible.

For Ahmadinejad and the heirs to Khomeini, the nuclear issue is about much more than nuclear bombs. It is about national pride. It is about western recognition of the legitimacy of the revolution. It is about the wrongs of the past and the aspirations of the future. It is about respect. Their message is clear: the problem is not so very complicated, they say, and neither is the solution. Sooner or later, the US, Britain and the rest will have to stop demonising Iran - and start dealing with it on equal terms.

[Rasputin]

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Friday denied reports that Russia would stop construction on the nuclear reactor in Busheir if Iran were to expel UN IAEA nuclear inspectors, Israel Radio reported.

Head of Russia's atomic energy agency, Sergei ***iyenko, said in Moscow that the Busheir reactor would be operational within a year, and that in another six or seven months Russia would begin shipping nuclear fuel to Iran.

[Rasputin]

The United States expects Security Council agreement on UN sanctions against Iran within weeks unless Teheran does a last-minute turn and agrees to freeze uranium enrichment, a senior State Department official said Friday.

US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns additionally dismissed suggestions of cracks in the six-power coalition pushing Teheran to give up enrichment, in comments a day after those countries ended confidential discussion on Iran in the German capital.

Burns said further talks were needed on how harshly to penalize Teheran for its refusal to freeze uranium enrichment, as demanded by the Security Council, but a lot of progress was made at those discussions.

Outlining the US view of the timetable on Iran in the coming weeks, Burns said the six nations would further consult by phone on Monday and hoped to present a unified approach on sanctions to their foreign ministers by the time the UN General Assembly opens Tuesday.

"It's fair to say we have...a lot more work to do," he told guests at an event staged by The American Academy in Berlin. "But I believe we will be successful in passing the sanctions resolution shortly" in the Security Council, he added.

Thursday's meeting in Berlin came amid broad moves by key European nations to enlist world support in pressuring Iran to give up uranium enrichment.

In a confidential document obtained by The Associated Press and sent to dozens of capitals last week, Britain, France and Germany warned that Teheran's stalling tactics on whether it is ready to meet six-nation terms for new nuclear talks is an attempt "to split the international community."

Burns, in comments to reporters Thursday, dismissed suggestions of a split, saying all five permanent Security Council members insist that Iran must first suspend its enrichment activities, and only then can negotiations start.

[Rasputin]

The EU's foreign policy chief and Iran's top nuclear negotiator have met for talks in Vienna, with both sides describing them as "constructive".
The EU's Javier Solana and Iran's Ali Larijani are thought to be trying to find common ground for negotiations on Iran's nuclear programme.

They will meet again on Sunday, both sides confirmed.

Tehran has rejected accusations it is seeking a nuclear bomb, and refuses to suspend uranium enrichment.

It says there should be no such preconditions on negotiations over its nuclear programme, which it says is solely for power generation.

The US on Friday said it hoped the UN Security Council will begin work on a draft resolution authorising sanctions against its long-time foe next week, after Iran ignored a UN-imposed deadline to suspend enrichment.

But other powers have expressed doubt that sanctions would prove effective against the world's fourth-largest oil exporter.

[Rasputin]

The European Union foreign policy chief probed how far Iran was prepared to meet a U.N. Security Council demand for a uranium enrichment freeze in talks Saturday that could decide whether Tehran is punished with sanctions.
The discussions between Javier Solana and Ali Larijani, Tehran's top nuclear negotiator, at the Austrian chancellor's office in Vienna were meant to see if common ground could be found for negotiations between six world powers and Iran over its nuclear defiance.

Solana said he found the talks "constructive and positive," and he planned to resume them on Sunday, his spokeswoman Cristina Gallach said. Larijani also said the talks were "positive."

While the five permanent Security Council members and Germany have demanded that Iran fully freeze enrichment as a condition for the talks, Tehran has steadfastly refused to do so.

But the game posts appeared to be shifting slightly as the two men sat down at the Renaissance manor housing the Austrian government leadership's offices.

European officials, who requested anonymity in exchange for sharing confidential information, told The Associated Press that at least some of the six nations were potentially ready to consider resuming negotiations without an Iranian commitment to an immediate enrichment freeze — if Tehran committed to such a move sometime soon after the start of negotiations with them.

The officials did not provide details. But such readiness would deal a blow to U.S.-led attempts to hold fast to the demand that Iran freeze enrichment before any talks commence — or face the prospect of

[Rasputin]

EU, Iran to continue nuclear talks

The European Union's foreign policy chief and Iran's top nuclear negotiator said their talks Saturday on Tehran's nuclear program had been constructive and that they would meet again on Sunday.

The discussions between the EU's Javier Solana and Iran's Ali Larijani could decide whether Tehran is punished with sanctions over its rejection of the U.N. Security Council's demand that it freeze uranium enrichment.

The talks at the Austrian chancellor's office were meant to see if there is common ground for negotiations between six world powers and Iran over its nuclear stance. While the five permanent Security Council members and Germany have demanded that Iran fully freeze enrichment as a condition for the talks, Tehran has steadfastly refused to do so.

Three hours after the talks began, Solana and Larijana emerged and said they would continue Sunday.

Solana's spokeswoman Cristina Gallach said he found the talks "constructive and positive," and is "coming back to the table tomorrow." Larijani also said the talks were "positive."

European officials who demanded anonymity for sharing confidential information with The Associated Press said at least some of the six nations were potentially ready to consider doing without an Iranian commitment to an enrichment freeze before talks -- if Tehran committed to such a move sometime soon after the start of negotiations with them.

The officials declined to provide details. But such readiness would deal a blow to U.S.-led attempts to hold fast to the demand that Iran freeze enrichment before any talks commence -- or face the prospect of Security Council sanctions.

Rice discussion
One of the officials said Solana discussed the issue with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice before going into the meeting but declined to offer details.

On Friday, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said Washington expected the Security Council to start discussing a draft on sanctions as early as next week unless Tehran does a last-minute turn and agrees to freeze enrichment, a possible pathway to nuclear arms.

But there might be opposition to that within the council. Recent statements from some government officials suggest that Russia, China and France might possibly be leaning toward dropping the demand that Iran stop enrichment before talks begin, in exchange for a promise to accept such a moratorium at some point in negotiations.

Speaking Saturday to reporters in Helsinki, Finland, outside of a meeting with EU leaders, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao counseled patience with Iran, saying resolving the nuclear dispute would take time. At the same time he urged Tehran "to make constructive steps" toward ending the standoff.

"Our purpose is that the nuclear issue of Iran will be settled peacefully," he said.

But Burns dismissed suggestions of cracks in the six-power coalition on that or other issues Friday, a day after those six countries ended confidential discussions on Iran in Berlin.

Outlining the U.S. view of the timetable on Iran in the coming weeks, Burns said the six nations would consult further by phone on Monday and hoped to present a unified approach on sanctions to their foreign ministers by the time the U.N. General Assembly opens Tuesday.

"It's fair to say we have ... a lot more work to do," he said, adding: "The American view is that following these discussions on Monday and perhaps some others early next week, we should move this to the Security Council and draft a resolution" on sanctions.

Iran says it wants to develop an enrichment program to generate power. But there are growing concerns it seeks the technology to enrich uranium to weapons-grade for the core of warheads.

The six powers agreed on a package of economic and political rewards in June to be offered to Tehran, but only if it stops enrichment before the start of such negotiations, meant to achieve a long-term enrichment moratorium.

But the international alliance also warned of punishments, including U.N. sanctions, if Tehran does not halt enrichment -- something Iran refused to do by an August 31 deadline set by the U.N. Security Council.