Nuclear Crisis

[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]

The Iranian failure to suspend the enrichment of uranium as demanded by the UN Security Council has set the stage for the next move in this long-running confrontation - possible sanctions.

However, diplomatic arguments lie ahead because American and European pressure will probably be countered by Russian and Chinese reluctance.

So there is some way to go before the Council makes any decision.


The Iranian disregard of Security Council resolution 1696, that it suspends enrichment and carry out other confidence-building measures by 31 August, was confirmed in a report by the UN's nuclear agency the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which was seen by the media in Vienna, the IAEA's headquarters.

The report said: "Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities."

And beyond that, the report said, Iran had been blocking IAEA inspectors.


Ahmadinejad says Iran will not be intimidated

This came as no surprise. The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted by Iranian radio as saying only hours before the deadline: "The Iranian nation will never abandon its obvious right to peaceful nuclear technology."

The Security Council had called for the suspension to clear the way for talks about concessions over trade that would include the transfer to Iran of nuclear technology to make electricity.

Iran responded that it was ready for "serious talks" but would not suspend its programme in advance.

What happens now is that the US will consult in the first instance with the so-called EU3 - Britain, France and Germany, which led earlier, fruitless, negotiations with Iran.

If agreement is reached among these countries, then Moscow and Beijing will be brought in to try to get them on board.

And that is where the difficulty lies.

Loss of confidence

Neither Russia nor China is keen on sanctions, especially sanctions that might make a major impact on Iran where they both have important interests. China has signed up to buy oil from Iran.

So, the first sanctions proposed by the US might be easy ones - travel and financial restrictions on Iranians involved in the nuclear programme.

A more serious one would be a ban on the transfer of nuclear technology or equipment and possibly a similar ban on material for Iran's missile development.


Iran hid its nuclear programme for 18 years

So-called dual use items might also be prohibited.

The example here would be a Security Council resolution banning such exports to North Korea, which has actually left the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has declared that it has built a nuclear bomb.

If China and Russia refuse any sanctions, or serious ones, then the US would move to the further stage of trying to build a 'coalition of the willing' to try to hit Iran harder.

The US already itself imposes sanctions against Iran, especially against any co-operation with its oil and gas industry, and Washington might eventually propose that Europe joins it. But that is down the track.

In the meantime, Iran will no doubt continue its enrichment activities, though they are at an early stage.

And Iran will continue to insist on its rights under the NPT to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

The problem for the West is that Iran hid an enrichment programme for 18 years and as a result has lost the confidence of the IAEA that its enrichment will always be peaceful.

The fear is that it could in due course use the skills its acquires to make a nuclear device, though its says repeatedly that it has no such intention.

The issue of an attack on Iran has not gone away, though it is on the back burner for the moment.

[Rasputin]

Tehran, Iran (AHN) - On Sunday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi reiterated Iran's faith in negotiation to solve dispute over its Nuclear Program.

Addressing a press briefing in Tehran, he said: "Our aim is settling the issue through negotiations, but the question of uranium enrichment suspension belongs to the past and we will not return to the past."

He said Iran is ready to listen other side over the nuclear enrichment suspension but we will not accept any preconditions for negotiations.

He also commented over first round of talks between European Union Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana and Iranian chief nuclear envoy Ali Larijani as "positive and constructive" and urged Solana to use the existing negotiation chance.

[Rasputin]

Iran is ready to consider suspending uranium enrichment for up to two months, diplomats told The Associated Press on Sunday.
The diplomats, who insisted on anonymity to disclose confidential information, spoke shortly after senior Iranian and European Union diplomats held a second day of talks on Tehran's defiance of a U.N. demand that it suspend enrichment, which can be used to make nuclear arms.

They said the compromise was mentioned by Ali Larijani, Tehran's chief nuclear negotiator, during his meeting with the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana.

One diplomat said Larijani floated the possibility of stopping enrichment activities "voluntarily, for one or two months if presented ... in such a way that it does it without pressure."

Such a concession would be a major departure by Iran, which is under threat of possible U.N. Security Council for ignoring an Aug. 31 deadline to halt all enrichment activities.

Earlier, both Larijani and Solana spoke of progress in their discussions and agreed to meet again later this week.

Their talks had been given little chance after months of a building crisis over enrichment. But while neither side disclosed the substance of the talks, Solana said that "the meeting was worth it" and Larijani told reporters that "many of the misunderstandings were removed.

"We have reached a common point of view on a number of issues," Larijani said.

The meeting had been billed as possibly the last chance for Iran to avoid penalties for rejecting the Security Council's demand.

Iran says its nuclear program is intended solely to produce fuel for nuclear reactors to generate electricity. But there are growing concerns Tehran seeks the technology to enrich uranium for use in atomic warheads.

The talks were focused on seeking common ground for negotiations between six world powers and Iran. While the five permanent Security Council members — the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia — along with Germany have demanded that Iran fully freeze enrichment as a condition for negotiations, Tehran has steadfastly refused to do so.

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 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.

Iran's package of counterproposals, made Aug. 22, has not been fully disclosed but was initially dismissed as inadequate by leaders of the six-nation alliance, primarily because it made no mention of a pre-negotiation enrichment freeze.

Still, both Larijani and Solana indicated the gap had been narrowed.

Their comments — and the diplomats' report of Iranian readiness to consider a temporary enrichment stop — jibed with indications that positions may have shifted slightly, both for Iran and within the six-nation alliance.

European officials suggested earlier that at least some of the six nations were ready to listen if Iran committed itself to an enrichment freeze soon after the start of negotiations instead of before talks.

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

One of the officials said Solana discussed the issue with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice before talking with Larijani, but declined to offer details.

Before the Solana-Larijani meeting in the Austrian capital, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said Washington expected the Security Council to start discussing a draft on sanctions as early as this week, unless Tehran does a last-minute turn and agrees to halt enrichment.

But there might be opposition to that. Russia and China have resisted a quick move to sanctions even though they agree to them as the ultimate punishment.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy last week appeared to suggest that the demand to stop enrichment before talks was negotiable, saying: "The question is to know at what moment this suspension takes place compared to negotiations."

He later appeared to reverse himself, saying in separate comments that "suspension ... is an absolute prerequisite for restoring trust and resuming negotiations."

A European diplomat told AP such vacillation appeared to reflect that — although Britain, France and Germany formally represent the European Union within the six-nation coalition — a sizable number of countries within the 25-member EU oppose a quick move to sanctions.

[Rasputin]

The EU's foreign policy chief has said that misunderstandings about Iran's nuclear programme have been cleared up, in talks with its chief negotiator.
Javier Solana and Ali Larijani said progress had been made in a second day of talks to find a compromise to avoid UN sanctions against Iran.

The two officials said they would meet again next week.

But Iran has ruled out accepting any preconditions for talks and dismissed calls to suspend uranium enrichment.

Suspension was an issue in the past and Iran would not take a step back, said Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi.

Iran says its nuclear programme is solely for power generation.

'Progress made'

Mr Solana said he had worked for more than seven hours with Mr Larijani at the federal chancellory in the Austrian capital, Vienna.

Iran is in a very strong position

Siyasat-e-Ruz newspaper


Iran press upbeat

"We have clarified some of the misunderstandings that existed before. We have made progress that we want to continue," he said.

The US on Friday said it hoped the UN Security Council would 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]

Iran offers to freeze uranium enrichment for eight weeks

Iran offered to freeze its uranium enrichment programme yesterday for eight weeks in what looked like a successful tactic aimed at delaying consideration of international sanctions.
In talks at the weekend in Vienna between Iran's national security chief, Ali Larijani, and the European Union's foreign policy supremo, Javier Solana, Tehran appeared to concede enough to prevent a quick move to sanctions by the UN security council.

Washington is pressing for a swift decision on sanctions after Tehran failed to meet the terms of a security council resolution requiring it to freeze its uranium enrichment activities in order to resume negotiations with the west, Russia and China. The weekend talks in Vienna were seen as a final chance to avert a bigger confrontation. But EU officials said yesterday that there would be further talks as a result of the weekend session.


Both sides talked up the positive aspects, suggesting that the Iranians had given way enough to avoid any prompt resort to sanctions. Mr Larijani said the talks had resulted in "a common point of view on many issues", and Mr Solana agreed that they had been "worth it" and "positive". The upbeat talk contrasted with meetings in recent weeks described by diplomats as a dialogue of the deaf.
In telephone diplomacy starting today, Washington is hoping to coax the EU, Russia and China towards supporting penalties against Iran, but the chances of any quick decision look remote.

The offer of a two-month freeze on uranium enrichment is a symbolic move, politically shrewd but of little significance to Iran's nuclear programme.

Tehran insists its nuclear programme, based on the uranium enrichment, is entirely peaceful. The US and Britain suspect that the programme is a cover for developing an indigenous bomb project.

The EU, Russia, China and the US have offered Iran a package of economic, trade, political and nuclear incentives if it shelves its enrichment activities, but Tehran says it is willing to negotiate on the offer only without any preconditions.

Negotiations are to continue this week while the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency meets in Vienna to discuss Iran's nuclear activities.

[Rasputin]

Iran still refuses to suspend nuclear enrichment before the start of talks on its nuclear program — a key demand by the six nations locked in a diplomatic standoff with the Islamic republic, officials said Tuesday.
Tehran offered over the weekend to suspend enrichment, which can produce fissile material for nuclear warheads, for up to two months. The willingness to consider such a halt was seen as an important opening.

But officials from delegations familiar with the outcome of the weekend's negotiations between Iranian and European negotiators said Tuesday that Iran had also made clear it would not halt enrichment before broader, six-power talks aimed at persuading Iran to agree to a long-term moratorium. They demanded anonymity in exchange for divulging confidential information.

Iran faces the threat of U.N. sanctions if those talks fail.

The officials spoke to The Associated Press as the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board reconvened at a session that would focus on Iran, likely on Wednesday.

The IAEA's chief U.S. delegate Gregory L. Schulte said America welcomed "the open channel" European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana had established, but emphasized that Iran had yet to make a formal offer on freezing enrichment.

"We would like very much to hear ... that Iran is suspending," Schulte told the AP. "But in the meantime, the intention is to move forward with the (Security Council) sanctions package."

Tehran already is in violation of an Aug. 31 U.N. Security Council deadline to freeze enrichment. The five permanent council members plus Germany made clear that negotiations with Iran that could give it economic and political rewards for halting enrichment would not take place without Tehran agreeing to a freeze before the talks started.

Iran could still have civilian nuclear power, within some limits, under the deal.

Tehran has said it would not give up its right to the full range of nuclear technology and expertise, including enrichment, which it says it needs to develop to meet future nuclear power needs.

After the meeting between Solana and chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, diplomats said they considered the proposal of even a temporary pause significant because it could de-escalate the nuclear standoff

Iran's oil minister, Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh, told reporters at an OPEC conference in Vienna on Tuesday that progress in talks between Iran and the EU had eased the crisis.

"Many points are now clear," Hamaneh said, adding: "I don't see a standoff" any longer.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did not specifically rule out accepting Tehran's terms, but predicted that U.N. sanctions would follow "if this does not work out."

Rice suggested, however, that Washington still wanted suspension before talks, telling reporters Monday: "The question is, are they prepared to suspend verifiably so that negotiations can begin."

The United States has led the drive to haul Iran before the security council to face economic or other sanctions if it does not roll back its nuclear program.

Russia and China — both veto-holding council members — are reluctant to move toward sanctions.

Uranium enrichment can also make fuel for civilian nuclear reactors, and IAEA inspectors have been unable to determine the intent of Iran's program, begun in secret two decades ago.

The West, and the U.S. in particular, say an enrichment pause is essential to preventing Tehran from making progress on building a weapon. Iran voluntarily suspended its uranium activities during two years of negotiations with European nations, but those talks fell apart last year without a deal.

In the meantime, there are signs that European allies are not eager to begin the sanctions discussion either, perhaps moving closer to Moscow and Beijing in seeking a way out.

Expanding on the terms of a possible Iranian compromise, a diplomat familiar with the issue said Tehran was seeking guarantees it would not be attacked by the United States during any negotiations.

"They are essentially seeking assurances that they would not be bombed while they are talking," the diplomat told the AP.

Another diplomat said Iran is also seeking a guarantee that its right to enrichment is recognized, despite any temporary freeze. In exchange, it would offer IAEA inspectors increased inspection rights of its nuclear facilities and guarantee that it would not leave the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty — as it has threatened.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

In "Nuclear IQ" Daniel M. Pourkesali defends Iran's entitlement to uranium enrichment activities. He puts forward arguments that are seemingly valid and has provided some of the articles from the NPT to prove his point. In doing so, he tries to whitewash the threats of a nuclear Iran, and is apparently under the impression that the regime's efforts to enrich uranium are simply aimed at developing peaceful nuclear technology. He also accuses the mainstream mass media in the West of misinformation and biased reporting with regrad to this issue.

Is he an insider? Does he get his information on the matter from sources that others are not aware of? It was interesting to read the part he mentions pertaning to the role of the mass media in brainwashing the people in the West. Pourkesali should know that it is not always the reporting that is to blame, but it is the way we tend to perceive things that determines our reactions to any kind of reporting.

It is our ideological persuasions or simply our views of the world affairs that are responsible for the way we interpret the information we receive. These views or convictions are formed by the amount of knowledge we possess concrning a particular subject and our knowledge is derived from many sources part of which is called the "mass media."

In the case of the ongoing standoff over Iran's nuclear program, all those belonging to the "expanding circle" -- ordinary people -- have to rely on the information that is released by the "inner circle"-officials involved. And one cannot claim to be more knowledgeable about this or any other issue merely on the basis of his/her interpretation of the information.

Here is what he refers to as part of the Western propagnda:

"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."

He could have explained how else he would have worded this piece of news that would not have offended any side? But after only saying it was biased reporting he decided to go on to a different topic.

And here is what the IAEA has reported on 31August 2006. In part G. Summary, the last part of the report, it reads as follows:

"28. Iran has not addressed the long outstanding verification issues or provided the necessary transparency to remove uncertainties associated with some of the activities. Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities; nor has Iran acted in accordance with the provisions of the additional protocol.

29. The Agency will continue to pursue its investigation of all remaining outstanding issues relevant to Iran's nuclear activities. However, the agency remains unable to make further progress in its efforts to verify the correctness of Iran's declaration with a view to confirming the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme. The director general will continue to report as appropriate."

Now, let's see how this was interprted by a senior Iranian nuclear official, Mohammad Saeedi. According to BBC, 6 Sep. '06, Mohammad Saeedi said, "The report backed up Tehran's claim that it was pursuing a peaceful nuclear program." Amazing! Could Pourkesali kindly tell us whether Saeedi is telling the truth or not without relating this particular statement to any other issues. And why would an official choose to give a false account of the content of this important document at such a crucial juncture?

In his letter, Pourkesali emphasizes the NPT articles while discounting the threat of a nuclear Iran as sheer propaganda and fabrication. The issue here is not whether Iran has the prerogative to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, the issue is that the Iranian officials are not being trusted. He deliberately ignores this extremely consequential factor, otherwise he would have mentioned something about the position of the U.S. and the EU countries that are against Iran becoming a nuclear power.

He needs to pay closer attention to the threatening tone of the Iranian leaders and the warmongering rhetoric coming out of Iran. What is being said these days about wiping out Israel and conquering "Ghods" may be dismissed as insubstantial slogans by most Iranians, but the rest of the concerned world is certainly disturbed by the use of such language. They find these statements alarming. They see a nuclear Iran as a danger to its neighbors and other countries in the region. And they do not see this kind of rhetoric as independent of the mentality to possess and use nuclear weapons. These are plausible threats that are rooted in the history of Iran after 1979, which began with the idea to export the "Islamic Revolution."

He is certainly aware that the nuclear activities of Iran were kept secret for years and neither the people of Iran nor other signatories to NPT knew anything about those activities until they were exposed by some MEK members. Pakistan's Abdolghadir Khaun's connection was hardly any indication of the peacefulness of such activities. Also the link that exists between the military in Iran and the research centers are of dubious nature. Why such secrecy and lack of transparency if Iran's intentions are peaceful?

Similar to what Pourkesali has done, the Iranian side only argues Iran's right under NPT to be involved in activities condusive to developing enriched uranium for peaceful purposes. They do not seem to be listening to what the other side has to say about the threat that Iran poses to its neighbors. The deadlock is the result of such one-sidedness. How "voluntary" Iran's decisions have been so far can be understood in the context of the secrecry of their activities and the lack of transparancy stated in the IAEA's latest report.

It is important to note that, many European countries (more than a dozen) are in fact purchasing the fuel they need for their already existing nuclear reactors from other countries in the market. Also the fuel for the nuclear reactor the Russians are building in Iran will be supplied by Russia. When a country such as Germany is considering to rid itself of its own nuclear reactors because of the danger they pose, both environmentally and to the people, and are looking at other options, why would Iran, a technologically backward country, want to start building them?

Pourkesali also alludes to the historical fact that atomic bombs were used by the U.S. on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to subdue Japan's Imperial forces. What is missing here are the events that led to such decision. Of course, a lesson in history would have been beyond the scope of his letter.

However, referring to historical facts is one thing and having a thorough grasp of those facts is another. Seeing his immoderate enthusiam vis-a-vis Iran's enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, I doubt Pourkesali is serious about rights and privileges or the breaches by any side. I can only detect another case of misplaced pride by an Iranian individual.

No one in the right mind would condone the use of nuclear weapons. At the same time, in order to argue for or against a historical issue such as the use of atomic bombs that ended the Second World War, one needs to be well-versed in the historical facts and examine the exact causes of such catastrophes in their proper contexts.

The figure Pourkesali provides-214,000 dead in Hiroshima and Nagasaki-is a very tiny fraction (0.003%) of the total number of deaths in the Second World War which stands at about 63,000,000. But, are we concerned with statistics here? All efforts, in my view, must be directed toward denuclearization of all the countries involved and the world at large, and not toward adding another name to the list of the countries possessing nuclear technology.

[donsaeid]

to answer you to your Question...

YES WE DO NEED ALL KIND OF TECHNOLOGY WE CAN GET OUR HANDS ON

[Rasputin]

World powers differing over Iran

VIENNA (AFP) - Divisions between world powers on how to crack down on Iran's atomic program were visible at a UN nuclear agency meeting as they failed to issue a joint statement.

The six nations which are trying to work out a nuclear deal with Iran "couldn't agree on a statement" at the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) 35-nation board of governors because "the United States was too tough," a Western diplomat told AFP.

The divisions came as the EU was set Wednesday to tell Tehran it has an international obligation to suspend uranium enrichment, the process that makes nuclear reactor fuel but also atom bomb material.

Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States have offered Iran talks on trade and other benefits if Tehran will first suspend enrichment.

The United States, which charges that Iran is hiding secret work to make nuclear weapons, is pushing for United Nations sanctions against Iran for failing to honor a UN resolution that set an August 31 deadline for Tehran to halt the strategic nuclear fuel work.

But top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani offered over the weekend to consider a temporary halt in uranium enrichment, in talks with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana in Vienna that are set to continue later this week.

However the US State Department Tuesday denied the reports of an Iranian offer to temporarily suspend enrichment.

"To the best of my knowledge, there's been no Iranian proposal (and) there's been no change in the Iranian position, meaning they have not agreed to suspend uranium enrichment activities for any length of time," said Tom Casey, a State Department spokesman.

The Western diplomat told AFP that Russia and China want to see how the Larijani-Solana talks play out.

"This is what Iran wants with its tactics, to divide the international community," the diplomat said.

Russia, like China a key trading ally of Iran, warned Tuesday against rushing to punish Tehran.

Kremlin foreign policy aide Sergei Prikhodko said there was no hurry to decide.

"What is our aim: sanctions or a result? If we aim for the result, then let's be a little patient," he told journalists in Moscow.

But US ambassador to the IAEA Gregory Schulte told AFP the six world powers were united.

The six all "want to see a full and verified suspension and that means that we would expect all the enrichment activities to be suspended.

"And we would want to have the IAEA verify that the suspension is in fact taking place," Schulte said.

He said the six were very clear on this and that if Iran does not suspend, "the Security Council has already made it clear its intention to move forward with sanctions."

Meanwhile, the so-called EU-3 group of Britain, Germany and France, which have led negotiations with Iran since 2003, were also having trouble agreeing on a joint statement, with Britain backing the American hard line but Germany and France not fully agreeing, the diplomat said.

A second diplomat confirmed that there were "disagreements" among this group but said they were still working on a joint statement.

The EU-3 have issued joint statements at previous board meetings, while the six world powers have not.

And Finland, speaking for the 25 EU states, was to call Wednesday on Iran to suspend enrichment not as "a voluntary confidence-building measure, but an international obligation," according to a copy of a speech seen by AFP.

The speech makes clear that the Security Council intends to "adopt appropriate measures," meaning sanctions if Iran does not suspend enrichment.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei was present a report Wednesday to his board that documents how Iran failed to heed the UN deadline to suspend enrichment.

But the IAEA is not expected to take any action on Iran in order to leave room for the diplomatic initiatives which are unfolding.

"Right now, no one is going to do anything unexpected," an EU diplomat said about the work at the IAEA board.

"I guess everybody is going to give Solana a chance to find a way to get Iran to the negotiating table."

[Rasputin]

Iran Offers Talks On Nuclear Issue

PARIS, Sept. 12 -- Iran's confidential response three weeks ago to an international proposal over its nuclear program offered extensive negotiations to resolve the standoff, but only if proceedings against Iran in the U.N. Security Council were stopped.

In a detailed and sometimes rambling document given to foreign governments, Iran stopped short of rejecting demands to halt its nuclear enrichment program, saying the issue could be resolved in talks. The response, closely held for weeks, was made public on a Web site Monday.

The Islamic Republic of Iran does not intend to reject the whole issue unilaterally, and is ready to provide an opportunity for both sides to share their viewpoints on this issue and try to convince each other and reach a mutual understanding," the document says.

But ending enrichment should not be a prerequisite to negotiations, as demanded by the United States and other countries, the proposal suggests. And if Security Council deliberations aimed at imposing sanctions on Iran continue, the document warns, "the positions expressed in this response would be void and the Islamic Republic would choose a different course of action."

Iran was responding formally to a package of political and economic incentives offered to it in June by the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. The countries hope to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium, which some foreign governments feel is intended for nuclear weapons. Iran contends that the program is peaceful, aimed at making fuel for electrical power plants.

The incentives included the possibility of direct talks with the United States for the first time since relations between the two countries were severed in 1979.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, and the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, have been in preliminary talks in recent days over Iran's proposals. On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested that a temporary suspension might be enough to clear the way for formal negotiations.

In the document, posted on the Web site of the Institute for Science and International Security on Monday, the Iranian government repeatedly refers to its rights under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop a peaceful nuclear program, saying it "cannot accept deprivation from its legal rights." As for allegations that it is pursuing weapons, the document demands that Iran be granted a presumption of innocence, in the absence of any proof that it is has a nuclear weapons program.

Iran "is against production, stockpiling, development and proliferation of nuclear weapons," the document says.

It calls for "simultaneous mutual confidence-building" that would include a commitment by the foreign governments "to seriously follow up the fulfillment of a nuclear free zone in the Middle East, particularly the commitment to disarm [Israel] from weapons of mass destruction and in particular nuclear arms." Israel is widely believed to have a nuclear arsenal, but it has never acknowledged having such weapons.

The document also seeks assurances that if Iran engages in nuclear negotiations, it will not be attacked or subjected to economic sanctions.

In the document, Iran portrays the current standoff as the beginning of a negotiating process, saying the foreign governments' proposal "has elements which may be useful for a constructive approach."

But the document complains that the package "lacks any reference to irreversible and irrevocable guarantees" for any ultimate agreement. "Such guarantees are particularly essential on access to advanced nuclear technology and equipment, erection and commissioning of nuclear power reactors, nuclear fuel supply, and transfer of know-how and technology," it says.

The document also seeks a clear statement by the foreign governments of Iran's rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The document suggests that the secretiveness of Iran's nuclear program was forced upon it by the hostility of other countries, which it said tried to constrain its legitimate and legal rights to develop nuclear technologies under the treaty.

"We have no interest in limiting or suspending inspections of our nuclear facilities and activities," the document says. But "a quarter century of denial and deprivation" forced Iran to develop a nuclear program "on the basis of independence and self-reliance."

[Rasputin]

Israel is deluding itself if it believes the "clich " that Iran's nuclear program is a world problem that will be dealt with by the international community, Labor MK and former deputy defense minister Ephraim Sneh said Monday.

Israel's public position on Iran over the last three years has been that a nuclear Iran is a threat not only to Israel but the entire world, and that as such the entire world needs to mobilize to solve the problem, not only Israel.

Sneh, speaking at the Institute for Counter-Terrorism's International Conference on Global Terrorism at IDC Herzliya,, said that everyone who mouths these words knows that the likelihood of the international community taking effective action against Iran is "at best 15 percent."

Sneh said that if Israel will now realize that it cannot rely on anyone else, and that it has to be prepared regarding questions of its survival, "then the painful wake-up call that [Hizbullah leader Hassan] Nasrallah gave us would not be in vain."

Sneh's comments came during a panel discussion dealing with Israel's preparation for the War in Lebanon.

Clarifying his remarks to The Jerusalem Post afterward, Sneh said that the lessons learned from the war in Lebanon need to be applied "to the real conflict, with Iran."

"We have to stop saying the clich s that no one believes in, that this is the role of the free world, that the international community should shoulder the burden of coping with Iran. Nobody really believes this will happen," he said.

Sneh said that Israel must prepare to "do it alone, and we have to prepare for that properly." Sneh said, however, he was not advocating a preemptive strike. "I'm saying that we have to be prepared, because if you are not prepared, then the options don't exist." he added.

He said this preparation must be done "fast, fast, there is no time. I didn't say to attack; I said we need the ability to deal with them."

Sneh said he is advocating a situation where "Israel will have all the necessary capacities to cope with threats that are thousands of miles away."

Sneh's remarks came a day after OC Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin told the cabinet that international pressure and UN sanctions would not stop the Iranian march toward nuclearization.

Sneh's comments also dovetail with those made by other senior officials recently to the effect that it was becoming clear that the world was unlikely to stop the Iranians, and that Israel may have no other choice but to act alone to slow down the Iranian nuclear program.

[donsaeid]

they know if they hit iran they will be hit harder

[Rasputin]

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has said he is encouraged by talks between the EU's foreign policy chief and Iran over Tehran's nuclear programme.
France, Germany and the UK have urged Iran to stop nuclear confrontation which could lead to UN sanctions, and follow the diplomatic path.

However, talks set for Thursday between the EU foreign policy chief and Iran's top negotiator have been postponed.

The US has said the time has come to punish Tehran with UN sanctions.

Iran says its nuclear programme is solely for power generation, but the US and other countries have accused Tehran of using it to hide a nuclear weapons programme.

France, Germany and the UK - the "EU3" - want Tehran to accept incentives to suspend uranium enrichment which could lead to making nuclear arms.

Iran has ruled out accepting any preconditions for talks and dismissed calls to suspend uranium enrichment.

'Open hand'

The EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, met at the weekend.

Mr Solana is negotiating on behalf of six major powers - Germany and the five permanent UN Security Council members.

I don't think confrontation is in anyone's interest

Kofi Annan
UN Secretary General

The statement from France, Germany and the UK said that although Iran had not suspended enrichment activity by the deadline, "it is still not too late to do so. We continue to extend an open hand to Iran".

It said the EU3 welcomed the recent Larijani-Solana meetings that had helped clarify misunderstandings impeding negotiations.

Mr Solana's spokeswoman said the meeting on Thursday was meant to prepare the conditions to start negotiations.

But she later said the meeting had been postponed, without giving an explanation, and that senior EU and Iranian representatives would meet instead.


Mr Annan said there had been a slight shift made by Iran over calls for it to suspend all nuclear enrichment.

He encouraged parties to explore that avenue.

"I don't think confrontation is in anyone's interest," Mr Annan said on Wednesday.

"The best solution is a negotiated one."

On his recent visit to Tehran, Mr Annan said he had urged its leaders to be more open and allow inspections of its nuclear programme.

Sanctions call

In Vienna, the US has told the UN nuclear watchdog that Iran was "aggressively" trying to build nuclear weapons and that the time had come for sanctions to back diplomacy.

"Given Iran's history of deception, lack of transparency, provocative behaviour and disregard for its international obligations, we must take further steps to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions," US envoy Gregory Schulte told the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors.

"The time has come for the Security Council to back international diplomacy with international sanctions.

He said sanctions would "not signal an end to diplomacy" aimed at getting Iran to stop enriching uranium in exchange for trade incentives.