11559473 Nuclear Program Of Iran

1

uclear program of Iran and Western reactions

Wikipedia related articles - January 2009

2

Wikipedia Articles reported here:

I. Iran and the West Iran and Weapons of mass destruction (3) Allegations of Iranian state terrorism (15) Current international tensions with Iran (19) Diplomatic tensions between Iran and United States (27) Sanctions against Iran (32) Support for military action against Iran (35) Opposition to military action against Iran (36) Campaign against sanctions and military intervention in Iran (44) Hands Off the People of Iran (45) Operation Merlin (47) Global uclear Energy Partnership (GEP) (47)

II. Iran uclear Program uclear Program of Iran (50) Timeline of nuclear program of Iran (73) Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (78) Green Salt Project (79) uclear facilities in Iran (80) Busheher uclear Power Plant (82) Atomstroyexport (83) Ali Larijani (84)

Other Wikipedia Articles: •

International treaties: o Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty o Additional Protocol

•

United Nations Security Council Resolutions: o Resolution 1696 o Resolution 1737 o Resolution 1747 o Resolution 1803 Individuals: o Gholam Reza Aghazadeh o Hassan Rowhani o Saeed Jalili o Mohamed ElBaradei

o

•

3

Iran and weapons of mass destruction From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iran is not known to possess weapons of mass destruction, and has signed treaties repudiating possession of them, including the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Over 100,000 Iranian troops and civilians were victims to chemical weapons during the 1980s Iran–Iraq War.[1][2] On ideological grounds, a public and categorical religious decree against the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons has been issued by the leader of the Islamic Republic.[3] A November 2007 United States National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judged that Iran halted an active nuclear weapons program in fall 2003 and that it remained halted as of mid-2007. The estimate further judged that US intelligence did not know whether Iran intended "to develop nuclear weapons," but that "Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame" if it chose to do so.[4] Iran states its nuclear program is peaceful.[5] Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said he has seen no evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran.[6] The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has stated that he has seen "maybe some studies about possible weaponization", but "no evidence" of "nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon" or "an active weaponization program" as of October 2007.[7] After the IAEA voted in a rare non-consensus decision to find Iran in non-compliance with its NPT Safeguards Agreement and to report that non-compliance to the UN Security Council,[8][9] the Council demanded that Iran suspend its nuclear enrichment activities[10][11] and imposed sanctions against Iran[12][13][14][15] when Iran refused to do so.[16] Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has argued that the sanctions are "illegal", imposed by “arrogant powers”, and that Iran has decided to pursue the monitoring of its self-described peaceful nuclear program through "its appropriate legal path”, the International Atomic Energy Agency".[17] The IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, but not the absence of undeclared activities.[18] The Non-Aligned Movement has called on both sides to work through the IAEA for a solution.[19]

uclear weapons Overview In September 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors, in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions[20], recalled a previous Iranian "policy of concealment" regarding its enrichment program[21] and found that Iran had violated its NPT Safeguards Agreement.[22] Another IAEA report stated "there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities ... were related to a nuclear weapons program."[21] Iran has claimed that the military threat posed by Israel and the United States is forcing it to restrict the release of information on its nuclear program.[23] Gawdat Bahgat, Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, speculates that Iran may have lack of confidence in the international community which was reinforced when many nations, under pressure from the United States, rejected or withdrew from signed commercial deals with the Iranian nuclear authority.[24] On 31 July 2006, the Security Council passed a resolution demanding Iran suspend its enrichment program.[16] On December 23, 2006, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions against Iran,[12] which were later tightened on March 24, 2007,[13] because Iran refused to suspend enrichment. Iran's representative to the UN argued that the sanctions compelled Iran to abandon its rights under the NPT to peaceful nuclear technology.[12] The Non-Aligned Movement called on both sides to work through the IAEA for a solution.[19] US intelligence has predicted Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredients for a nuclear weapon.[25] On 25 October 2007 the United States declared the Revolutionary Guards a "proliferator of weapons of mass destruction", and the Quds Force a "supporter of terrorism".[26] Iran responded that "it is incongruent for a country who itself is a producer of weapons of mass destruction to take such a decision."[26] Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the IAEA, said he had no evidence Iran was building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding "fuel to the fire" with their rhetoric.[27] Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz has called for ElBaradei to be sacked, saying his policies regarding Iran "endanger world peace".[28]

History Iran, under the Iranian monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on July 1, 1968 and ratified the treaty on February 2, 1970.[29]. This monarchy was replaced by the Islamic republic in 1979, but Iran remains bound to the NPT and to state its support for the treaty. The United States and Western European governments actively encouraged Iran's nuclear program and participated in it.[30] There are various estimates of when Iran might be able to produce a nuclear weapon, should it choose to do so:

•

•

A 2005 assessment by the International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded "if Iran threw caution to the wind, and sought a nuclear weapon capability as quickly as possible without regard for international reaction, it might be able to produce enough HEU for a single nuclear weapon by the end of this decade", assuming no technical problems. The report concludes, however, that it is unlikely that Iran would flatly ignore international reactions and develop nuclear weapons anyway.[31] A 2005 US National Intelligence Estimate stated that Iran was ten years from making a nuclear weapon.[32]

4

• • • • • •

In 2006 Ernst Uhrlau, the head of German intelligence service, said Tehran would not be able to produce enough material for a nuclear bomb before 2010 and would only be able to make it into a weapon by about 2015.[33] In 2006 two former CIA officials asserted that fear of a US attack is a significant, but not the only, factor in Iranian nuclear policy. A 2007 annual review the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London stated that "If and when Iran does have 3,000 centrifuges operating smoothly, the IISS estimates it would take an additional 9-11 months to produce 25 kg of highly enriched uranium, enough for one implosion-type weapon. That day is still 2-3 years away at the earliest."[34] The head of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei said on 24 May 2007 that Iran could take between 3 and 8 years to make a bomb if it went down that route.[34] On 22 October 2007, Mohamed ElBaradei repeated that, even assuming Iran was trying to develop a nuclear bomb, they would require "between another three and eight years to succeed", an assessment shared by "all the intelligence services".[35] In December 2007, the United States National Intelligence Estimate (that represents the consensus view of all 16 American intelligence agencies) concluded, with a "high level of confidence”, that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and "with moderate confidence" that the program remains frozen as of mid-2007. The new estimate says that the enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons” at some future date.[36][37] Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said 70 percent of the U.S. report was "true and positive," but denied its allegations of Iran having had a nuclear weapons program before 2003. Russia has said there was no proof Iran has ever run a nuclear weapons program.[38] The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has stated that he has seen "maybe some studies about possible weaponization", but "no evidence" of "an active weaponization program" as of October 2007.[7]

IAEA The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an autonomous body, established by the United Nations, that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to inhibit its use for military purposes. According to the IAEA, Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, or even weapons-grade uranium. On March 6, 2006, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA, reported that "the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices ... however, after three years of intensive verification, there remain uncertainties with regard to both the scope and the nature of Iran's nuclear programme".[39] However, the inspectors did find some sensitive documents, including instructions and diagrams on how to make uranium into a sphere, which is only necessary to make nuclear weapons. Iran furnished the IAEA with copies, claiming not to have used the information for weapons work, which it had obtained along with other technology and parts in 1987 and the mid-1990s.[40] It is thought this material was sold to them by Abdul Qadeer Khan,[41] though the documents did not have the necessary technical details to actually manufacture a bomb. On December 18, 2003, Iran voluntarily signed, but did not ratify or bring into force, an Additional Protocol that allows IAEA inspectors access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual-use equipment, certain military-owned workshops, and research and development locations.[42] Iran agreed voluntarily to implement the Additional Protocol provisionally, however when the IAEA reported Iran's non-compliance to the United Nations Security Council on February 4, 2006 Iran withdrew from its voluntary adherence to the Additional Protocol.[43] On May 12, 2006, claims that highly-enriched uranium (well over the 3.5% enriched level) was reported to have been found "at a site where Iran has denied such sensitive atomic work", appeared. "They have found particles of highly enriched uranium [HEU], but it is not clear if this is contamination from centrifuges that had been previously found [from imported material] or something new," said one diplomat close to the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These reports have not yet been officially confirmed by the IAEA (as of June 1, 2006).[44][45][46] On 31 July 2006, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment activities.[16] In late 2006, "New traces of plutonium and enriched uranium – potential material for atomic warheads – have been found [by the IAEA] in a nuclear waste facility in Iran." However, "A senior U.N. official who was familiar with the report cautioned against reading too much into the findings of traces of highly enriched uranium and plutonium, saying Iran had explained both and they could plausibly be classified as byproducts of peaceful nuclear activities."[47] In 2007 these traces were determined to have come from leaking used highly enriched uranium fuel from the TRR research reactor, which the U.S. supplied to Iran in 1967, and the matter was closed.[48] In July 2007 the IAEA announced that Iran has agreed to allow inspectors to visit its Arak nuclear plant, and by August 2007 a plan for monitoring the Natanz uranium enrichment plant will have been finalised.[49] In August 2007 the IAEA announced that Iran has agreed to a plan to resolve key questions regarding its past nuclear activities. The IAEA described this as a "significant step forward".[50] In September 2007 the IAEA announced it has been able to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful use. While the IAEA has been unable to verify some "important aspects" regarding the nature and scope of Iran's nuclear work, the agency and Iranian officials agreed on a plan to resolve all outstanding issues, Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said.[51] In an interview with Radio Audizioni Italiane the same month, ElBaradei remarked that "Iran does not constitute a certain and immediate threat for the international community".[52] In October 2007, ElBaradei amplified these remarks, telling Le Monde that, even if Iran did intend to develop a nuclear bomb, they would need "between another three and eight years to succeed". He went on to note that "all the intelligence services" agree with this assessment and that he wanted to "get people away from the idea that Iran will be a threat from tomorrow, and that we are faced right now with the issue of whether Iran should be bombed or allowed to have the bomb".[35] In late October 2007, according to the International Herald Tribune, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, stated that he had seen "no evidence" of Iran developing nuclear weapons. The IHT quoted ElBaredei as stating that, "We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization," said Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency. "That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks." "But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material

5

that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No." The IHT report went on to say that "ElBaradei said he was worried about the growing rhetoric from the U.S., which he noted focused on Iran's alleged intentions to build a nuclear weapon rather than evidence the country was actively doing so. If there is actual evidence, ElBaradei said he would welcome seeing it."[7] In November 2007 ElBaradei circulated a report to the upcoming meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors.[53][54][55] Its findings conclude that Iran has made important strides towards clarifying its past activities, including provided access to documentation and officials involved in centrifuge design in the 1980s and 1990s. Answers provided by Iran regarding the past P-1 and P-2 centrifuge programs were found to be consistent with the IAEA's own findings. However, Iran has ignored the demands of the UN Security council, and has continued to enrich uranium in the past year. The IAEA is not able to conclusively confirm that Iran isn't currently enriching uranium for military purposes, as its inspections have been restricted to workshops previously declared as part of the civilian uranium enrichment program, and requests for access to certain military workshops have been denied; the report noted that "As a result, the agency's knowledge about Iran's current nuclear program is diminishing". The report also confirmed that Iran now possesses 3000 centrifuges, a 10-fold increase over the past year, though the feed rate is below the maximum for a facility of this design. Data regarding the P-2 centrifuge, which Ahmadinejad has claimed will quadruple production of enriched uranium, was provided only several days before the report was published; the IAEA plan to discuss this issue further in December. In response to the report the US has vowed to push for more sanctions, whilst Iran has called for an apology from the US.[56] IAEA Director General ElBaradei has estimated how long it might take Iran to develop a nuclear weapon if it decided to do so. In October 2007, he said all the intelligence services agree that Iran would be three to eight years away from a nuclear bomb if it decided to build one.[57] In June 2008, he said that it will not reach the point where "we would wake up one morning to an Iran with a nuclear weapon" because even if Iran chose to leave the NPT and expel IAEA inspectors, it would take approximately six months to a year to produce enough high-enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon;[58] According to the IAEA, Project 110 and Project 111 are names for the Iranian efforts for designing a nuclear warhead and making it work with an Iranian missile.[59] Classified US intelligence reports say that Professor Mohsen Fakhrizadeh is in charge of the projects.[59] Iranian officials say the projects are a fiction, made up by the United States. An article in the New York Times states, that "while the international agency readily concedes that the evidence about the two projects remains murky, one of the documents it briefly displayed at a meeting of the agency's member countries in Vienna last year, from Mr. Fakrizadeh's projects, showed the chronology of a missile launching, ending with a warhead exploding about 650 yards above ground — approximately the altitude from which the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was detonated. The exact status of Mr. Fakrizadeh’s projects today is unclear. While the National Intelligence Estimate reported that activity on Projects 110 and 111 had been halted, the fear among intelligence agencies is that if the weapons design projects are turned back on, will they know?"[59]

The Iranian stance See further #uclear program of Iran#The Iranian viewpoint. Iran states the purpose of its nuclear program is the generation of power and that any other use would be a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory, as well as being against Islamic religious principles. Iran claims that nuclear power is necessary for a booming population and rapidly-industrialising nation. It points to the fact that Iran's population has more than doubled in 20 years, the country regularly imports gasoline and electricity, and that burning fossil fuel in large amounts harms Iran's environment drastically. Additionally, Iran questions why it shouldn't be allowed to diversify its sources of energy, especially when there are fears of its oil fields eventually being depleted. It continues to argue that its valuable oil should be used for high value products and export, not simple electricity generation. Furthermore, Iran argues that nuclear power makes fairly good economic sense. Building reactors is expensive, but subsequent operating costs are low and stable, and increasingly competitive as fossil-fuel prices rise.[60] Iran also raises funding questions, claiming that developing the excess capacity in its oil industry would cost it $40 billion, not to speak of paying for the power plants. Harnessing nuclear power costs a fraction of this, considering Iran has abundant supplies of accessible uranium ore.[61] These claims have been echoed by Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector in Iraq. Iran states it has a legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the NPT, and further says that it "has constantly complied with its obligations under the NPT and the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency".[62] Twelve other countries are known to operate uranium enrichment facilities. Iran states that "the failure of certain Nuclear- Weapon States to fulfill their international obligations continue to be a source of threat for the international community".[63] Iran also states that "the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons still maintains a sizable arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads" and calls for a stop to the transfer of technology to non-NPT states.[63] Iran has called for the development of a follow-up committee to ensure compliance with global nuclear disarmanent.[64] Iran and many other nations without nuclear weapons have said that the present situation whereby Nuclear Weapon States monopolise the right to possess nuclear weapons is "highly discriminatory", and they have pushed for steps to accelerate the process of nuclear disarmament.[65] Iran has criticized the European Union because it believes it has taken no steps to reduce the danger of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.[63] Iran has called on the state of Israel sign the NPT, accept inspection of its nuclear facilities, and place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards.[63] Iran has proposed the that the Middle East be established as a proposed Nuclear Weapon Free Zone.[63] On December 3, 2004, Iran's former president and an Islamic cleric, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani alluded to Iran's position on nuclear energy: Allah willing, we expect to soon join the club of the countries that have a nuclear industry, with all its branches, except the military one, in which we are not interested. We want to get what we're entitled to. I say unequivocally that for no price will we be willing to relinquish our legal and international right. I also say unequivocally to those who make false claims: Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, but it will not give up its rights. Your provocation will not make us pursue nuclear weapons. We hope that you come to your senses soon and do not get the world involved in disputes and crises. [1] On November 14, 2004, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator said that his country agreed to voluntarily and temporarily suspend the uranium enrichment program after pressure from the European Union on behalf of the United Kingdom, France and Germany, as a confidence-building measure for a reasonable period of time, with six months mentioned as a reference. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly stated Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. On August 9, 2005 Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons. The text of the fatwa has not been released although it was referenced in

6

an official statement at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.[66] Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a 2005 speech to the U.N. General Assembly said "We are concerned that once certain powerful states completely control nuclear energy resources and technology, they will deny access to other states and thus deepen the divide between powerful countries and the rest of the international community ... peaceful use of nuclear energy without possession of a nuclear fuel cycle is an empty proposition". [2] On 6 August 2005, Iran rejected a 34 page European Union proposal intended to help Iran build "a safe, economically viable and proliferation-proof civil nuclear power generation and research program.” The Europeans, with US agreement, intended to entice Iran into a binding commitment not to develop uranium enrichment capability by offering to provide fuel and other long-term support that would facilitate electricity generation with nuclear energy. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi rejected the proposal saying, "We had already announced that any plan has to recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium".[67] Iran resumed its uranium enrichment program in January 2006, prompting the IAEA to refer the issue to the UN Security Council. On February 21, 2006, Rooz, a news website run by Iranian exiles, reported that Hojatoleslam Mohsen Gharavian, a student of Qom’s fundamentalist cleric Mesbah Yazdi, spoke about the necessity of using nuclear weapons as a means to retaliate and announced that "based on religious law, everything depends on our purpose".[68] In an interview with the Islamic Republic News Agency the same day, Gharavian rejected these reports, saying "We do not seek nuclear weapons and the Islamic religion encourages coexistence along with peace and friendship...these websites have tried to misquote me."[69] On April 11, 2006, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Iranian scientists working at the pilot facility at Natanz had successfully enriched uranium to the 3.5 percent level, using a small cascade of 164 gas centrifuges. In the televised address from the city of Mashhad he said, "I am officially announcing that Iran has joined the group of those countries which have nuclear technology".[70] It is worth noting that the level of enrichment to produce a nuclear bomb is about 90%. In May 2006 some members of the Iranian legislature ("Majlis" or Parliament) sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan threatening to withdraw from the NPT if Iran's right to peaceful use of nuclear technology under the treaty was not protected.[71] On 21 February 2007, the same day the UN deadline to suspend nuclear activities expired, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the following statement: "If they say that we should close down our fuel production facilities to resume talks, we say fine, but those who enter talks with us should also close down their nuclear fuel production activities". The White House's spokesperson Tony Snow rejected the offer and called it a "false offer".[72]

The U.S. stance See also: United States and weapons of mass destruction •

•

•

• •

•

The United States argues that Iran has violated both Article III and Article II of the NPT.[73] The IAEA Board of Governors, in a rare divided vote, found Iran in noncompliance with its NPT safeguards agreement for a 1985-2003 "policy of concealment"[21] regarding its efforts to develop enrichment and reprocessing technologies.[8] The United States,[74] the IAEA[75] and others[76] consider these technologies to be of particular concern because they can be used to produce fissile material for use in nuclear weapons. The United States has argued that Iran's concealment of efforts to develop sensitive nuclear technology is prima facie evidence of Iran's intention to develop nuclear weapons, or at a minimum to develop a latent nuclear weapons capability. Others have noted that while possession of the technology "contributes to the latency of non-nuclear weapon states in their potential to acquire nuclear weapons" but that such latency is not necessarily evidence of intent to proceed toward the acquisition of nuclear weapons, since "intent is in the eye of the beholder".[77] The United States has also provided information to the IAEA on Iranian studies related to weapons design, activities, including a the intention of diverting a civilian nuclear energy program to the manufacture of weapons, based on a laptop computer reportedly linked to Iranian weapons programs. The United States has pointed to other information reported by the IAEA, including the "Green Salt" project, the possession of a document on manufacturing uranium metal hemispheres, and other links between Iran's military and its nuclear program, as further indications of a military intent to Iran's nuclear program.[78]The IAEA has said U.S. intelligence provided to it through 2007 has proven inaccurate or not led to significant discoveries inside Iran;[79] however, the US, and others have recently provided more intelligence to the agency.[80] The United States acknowledges Iran's right to nuclear power, and has joined with the EU-3, Russia and China in offering nuclear and other economic and technological cooperation with Iran if it suspends uranium enrichment. This cooperation would include an assured supply of fuel for Iran's nuclear reactors.[81] A potential reason behind U.S. resistance to an Iranian nuclear program lies in Middle Eastern geopolitics. In essence, the US feels that it must guard against even the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapons capability. Some nuclear technology is dual-use; i.e. it can be used for peaceful energy generation, and to develop nuclear weapons, a situation that resulted in India's nuclear weapons program in the 1960s. A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically change the balance of power in the Middle East, weakening US influence. It could also encourage other Middle Eastern nations to develop nuclear weapons of their own further reducing US influence in a critical region.[citation needed] In 2003, the United States insisted that Tehran be "held accountable" for seeking to build nuclear arms in violation of its agreements.[82] In June 2005, the US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice required IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei to either "toughen his stance on Iran" or fail to be chosen for a third term as IAEA head.[83] The IAEA has on some occasions criticised the stance of the U.S. on Iran's program.[84] The United States denounced Iran's successful enrichment of uranium to fuel grade in April 2006, with spokesman Scott McClellan saying, they "continue to show that Iran is moving in the wrong direction". In November 2006, Seymour Hersh described a classified draft assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency "challenging the White House's assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. He continued, "The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," adding that a current senior intelligence official confirmed the assessment.[85] On February 25, 2007, The Daily Telegraph reported that the United States Fifth Fleet, including the Nimitz-class supercarriers Eisenhower, Nimitz and Stennis "prepares to take on Iran".[86]

7

•

•

•

•

Iran has been repeatedly threatened with a nuclear first strike by the United States. The U.S. Nuclear Posture Review made public in 2002 specifically envisioned the use of nuclear weapons on a first strike basis, even against non-nuclear armed states[87]. Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has reported that the Bush administration has been planning the use of nuclear weapons against Iran[88] When specifically questioned about the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran, President Bush claimed that "All options were on the table". According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, "the president of the United States directly threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to read his reply in any other way."[89] In September 2007, Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Secretary of State, cautioned the IAEA not to interfere with international diplomacy over Iran's alleged weapons program. She said the IAEA's role should be limited to carrying out inspections and offering a "clear declaration and clear reporting on what the Iranians are doing; whether and when and if they are living up to the agreements they have signed." ElBaradei has called for less emphasis on additional UN sanctions and more emphasis on enhanced cooperation between the IAEA and Tehran. Iran has agreed with IAEA requests to answer unresolved questions about its nuclear program. ElBaradei has often criticized what he called "war mongering," only to be told by Rice to mind his business.[90] In December 2007, the United States National Intelligence Estimate (which represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies) concluded, with a "high level of confidence”, that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen. The new estimate says that the enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons” at some future date. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said he hoped the administration would “appropriately adjust its rhetoric and policy”.[36][37] In November 2008, it was reported that the US State Department had opened an Office of Iranian Affairs (OIA) - overseen by Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney. The U.S. partially defined the office's mission as "to promote a democratic transition in the Islamic republic"[91] and to help "defeat" the Iranian regime.[92] Iran has argued the office was tasked with drawing up plans to overthrow its government. One Iranian reformer said after the office opened that many "partners are simply too afraid to work with us anymore", and that the office had "a chilling effect".[93] The US Congress has reportedly appropriated more than $120 million to fund the project.[94] Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh also revealed in July 2008 Congress also agreed to a $400-million funding request for a major escalation in covert operations inside Iran.[95]

Other international responses The claims and counter claims have put an immense amount of pressure on Iran to reveal all aspects of its nuclear program to date. A great deal of this pressure has come from Iran's trade partners: Europe, Japan, and Russia. Iran has been slow to respond, claiming the pressure is solely an attempt by the US government to prevent it from obtaining nuclear technology. China See also: China and weapons of mass destruction The Chinese Foreign Ministry supports the peaceful resolution of the Iran nuclear issue through diplomacy and negotiations. In May 2006 Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Liu Jianchao stated "As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran enjoys the right to peaceful use of nuclear power, but it should also fulfil its corresponding responsibility and commitment". He added "It is urgently needed that Iran should fully cooperate with the IAEA and regain the confidence of the international community in its nuclear program".[96] In April 2008, several news agencies reported that China had supplied the IAEA with intelligence on Iran's nuclear program following a report by Associated Press reporter George Jahn based on anonymous diplomatic sources.[80] Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu described these reports as "completely groundless and out of ulterior motives".[97] Russia See also: Russia and weapons of mass destruction On December 5, 2007 Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said he had seen no evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran, no matter how old.[6] On October 16, 2007 Vladimir Putin visited Tehran, Iran to participate in the Second Caspian Summit, where he met with Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad[98]. At a press conference after the summit Putin said that "Iran has the right to develop their peaceful nuclear programs without any restrictions".[99] France See also: France and weapons of mass destruction On February 16, 2006 French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said "No civilian nuclear programme can explain the Iranian nuclear programme. It is a clandestine military nuclear programme."[100] In January 2007, former French President Jacques Chirac, speaking "off the record" to reporters from The New York Times, indicated that if Iran possessed a nuclear weapon, the weapon could not be used. Chirac alluded to mutually assured destruction when he stated:[101] “Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed.” United Kingdom See also: United Kingdom and weapons of mass destruction The United Kingdom is part of the EU3+3 (UK, France, Germany, US, China and Russia) group of countries that are engaged in ongoing discussions with Iran.[102] The UK is therefore one of the countries that has stated that Iran would be provided with enriched fuel and support to develop a modern nuclear power program if it, in the words of the Foreign Office spokesperson "suspends all enrichment related activities, answer all the outstanding issues relating to Iran's nuclear programme and implement the additional protocol agreed with the IAEA".[103] The UK (with China, France, Germany and Russia) put forward the three Security Council resolutions that have been passed in the UN. On 8 May 2006, Former Deputy Commander-in-Chief of British Land Forces, General Sir Hugh Beach, former Cabinet Ministers, scientists and campaigners joined a delegation to Downing Street opposing military intervention in Iran. The delegation delivered

8

two letters to Prime Minister Tony Blair from 1,800 physicists warning that the military intervention and the use of nuclear weapons would have disastrous consequences for the security of Britain and the rest of world. The letters carried the signatures of academics, politicians and scientists including some of 5 physicists who are Nobel Laureates. CASMII delegation On 17 July 2006, a meeting in the House of Commons challenged Tony Blair’s statement that Iran and Syria are to blame for the latest crisis in the Middle East and condemned a decision by the Foreign Ministers of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany to refer Iran to the UN Security Council. Commons Meeting Israel See also: Israel and weapons of mass destruction Israel, which is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and which is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons,[104] has frequently claimed that Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program.[105] Arguing an "existential threat from Iran", Israel has issued several veiled and explicit threats to attack Iran.[106][107][108] Mike Mullen, chairman of the US's Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned that an Israeli air attack on Iran would be high-risk.[109] George Friedman, head of the global intelligence company Stratfor, has said Iran is "decades away" from developing any credible nucleararms capacity and that an attack on Iran would have grave repercussions for the global economy.[110] Iran and the Arab League have proposed the that the Middle East be established as a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone.[63][96] On December 11, 2005 then Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon put the Israeli Defense Forces on high alert for the possibility of ordering airstrikes against Iran's nuclear installations.[111] Nonetheless, airstrikes are seen as a last resort due to the dispersal, hardening and defence by Surface-to-air missiles of Iranian sites.[112] On January 6, 2007 a news report cited claims that Israel may be preparing for a nuclear strike on Iran's enrichment facilities using bunker-buster bombs.[113] On February 25, 2007, The Daily Telegraph reported that Israel has sought negotiations with the United States for permission to use Iraqi airspace for an air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.[114] Iran has dismissed the possibility of Israeli or US attacks on its nuclear facilities as "impossible" or "craziness".[115][116] Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency, has said an airstrike "is the worst thing that can happen now" and that it would turn the Middle East "into a ball of fire".[117] Gen. Mohammad Dehghani said Iran's first target would be Israel in any response to a U.S. or Israeli attack.[118] On December 5, 2007, Israel said it will continue its policy against the Iranian nuclear program despite a US intelligence report saying Iran had halted its nuclear program in 2003. Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni traveled to Brussel on 7 December to argue in favour of more international sanctions against Iran because Israel suspects Iran has never stopped its nuclear program.[119] On June 6, 2008 Israeli transport minister, Shaul Mofaz said that "If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it."[120] In August 2008, the United States warned against an Iranian attack and demanded that Israel give it a heads-up if it decides to strike Iran.[121]

Opinion in the Arab and Islamic world The 2008 Annual Arab Public Opinion Poll, Survey of the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, College Park conducted in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the UAE in March 2008 noted the following as a key finding.[122] "In contrast with the fears of many Arab governments, the Arab public does not appear to see Iran as a major threat. Most believe that Iran has the right to its nuclear program and do not support international pressure to force it to curtail its program. A plurality of Arabs (44%) believes that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, the outcome would be more positive for the region than negative." Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation and a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council abstained from a vote in March 2008 on a U.N. resolution to impose a third set of sanctions on Iran.[123] It was the only country out of the 10 non-permanent members to abstain. Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono speaking at a joint news conference with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran in March 2008 said[124] "Iran's nuclear program is of a peaceful nature and must not be politicized" Pakistan, which has the second largest Muslim population in the world is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and already possesses nuclear weapons. On May 12, 2006 AP published an interview with Pakistan's former chief of staff of the Pakistan Army Mirza Aslam Beg In the AP interview, Beg detailed nearly 20 years of Iranian approaches to obtain conventional arms and then technology for nuclear weapons. He described an Iranian visit in 1990, when he was army chief of staff. They didn't want the technology. They asked: 'Can we have a bomb?' My answer was: By all means you can have it but you must make it yourself. #obody gave it to us. Beg said he is sure Iran has had enough time to develop them. But he insists the Pakistani government didn't help, even though he says former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto once told him the Iranians offered more than $4 billion for the technology. [3] In an article in 2005 about nuclear proliferation he stated "I would not like my future generations to live in the neighborhood of "nuclear capable Israel."" "Countries acquire the (nuclear) capability on their own, as we have done it. Iran will do the same, because they are threatened by Israel."[125] The San Francisco Chronicle reported on October 31, 2003, that Grand Ayatollahs, like Ayatollah Yousef Sanei, and Iranian clerics led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have repeatedly declared that Islam forbids the development and use of all weapons of mass destruction. SFGate.com quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as saying: "The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction. In contrast to the propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any form."[126] On April 21, 2006, at a Hamas rally in Damascus, Anwar Raja, the Lebanon based representative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a party that achieved 4.25% of the votes and holds 3 out the 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council following the election declared: "The Muslim, Iranian, fighting people now possess nuclear capabilities. My brother, the Iranian representative sitting here, let me tell you that we, the Palestinian people, are in favour of Iran having a nuclear bomb, not just energy for peaceful purposes."[127] On May 3, 2006 Iraqi Shia cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Husseini Al Baghdadi, who opposes the presence of US forces in Iraq and is an advocate of violent jihad was interviewed on Syrian TV. In his interview he said:[128] "How can they face Iran? How come Israel has 50 nuclear bombs? Why are they selective? Why shouldn't an Islamic or Arab country have a nuclear bomb? I am not referring to the Iranian program, which the Iranians say is for peaceful purposes. I am talking about a nuclear bomb." "This Arab Islamic nation must obtain a nuclear bomb. Without a nuclear bomb, we will continue to be oppressed,"

9

The Baku declaration A declaration signed on June 20, 2006 by the foreign ministers of 56 nations of the 57-member Organisation of the Islamic Conference stated that "the only way to resolve Iran's nuclear issue is to resume negotiations without any preconditions and to enhance co-operation with the involvement of all relevant parties". Qatar and Arab vote against the U.. Security Council resolution July 31, 2006: The UN Security Council gives until August 31, 2006 for Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment and related activities or face the prospect of sanctions [4]. The draft passed by a vote of 14-1 (Qatar, which represents Arab states on the council, opposing). The same day, Iran's U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif qualified the resolution as "arbitrary" and illegal because the NTP protocol explicitly guarantees under international law Iran’s right to pursue nuclear activities for peaceful purposes. In response to today’s vote at the UN, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that his country will revise his position vis-à-vis the economic/incentive package offered previously by the G-6 (5 permanent Security council members plus Germany.)[5] In December 2006, the Gulf Cooperation Council called for a nuclear weapons free Middle East and recognition of the right of a country to expertise in the field of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.[129] The on-Aligned Movement The Non-Aligned Movement has said that the present situation whereby Nuclear Weapon States monopolise the right to possess nuclear weapons is "highly discriminatory", and they have pushed for steps to accelerate the process of nuclear disarmament.[130] On September 16, 2006 in Havana, Cuba, all of the 118 Non-Aligned Movement member countries, at the summit level, declared supporting Iran's nuclear program for civilian purposes in their final written statement.[131] That is a clear majority of the 192 countries comprising the entire United Nations, which comprise 55% of the world population. On September 11, 2007 the Non-Aligned Movement rejected any "interference" in Iran's nuclear transparency deal with U.N. inspectors by Western countries through the UN Security Council. [19] On July 30, 2008 the Non-Aligned Movement welcomed the continuing cooperation of Iran with the IAEA and reaffirmed Iran's right to the peaceful uses of nuclear technology. The movement further called for the establishment of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East and called for a comprehensive multilaterally negotiated instrument which prohibits threats of attacks on nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful uses of nuclear energy.[132]

Biological weapons Iran ratified the Biological Weapons Convention on August 22, 1973.[133] Iran has advanced biology and genetic engineering research programs supporting an industry that produces world-class vaccines for both domestic use and export.[134] The dual-use nature of these facilities mean that Iran, like any country with advanced biological research programs, could easily produce biological warfare agents. A 2005 report from the United States Department of State claimed that Iran began work on offensive biological weapons during the Iran–Iraq War, and that their large legitimate bio-technological and bio-medical industry "could easily hide pilot to industrial-scale production capabilities for a potential BW program, and could mask procurement of BW-related process equipment". The report further said that "available information about Iranian activities indicates a maturing offensive program with a rapidly evolving capability that may soon include the ability to deliver these weapons by a variety of means".[135] According to The Nuclear Threat Initiative, Iran is known to possess cultures of the many biological agents for legitimate scientific purposes which have been weaponised by other nations in the past, or could theoretically be weaponised. Although they do not allege that Iran has attempted to weaponise them, Iran possesses sufficient biological facilities to potentially do so.[136]

Chemical weapons Iran has experienced chemical warfare (CW) on the battlefield, suffering hundreds of thousands of casualties, both civilian and military, in chemical attacks during the 1980-88 Iran–Iraq War. As a result, Iran has promulgated a very public stance against the use of chemical weapons, making numerous vitriolic comments against Iraq's use of such weapons in international forums. Iran did not resort to using chemical weapons in retaliation for Iraqi chemical weapons attacks during the Iran–Iraq War, though it would have been legally entitled to do so under the then-existing international treaties on the use of chemical weapons which only prohibited the first use of such weapons. Following its experiences during the Iran–Iraq War, Iran signed the Chemical Weapons Convention on January 13, 1993 and ratified it on November 3, 1997. A U.S. Central Intelligence Agency report dated January 2001 speculated that Iran had manufactured and stockpiled chemical weapons - including blister, blood, choking, and probably nerve agents, and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them. It further claimed that during the first half of 2001, Iran continued to seek production technology, training, expertise, equipment, and chemicals from entities in Russia and China that could be used to help Iran reach its goal of having indigenous nerve agent production capability.[137] However the certainty of this assessment declined and in 2007 the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency limited its public assessment to just noting that "Iran has a large and growing commercial chemical industry that could be used to support a chemical agent mobilization capability."[138] Iran is a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans chemical weapons, delivery systems, and production facilities. Iran has not made any declaration of a weapons stockpile under the treaty.

Delivery systems Missiles Iran is believed to have a current inventory of 25 to 100 Shahab-3 missiles which have a range of 2100 km and are capable of being armed with conventional high explosive, submunition, chemical, biological, radiological dispersion and potentially nuclear warheads. A Shahab-4 with a range of 2000 km and a payload of 1000 kg is believed to be under development. Iran has stated the Shahab-3 is the last of its war missiles and the Shahab-4 is being developed to give the country the capability of launching communications and surveillance satellites. A Shahab-5, an intercontinental ballistic missile with a 10,000km range, is also believed

10

to be under development.[139] Iran has 12 X-55 long range cruise missiles purchased without nuclear warheads from Ukraine in 2001. The X-55 has a range of 2500 to 3000 kilometers.[140] Iran's most advanced missile, the Fajr-3, has an unknown range but is estimated to be 2500 km. The missile is radar evading and can strike targets simultaneously using multiple warheads. [6]. On November 2, 2006, Iran fired unarmed missiles to begin 10 days of military war games. Iranian state television reported "dozens of missiles were fired including Shahab-2 and Shahab-3 missiles. The missiles had ranges from 300 km to up to 2,000 km...Iranian experts have made some changes to Shahab-3 missiles installing cluster warheads in them with the capacity to carry 1,400 bombs." These launches come after some United States-led military exercises in the Persian Gulf on October 30, 2006, meant to train for blocking the transport of weapons of mass destruction [7]. Aircraft Main article: Iranian Air Force Any aircraft could potentially be used to host some form of WMD distribution system. Iran has a varied air force with planes purchased from many countries, including the United States. Due to sanctions, the Iranian government has encouraged production of domestically manufactured planes and, since 2002, has built its own transport aircraft, fighters, and gunship helicopters. See also United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 Nuclear program of Iran Operation Merlin Green Salt Project Iranian Space Agency References 1. ^ "Nuclear proliferation: The Islamic Republic of Iran", Gawdat Bahgat, Iranian Studies Journal, vol. 39(3), September 2006 2. ^ Center for Documents of The Imposed War, Tehran. (‫ق‬WWWW‫ات و تح‬WWWW‫رکز مطالع‬WWWW‫گیم‬WW‫ات جن‬WW‫)ق‬ 3. ^ Ayat. Kashani: N-bomb production religiously forbidden. 4. ^ Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities (National Intelligence Estimate) 5. ^ AFP:Six powers to meet soon over Iran's nuclear program 6. ^ a b "Ahmadinejad declares victory in nuclear dispute". The Times. December 5, 2007. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3004070.ece. Retrieved on 5 December 2007. 7. ^ a b c "UN nuclear watchdog chief expresses concern about anti-Iran rhetoric from US". International Herald Tribune. October 28, 2007. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/28/america/NA-GEN-US-Iran.php. Retrieved on 29 October 2007. 8. ^ a b IAEA Board of Governors: "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran" (September 2005) 9. ^ IAEA Board of Governors: "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran" (February 2006) 10. ^ Resolution 1696 (2006) 11. ^ Security Council Demands Iran Suspend Uranium Enrichment by 31 August, or Face Possible Economic, Diplomatic Sanctions 12. ^ a b c "Security Council Imposes Sanctions on Iran for failure to halt Uranium Enrichment, Unanimously adopting Resolution 1737 (2006)". 2006-12-23. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8928.doc.htm. 13. ^ a b "Security Council tightens sanctions against Iran over uranium enrichment". 2007-03-24. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21997&Cr=Iran&Cr1. 14. ^ Security Council Tightens Restrictions on Iran’s Proliferation-Sensitive Nuclear Activities, Increases Vigilance Over Iranian Banks, Has States Inspect Cargo 15. ^ U#: Security Council calls on Iran to comply with nuclear obligations 16. ^ a b c "UN Security Council demands that Iran suspend nuclear activities". UN News Centre. 2006-07-31. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19353&Cr=iran&Cr1=. 17. ^ MS#BC: "Ahmadinejad: Iran’s nuclear issue is ‘closed’" (09/25/2007) 18. ^ Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) in the Islamic Republic of Iran 19. ^ a b c Developing states rap "interference" in Iran deal 20. ^ ASIL Insight - Iran’s Resumption of its Nuclear Program: Addendum 21. ^ a b c (PDF)Implementation of the #PT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, IAEA, 10 November 2003, GOV/2003/75, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-75.pdf, retrieved on 25 October 2007 22. ^ (PDF)Implementation of the #PT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, IAEA, 24 September 2005, GOV/2005/77, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf, retrieved on 25 October 2007 23. ^ [http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2007_4_2.html#Iran Iran Defends Nuclear Secrecy ] 24. ^ "Nuclear proliferation: The Islamic Republic of Iran", Gawdat Bahgat, Iranian Studies Journal, vol. 39(3), September 2006 25. ^ Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb 26. ^ a b "US imposes new sanctions on Iran". BBC News. 2007-10-25. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7061991.stm. 27. ^ No evidence Iran is making nukes: ElBaradei 28. ^ "Israel minister: Sack ElBaradei". BBC News. 2007-11-08. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7085213.stm. 29. ^ "Signatories and Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons". http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt3.htm. Retrieved on 2006-04-17. 30. ^ Blasts from the Past: Western Support for Iran's Nuclear program -IranAffairs.com, May 30, 2006

• • • • •

11

31. ^ "Iran's Strategic Weapons Programmes - A Net Assessment". International Institute for Strategic Studies. 2005. http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/irans-strategic-weapons-programmes. Retrieved on 2006-06-03. 32. ^ "Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements". Washington Post. 2005. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html. Retrieved on 2007-09-20. 33. ^ Iran could have nuclear bomb by 2015 Reuters October 24, 2006 34. ^ a b "Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue". BBC. 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4031603.stm. Retrieved on 2007-09-20. 35. ^ a b "Iran bomb would take '3-8 years' to build". The Irish Times. 2007-10-22. http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/1022/breaking29.html. Retrieved on 22 October 2007. 36. ^ a b U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work New York Times December 3, 2007 37. ^ a b Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities (National Intelligence Estimate) 38. ^ Iran: U.S. Spied to Get Nuke Info 39. ^ "Introductory Statement to the Board of Governors by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei". 2006. http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2006/ebsp2006n003.html#iran. Retrieved on 2006-04-17. 40. ^ Iran made 15-page document available to IAEA inspectors, GlobalSecurity.org, February 24, 2006 41. ^ "Global Security article on the involvement of Abdul Qadeer Khan with Iran.". 2007. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/khan-iran.htm. Retrieved on 2007-02-16. 42. ^ (PDF)Implementation of the #PT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, IAEA, 18 November 2005, GOV/2005/87, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-87.pdf, retrieved on 17 April 2006 43. ^ Global Security: Iran, House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, 20 February 2008, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/142/14202.htm, retrieved on 2 March 2008 44. ^ "UN finds highly enriched uranium traces in Iran". 2006. http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=271622&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/. Retrieved on 2006-06-01. 45. ^ "Diplomats: New traces of highly enriched uranium found in Iran". 2006. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/200605-13-iran-nuclear_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA. Retrieved on 2006-06-01. 46. ^ "IAEA inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium in Iran". 2006. http://www.regnum.ru/english/polit/639257.html. Retrieved on 2006-06-01. 47. ^ "IAEA finds traces of plutonium in Iran"]. AP. 2006-11-15. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/200611/15/content_733403.htm. Retrieved on 1 March 2007. 48. ^ (PDF)Implementation of the #PT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, IAEA, 30 August 2007, GOV/2007/48, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2007/gov2007-48.pdf, retrieved on 25 October 2007 49. ^ "IAEA, Iran agree visit at disputed reactor site"]. Reuters. 2007-07-16. http://africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnNL13198193.html. Retrieved on 18 July 2007. 50. ^ "Iran accepts fresh nuclear plan". BBC News. 2007-07-30. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6970488.stm. Retrieved on 30 July 2007. 51. ^ "Iran angry with France over war warning". CNN. 2007-09-17. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/17/france.iran/index.html. Retrieved on 17 September 2007. 52. ^ Tehran not an 'immediate threat' Daily Times September 22, 2007 53. ^ (PDF)Implementation of the #PT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) in the Islamic Republic of Iran, IAEA, 15 November 2007, GOV/2007/58, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_11_07_iran_iaeareport.pdf, retrieved on 16 November 2007 54. ^ Mark Heinrich (2007-11-15). "Iran more transparent but expands nuclear campaign". Reuters. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/15/AR2007111501096_pf.html. 55. ^ "Report Raises New Doubts on Iran Nuclear Program". New York Times. 2007-11-16. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/world/middleeast/16nuke.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin. 56. ^ "Iran calls for US nuclear apology". BBC News. 2007-11-16. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7098751.stm. 57. ^ Irish Times: Iran bomb would take '3-8 years' to build 58. ^ Iran Could Make Nuke In 6 Months 59. ^ a b c U.S. Rejected Aid for Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuclear Site 60. ^ Egypt & Nuclear Power 61. ^ Saghand Mining Department Website 62. ^ IAEA Information Circular 724 (March 2008): Communication from the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Agency 63. ^ a b c d e f Statement by H.E. Mr. Manouchehr Mottaki, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, before The Conference on Disarmament (March 2007) 64. ^ IAEA Information Circular 729 (June 2008): Communication from the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Agency 65. ^ Final document of the 12th summit of the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Durban, South Africa, 2-3 September 1998 66. ^ "Leader’s Fatwa Forbids Nukes"". Iran Daily. 2005-08-11. http://www.iran-daily.com/1384/2347/html/index.htm. Retrieved on 2006-05-23. 67. ^ "Iran rejects "unacceptable" EU nuclear proposals". Al Jazeera Magazine Online Edition. 2005. http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=9356. Retrieved on 2006-05-19. 68. ^ Shahram Rafizadeh (2006). "Iranian Cleric Okays Use of Nuclear Weapons!". Rooz. http://roozonline.com/11english/014154.shtml. Retrieved on 2006-09-29.

12

69. ^ IRNA (2006). "Islam forbids use of nuclear weapons: Theological scholar". The Muslim News. http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=10676. Retrieved on 2006-09-29. 70. ^ Shuster, Mike (2006). "Iran Enriches Uranium, Plans New Expansion". National Public Radio. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5336802. Retrieved on 2006-05-20. 71. ^ Iran lawmakers threaten withdrawal from Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 72. ^ Democracy Now! | As Nuclear Deadline Passes, US and Iran Trade Accusations of Bombing Involvement 73. ^ Adherence to and Compliance With Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments 74. ^ Promoting Expanded and Responsible Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy 75. ^ Mohamed ElBaradei, "Towards a Safer World" 76. ^ See paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Nuclear Suppliers Group Guidelines 77. ^ Capability versus intent: The latent threat of nuclear proliferation, By Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, 15 June 2007 78. ^ Statement by Ambassador Gregory L. Schulte, September 13, 2006 79. ^ SFGate: Most U.S. tips fingering Iran false – envoys 80. ^ a b FOX#ews: Diplomats: China Has Provided IAEA With Intelligence on Iran's Nuke Program 81. ^ Letter dated 13 July 2006 from the Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council 82. ^ Iran: U.S., EU Disagree Over Tehran's Nuclear Program Ahead Of IAEA Meeting 83. ^ US agrees to back UN nuclear head 84. ^ IAEA blasts U.S. intelligence report on Iran 85. ^ Annals of National Security: The Next Act 86. ^ The Daily Telegraph: American armada prepares to take on Iran 87. ^ U.S. Nuclear Arms Stance Modified by Policy Study, Washington Post, Saturday, March 23, 2002 88. ^ Hersh: U.S. mulls nuclear option for Iran, CNN Monday, April 10, 2006 89. ^ U.S. Nuclear Threats: Then and Now, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, Sept-Oct 2006 90. ^ Rice tells nuke watchdog to butt out of Iran diplomacy 91. ^ C##: U.S. to sharpen focus on Iran 92. ^ IHT: U.S. opens two fronts in an effort to 'defeat' Iran 93. ^ #YTimes: Hard Realities of Soft Power 94. ^ "U.S. planning velvet revolution in Iran?". Mathaba News Network. 2008-11-19. http://www.mathaba.net/rss/?x=611856. Retrieved on 2008-11-19. 95. ^ PressTV: US plotting Velvet Revolution in Iran? 96. ^ a b "Arab League chief calls for nuclear-free Middle East". People's Daily Online. May 31, 2006. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200605/31/eng20060531_269921.html. 97. ^ "Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Jiang Yu's Remarks on Reports of China Providing Information to IAEA on Iran's Nuclear Programs". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China. April 3, 2008. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xwfw/s2510/t421013.htm. 98. ^ Putin Positive on Second Caspian Summit Results, Meets With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, October 16, 2007, Kremlin.ru 99. ^ Answer to a Question at the Joint Press Conference Following the Second Caspian Summit, October 16, 2007, Tehran, Kremlin.ru 100. ^ "France: Iran program 'military'". CNN. 2006. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/16/iran.france/index.html. Retrieved on 2006-05-23. 101. ^ "Chirac Strays From Assailing a Nuclear Iran". New York Times. 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/europe/01france.html?ex=1327986000&en=2a79cb363a6d7afd&ei=5088?ner= rssnyt&emc=rss. Retrieved on 2007-06-01. 102. ^ "Foreign Secretary and Condoleezza Rice joint statement (23/05/2008)". Foreign and Commonwealth Office. May 23, 2008. http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/newsroom/latest-news/?view=News&id=3632051. Retrieved on 2008-06-14. 103. ^ "Iranian expansion of its enrichment program (08/04/2008)". Foreign and Commonwealth Office. April 8, 2008. http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/newsroom/latest-news/?view=News&id=3104489. Retrieved on 2008-06-14. 104. ^ "Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance". Arms Control Association. http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat.asp. Retrieved on 2007-05-30. 105. ^ Haaretz: Rabin's long memory and the NIE report on Iran 106. ^ FOXNews.com - Israel Threatens Iran Over Nuclear Program - U.S. & World 107. ^ Israel Threatens Iran - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Arutz Sheva 108. ^ Israeli politician threatens Iran with attack over nukes - CNN.com 109. ^ Chicago Tribune: Military chief warns against striking Iran 110. ^ Barron's: "In Sight: an Amicable Endgame in Iran" 111. ^ Mahnaimi, Uzi (2005). "Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran". The Times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html. Retrieved on 2006-05-07. 112. ^ Washington Times - Iran's nuclear ambitions seen similar to Holocaust 113. ^ "Report: Israel Planning Nuke Raid on Iran Uranium Enrichment Sites". FOXNews. 2007-01-06. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242243,00.html. 114. ^ The Daily Telegraph: Israel seeks all clear for Iran air strike 115. ^ BBC: Iran dismisses 'attack by Israel' 116. ^ FOX#ews: Iran Foreign Minister Dismisses Threat of Attack by U.S., Israel 117. ^ CNN: ElBaradei warns against strike on Iran

13

118. ^ Iran Threatens Israel if U.S. Attacks 119. ^ almanar Israel to Press Campaign Against Iran December 5, 2007 120. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL06251958 121. ^ Fox#ews: Report: U.S. Refuses Israel Weapons to Attack Iran 122. ^ Telhami,Shibley. "2008 Annual Arab Public Opinion Poll, Survey of the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland" (PDF). http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2008/0414_middle_east/0414_middle_east_telhami.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-06-12. 123. ^ "Iran's President Thanks Indonesia for Not Supporting UN Resolution". Voice of America. 2008-03-11. http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-03/2008-03-11-voa25.cfm?CFID=250694341&CFTOKEN=91553134. Retrieved on 12 June 2008. 124. ^ "Iran offers Indonesia nuclear cooperation". RIA Novosti. 2008-03-11. http://en.rian.ru/world/20080311/101096147.html. Retrieved on 12 June 2008. 125. ^ "Outside View: Nuke Proliferators Can't Be Stopped". UPI. 2005-03-07. http://www.spacewar.com/news/nuclearblackmarket-05l.html. Retrieved on 13 June 2008. 126. ^ Collier, Robert (2003). "Nuclear weapons unholy, Iran says. Islam forbids use, clerics proclaim.". San Francisco Chronicle. http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/10/31/MNGHJ2NFRE1.DTL&hw=Khamenei+fatwa&sn=001&sc=1000. Retrieved on 6 December 2007. 127. ^ "Clip No. 1114". Middle East Media Research Institute. 2006. http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1114.htm. Retrieved on 2006-09-25. 128. ^ "Iraqi Ayatollah Ahmad Al-Baghdadi Talks of America's Annihilation and the Muslim Conquest of the World; Declares Support for Nuclear Bombs for Muslim and Arab Countries". Middle East Media Research Institute. 2006. http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iraq&ID=SP116606. Retrieved on 2008-06-13. 129. ^ The Closing Statement Of the Twenty-Seventh Session of the Supreme Council of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (December 2006) 130. ^ Final document of the 12th summit of the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Durban, South Africa, 2-3 September 1998 131. ^ Payvand's Iran News: Iran Wins Backing From Non-Aligned Bloc 132. ^ XV Ministerial Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement (July 2008): Statement on the Islamic Republic of Iran's Nuclear Issue 133. ^ Signatories of the Biological Weapons Convention 134. ^ "Razi Institute produces dlrs 100 m worth of vaccines, serums a year". http://www.payvand.com/news/00/oct/1067.html. Retrieved on 2006-04-22. 135. ^ Bureau of Verification and Compliance, U.S. Department of State, "Adherence to and Compliance With Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments" (30 August 2005). 136. ^ "NTI: Country Overviews: Iran: Biological Capabilities". Nuclear Threat Initiative. http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Biological/2302.html. Retrieved on 2006-04-17. 137. ^ "Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions, 1 January Through 30 June 2001". Central Intelligence Agency (USA). http://web.archive.org/web/20020601133717/http://www.cia.gov/library/publications//bian/bian_jan_2002.htm. Retrieved on 2006-04-26. 138. ^ Markus Binder (February 2008), Iran’s First-Generation Chemical Weapons Evaporate, as Certainty Declines in U.S. Intelligence Reports, WMD Insights, http://www.wmdinsights.com/I22/I22_ME2_Iran1stGenCW.htm, retrieved on 27 March 2008 139. ^ "NTI: Country Overviews: Iran: Missile Capabilities". Nuclear Threat Initiative. http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/iran/missile/3367_3396.html. Retrieved on 2007-03-06. 140. ^ Pike, John. "X-55 Long Range Cruise Missile". GlobalSecurity.org. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/x55.htm. Retrieved on 2006-04-20. External links • Chemical Weapons - Iran • Annotated Google map of Iranian nuclear sites • In Focus : IAEA and Iran • Annotated bibliography on Iran's nuclear weapons program from the Alsos Digital Library • Q & A with Director General of the IAEA on Iran, International Atomic Energy Agency, 22 February 2008, Video (5 min 43 s), Transcript. • Report by the Director General of IAEA: Implementation of the #PT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) in the Islamic Republic of Iran, 22 February 2008, GOV/2008/4. ews articles • No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program, August 2005. • Highly Enriched Uranium Detected: o Mail and Guardian article o USA Today article o Regnum News article • U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan Analysis

14

Iran's ballistic missile developments - long-range ambitions Jane's Defence Weekly, 8 September 2006 Towards Transatlantic Cooperation in Meeting the Iranian Nuclear Challenge - analysis by George Perkovich, IFRI Proliferation Papers n°14, 2005 • Iran's Nuclear History, Prof. Mohammad Sahimi, Chairman of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California, and member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, October 2, 2003 • Nuclear Files.org guide to proliferation - Iran • US-Iran "Game of Chicken": Iran Stays Firm despite UN Sanctions by Akbar E. Torbat: March 2007, US - Iran nuclear standoff can be analyzed as a "game of chicken" that is well known in game theory. • Iran's Race for Nuclear Weapons • Iran’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities: A Pattern of Peaceful Intent?PDF (2.36 MiB), US State Department, September 2005 - presentation of US position. Satellite photography and quotes from Iranian leaders are documented and analyzed. Commentary • Iran needs nuclear energy, not weapons, Le Monde diplomatique, November 2005 - questions whether Iran's nuclear program was really clandestine as commonly claimed. • Forced to Fuel (Harvard Int'l Law Review, Vol. 26 No. 4 - Winter 2005) lays out the case for nuclear energy in Iran, by Prof. Muhammad Sahimi. • "George Bush insists that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. So why, six years ago, did the CIA give the Iranians blueprints to build a bomb?" The Guardian, 5 January 2006, (extract from James Risen book) • If Iran Gets Nukes by Abolghasem Bayyena, Antiwar.com, January 17, 2006 • Gareth Porter, Documents linking Iran to nuclear weapons push may have been fabricated, TheRawStory, November 10, 2008, [8]. Political statements • Iran’s Continuing Pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction Testimony by John R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, before the House International Relations Committee Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, Washington DC, June 24, 2004 • Preventing Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons Remarks by John R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security to the Hudson Institute, August 17, 2004 • Iranian Response to UN Security Council Resolution Ambassador Javad Zarif's statement to the UN Security Counsel in response to the resolution requiring Iran to suspend enrichment, July 31, 2006. • Video-Interviews with Ali Asghar Soltanieh (Amb. Iran) during the NPT PrepCom 2008 Organizations • CASMII - The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran

• •

Iranian soldier with gas mask under Chemical bombardment of Iraqi foces in the battlefield during the Iran–Iraq War.

15

Allegations of Iranian state terrorism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution when the American-backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was overthrown and replaced by an Islamic Republic led by Ayatollah Khomeini, the government of Iran has been accused by United States, Israel and some[who?] European countries, of funding, providing equipment, weapons, training and giving sanctuary to terrorists. The United States State Department lists Iran as the “most active state sponsor of terrorism.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice elaborated stating, “Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East, in the Palestinian Territories, and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq.”[1] U.S. and British officials have also accused Iran of arming the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.[2][3] Iraqi prime minister Nouri Maliki has praised Iran for its positive and constructive stance on Iraq, including providing security and fighting terrorism.[4] Afghan President Hamid Karzai has praised Iran, saying "we have had, very good, very close relations... so far, Iran has been a helper and a solution".[5] In response to the U.S. claims, Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei has accused the US of using the issue of terrorism as a pretext for "hegemonistic plans... to dominate and control the wealth and vital resources of other nations". Iran has rejected all allegations and instead accused United States and Israel of being state sponsors of terrorism.[6] Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps After the fall of the Shah, the Islamic Republic of Iran established the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC - Pasdaran-e Inqilab) to domestically promote the government's social policy. The organization also is accused of spreading its ideology in neighboring regions by training and funding "terrorist organizations". By 1986 the group had 350,000 members and had acquired a small naval and air force. By 1996 the ground forces numbered 100,000 and the naval forces numbered 20,000. They are believed to use the proxy Al Quds Force to train the Islamic militants. Currently Al Quds conducts training units in Iran and Sudan.[7] The Pasdaran also is believed to have connections with underground organizations in the Middle East. They have a strong influence on groups in Kuwait, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates. The largest group of Pasdaran connections is made up of 12,000 Iranians, Afghans, Iraqis, Lebanese Shiites and North Africans who either received training in Iran or during the Afghan War and are presently trained in Sudan, Lebanon, and Iran. The party of Hezbollah is included in this group which provides intelligence, logistics and operational units in Lebanon. The second largest operation relates to Kurds, particularly Iraqi Kurds. The third largest is made up of Kashmiris, Balouchis and Afghans. Pasdaran supports Hezbollah operations in Lebanon, Iraqi Kurdistan, Jordan and Palestine and the Islamic Jihad in Egypt, Turkey, and Caucasia. In 1995 the Iranian Revolutionary Guard held a conference with worldwide organizations accused of engaging in terrorism including the Japanese Red Army, the Armenian Secret Army, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Iraqi Da'wah Party, the Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain and Hezbollah in Beirut for the sole purpose of providing training to these organizations supposedly to help in the destabilization of Gulf States and aid assistance to militants in these countries to replace the existing governments with Iran-like regimes.[7] The United States State Department claims that this organization provides support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad in Israel. They also say that Pasadaran has given much support and training to terrorists supporting the Palestinian resistance. They are also accused of aiding the Iraqi insurgency in southern Iraq.[7] On September 26, 2007, the United States Senate passed legislation by a vote of 76-22 designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization.[8] U.S. President George W. Bush and Congress labeled the group under the guidelines established by Executive Order 13224 issued after the September 11, 2001 attacks.[9] Ministry of Intelligence and Security Iran is believed to use the Ministry of Intelligence and Security to gather intelligence to plan terrorist attacks. The ministry is believed to use liaison activities with supported terrorist groups and Islamic fundamentalist movements. The ministry itself is believed to carry out some terrorism mostly directed at political dissidents. Examples of this include the September 1992 assassination of Sadegh Sharaf-Kindi, leader of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan and three others in Berlin. There is also speculation that the ministry helped with the Mujahedin units in Bosnia in the 1990s.[10] Capture of American hostages Main article: Iran Hostage Crisis On November 4, 1979, 500 Iranians stormed the American Embassy and took 90 employees and visitors captive. They later released non-Americans, women and African-Americans, and held the 52 remaining Americans hostage for 444 days. The Americans would hold an embargo against Iran and demanded that the hostages be freed. Iran demanded unblocking of Iran's frozen assets in the United States ($24 billion) to release the hostages. Iran also demanded U.S. based Shah of Iran to be arrested and given back to Iran. They would later agree to accept $8 billion in frozen assets in exchange for the release of the hostages. In 2000 the former hostages would sue the Iranian government for state sponsored terrorism under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act. They would win the suit but would not be awarded damages because of a 2002 judgement that the terms of their release barred awarding any damages.[11]

Hezbollah Further information: Islamic Jihad Organization During the 1980s and 1990s, a wave of kidnappings, bombings, and assassinations of Western targets, particularly American and Israeli, occurred in Lebanon and other countries. Claiming responsibility for these 200 attacks that lead to at least 800 deaths, was the "organization" of Islamic Jihad. The attacks included • The blowing up of a van filled with explosives in front of the U.S. embassy in Beirut killing 58 Americans and Lebanese in 1983.

16

The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing of the U.S. Marine and French 'Drakkar' barracks which killed 241 American and 58 French peacekeepers. • The hijacking of TWA flight 847 holding the 39 Americans on board hostage for weeks in 1985 • The bombing of the Israeli Embassy killing twenty-nine in 1992 • The bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina killing 95 in 1994 Islamic Jihad is widely believed to be a nom de guerre of the Lebanese Islamist political movement and social service agency Hezbollah, which was founded in 1982 with many millions of dollars of aid and considerable training and logistical support from the Islamic Republic. Many believe the group promotes the Iranian agenda and that its goal is to overthrow the moderate governments in the area and create Islamic Republics based on that of Iran as well as the destruction of Israel.[1] Its motives include assassinations, kidnappings, suicide bombings, and guerilla warfare. It is believed to be the Islamic terrorist group that popularized suicide bombings. Other attacks credited to Hezbollah include: • The attack on the Khobar Towers housing complex in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S servicemen in 1996. • Firing of 100s of rockets into northern Israel on a daily basis and capture of Israeli soldiers in 2006[12] Henry Crumpton, the State Department’s coordinator for counterterrorism stated, “[Iran is] clearly directing a lot of Hezbollah actions. Hezbollah asks their permission to do things, especially if it has broader international implications.” However it seemed that when reformist Iranian President Mohammad Khatami took office in 1996 the Iran-Hezbollah connection declined.[13] But some commentators[who?] believe that the election of the current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has increased Iranian support for the group.[14] In addition to the millions of dollars a year Iran provides to Hezbollah are weapons such as mortars, Sagger anti-tank guided missiles, mines, explosives and small arms. Iran is believed to train Hezbollah mostly by its al-Quds force in its “Imam Ali” base in northern Tehran.[citation needed]

•

Israel Iran (along with 34 other nations) does not formally recognize the nation state of Israel. Iran has a historical connection to military attacks in Israel, lending support to groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. Recently they have been accused of taking control of "many terrorist cells" in Yasser Arafat's Fatah Movement in Palestine and Israel believes they are the architects of the AlAqsa Martyrs' Brigades. Some[who?] believe that Iran controls the majority of terrorism in Israel.[15] Iran has had public diplomatic relations with Hamas since the 1990s when they invited representatives to attend the Foreign Ministry's institute that studies international and political affairs. In 1992 several million dollars were transferred to Hamas’ account, including money originating from the Iranian “Fund for the Martyrs”, which grants assistance to victims of the “Palestinian Uprising”.[citation needed] Palestinian Islamic Jihad is considered the most loyal Palestinian group to Iran despite being Sunni. Iran is believed to provide the organization’s activists with logistic support and Iranian identification papers.[citation needed]

Iraq Claims Iran has been accused by the United States of giving weapons and support to the Iraqi insurgency. The United States State Department claim that weapons are smuggled into Iraq and used to arm Iran's allies among the Shiite militias, including those of the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army.[16] Evidence for this is that weapons, including mortars, rockets and munitions bear Iranian markings. U.S. commanders report that these bombs inflicted 30 percent of all American military casualties in Iraq excluding Anbar province, where these weapons have not been found. Furthermore U.S. intelligence has obtained satellite photographs of three training camps for Iraqi insurgents near Iran's capital where they are allegedly trained guerilla tactics, kidnapping and assassination.[17] Admiral and United States Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell stated in an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations that there is overwhelming evidence that Iran is arming the insurgency in Iraq, "The Iranians today, we have clear evidence, are providing the very weapons that are causing U.S. servicemen and women to die. That’s clear, that’s not refuted, that’s not hawkish, that’s not shaded. That is the fact." He stated that Iran is providing explosively formed projectiles, a very deadly weapon to the Shiite militants in Iraq.[18] During his address to the United States Congress on September 11, 2007, Commanding officer for the United States forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus noted that the multinational forces in Iraq have found that Iran's Quds force has provided training, equipment, funding, and direction to terrorists. “When we captured the leaders of these so-called special groups … and the deputy commander of a Lebanese Hezbollah department that was created to support their efforts in Iraq, we’ve learned a great deal about how Iran has, in fact, supported these elements and how those elements have carried out violent acts against our forces, Iraqi forces and innocent civilians.”[19]

Denials Despite these claims, no supportive evidence has ever been made viewable to the public or press, and while in the past US officials made the claim that the evidence was held in Iraq's possession and it would be up to them to decide whether to reveal it or not, Iraqi officials have claimed on various occasions that in fact no such evidence exists.[20] At one point in May 2008 the US military was going to present a display to press representatives of alleged Iranian arms seized in Iraq, but had to cancel the showing when it was discovered last minute that none of the weapons actually were of Iranian origin.[21] A May 2008 TIME article detailed the speculative origins of the US' allegations against Iran[22] Iran has denied that it supports the Iraqi insurgency, and claims that it is the presence of US troops that aggravates violence. Abbas Araghchi, Iran's deputy foreign minister, said "For the sake of peace and stability in Iraq we need a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces. Violence in Iraq is good for no country in the region. Security of Iraq is our security and stability in Iraq is a necessity for peace and security in the region."[23] Iran has strong ties with Iraq Shia political groups,

17

and would rather see the Shia dominated government remain in power than have Iraq splinter.[24] Iraqi prime minister Nouri Maliki has praised Iran for its positive and constructive stance on Iraq, including providing security and fighting terrorism.[4] Iraqi officials, including Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, have repeatedly stated that US allegations of Iranian weapons smuggling are not shared by them and represent only the US' personal speculation.[25]

Taliban insurgency U.S. and British officials have accused Iran of giving weapons and support to the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.[2][3] Chris Alexander, the deputy United Nations representative to Kabul, has stated that the UN has seen no evidence of this, and that weapons and arms are principally smuggled across the porous Pakistani border.[5] Afghan President Hamid Karzai has praised Iran, saying "we have had, very good, very close relations... so far, Iran has been a helper and a solution".[5] Mohsen Rezaie, former head of the Revolutionary Guards, has claimed that Iran helped to overthrow the Taliban, with Revolutionary Guard troops fighting alongside the Northern Alliance in the months following the September 11, 2001 attacks.[26] TIME Magazine described Iran as "implacably hostile to the Taliban over that movement's extremist theology and over its killing of Afghan Shiite Muslims. In 1999, Iran almost went to war against the Taliban after its militia killed eight Iranian diplomats and a journalist after capturing a predominantly Shiite town, and has worked together with Russia to support anti-Taliban opposition forces."[27] The Islamic government of Iran has a hardline policy against drugs. More than 3,000 security personnel have been killed in armed clashes with drug traffickers since the 1979 Islamic revolution.[28] This has often brough the government of Iran into direct conflict with the Taliban, which controls the drug trade in neighbouring Afghanistan, and uses Iran as the first step in transit routes to western Europe.[29]

Other allegations Along with the above allegations, Iran is also accused of other acts of terrorism. Including: • The 1988 murder and kidnapping of Colonel William Higgins in Lebanon. • The Fatwa placed on Indian-born British author Salman Rushdie for his novel The Satanic Verses.[1] In April 1996, Mohammad Yazdi, the head of Iran's judiciary stated that "[the fatwah on Rushdie] will finally be carried out someday". • Attempting to disrupt the talks at the Madrid Conference in the early 1990s. o October 28, 1991 - An American Sergeant's car is detonated in Istanbul, Turkey, the Turkish Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. o October 29, 1991 - A rocket is fired at the American Embassy in Beirut. The Revolutionary Arab Forces claimed responsibility in protest against the Peace Process. o October 30, 1991 - A rocket is fired at the Spanish Consulate in Zidon.[citation needed] • Concerns have been raised in December 2007 by the United States and allies about Iran's involvement in the nation of Nicaragua[30] See also

• • • • • • •

Iran Terrorism State Terrorism Hezbollah Palestine Tarik Farhat Iran and weapons of mass destruction

• • •

Allegations of state terrorism by Russia Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

^ a b c "State Sponsors: Iran". Council of Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/. Retrieved on 4 August 2007 ^ a b "Iran arming Taliban, U.S. claims". CNN. 2007-06-13. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/06/13/iran.taliban/index.html ^ a b Mark Townsend (2008-06-22). "Special forces find proof of Iran supplying Taliban with equipment to fight British". The Observer. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/22/military.afghanistan?gusrc=rss&feed=uknews ^ a b BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iran urges US pull-out from Iraq ^ a b c UN envoy doubts U.S. assertion Iran arming Afghan insurgents ^ "Saudi cleric blasts Israel". BBC. 2002-02-22

18

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

^ a b c "Qods (Jerusalem) Force Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC -Pasdaran-e Inqilab)". GlobalSecurity.org. 2005-04-26 ^ "Senate on Iran Revolutionary Guard: Terrorist Organization". Friends Committee on National Legislation. 2007-09-26 ^ "U.S. to Label Iran Revolutionary Guard ‘Terrorists’". Fox News. 2007-08-15 ^ "Operations Ministry of Intelligence and Security MOIS Vezarat-e Ettela'at va Amniat-e Keshvar VEVAK". FAS. 199712-08 ^ "Iran Hostage Crisis". infoplease.com ^ "Hezbollah". MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base ^ William, Beeman (2006-08-15). "Examining Irans ties to Hezbollah". In These Times ^ "Understanding the Iran-Hezbollah Connection". United States Institute of Peace. 2006-09 ^ La Guardia, Anton (2004-10-15). "Iran "in control of terrorism in Israel"". Telegraph ^ "Chapter 6 -- State Sponsors of Terror Overview". U.S. Department of State. 2006-04-28 ^ Caldwell, Robert (2007-08-03). "Iran and Syria's proxy war in Iraq". Bend Weekly ^ Kaplan, Eben (2007-07-28). "McConnell Cites ‘Overwhelming Evidence’ of Iran’s Support for Iraqi Insurgents". Council on Foreign Relations ^ Bowers, Carol (2007-09-11). "Iran Playing ‘Destabilizing Role’ in Iraq". U.S. Department of Defense ^ "Iraqi official says Iran arms evidence not conclusive". Wiredispatch. May 4, 2008 ^ "IRAQ: The elusive Iranian weapons". L.A. Times. May 8, 2008 ^ "Doubting the Evidence Against Iran". TIME. May 5, 2008 ^ U.S., Iran trade barbs in direct talks - Boston.com ^ BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iraq PM Maliki in Iran for talks ^ "Talabani: Iran sends no weapon to Iraq". PRESS TV. 17 May 2008 ^ Barbara Slavin (2005-09-06). "Iran helped overthrow Taliban, candidate says". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-09-iran-taliban_x.htm ^ Tony Karon (2001-09-18). "TIME.com Primer: The Taliban and Afghanistan". TIME Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,175372,00.html ^ Gareth Porter (2007-06-20). "U.S.-IRAN: New Arms Claim Reveals Cheney-Military Rift". http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38244 ^ SEBASTIAN ABBOT and NASSER KARIMI. "West links drug war aid to Iranian nuclear impasse". Associated Press. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gJMIrzAC9Dw01J0mpOWszgsUt5cgD91GCHT80 ^ Bensman, Todd (2007-12-18). "Iran's push into Nicaragua a worry for U.S., allies". San Antonio Express News

External links

• •

Gareth Porter, Bush's Iran/Argentina Terror Frame-Up, The Nation, posted January 18, 2008 (web only), [1]. Nir Rosen, Selling the War with Iran, The Washington Note, Thursday, May 1 2008, [2].

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – Hezbollah Emblem - President Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy show respect to the victims of 1983 barracks bombing

Iran Hostage Crisis

19

Current international tensions with Iran (from ationmaster Encyclopedia) This page is protected from moves until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page. The reason for its protection is listed at the list of protected pages. The page may still be edited but cannot be moved until unprotected. Protection is not an endorsement of the current page name (Current international tensions with Iran). You may also request unprotection. The neutrality and factual accuracy Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

of

this

article

are

disputed.

This article is about the current international tensions between Iran and other countries, especially the United States and Israel. Image File history File links Circle-question-red. ... Image File history File links Unbalanced_scales. ... Image File history File links Current_event_marker. ... Since the Iranian revolution of 1979, Iran has had some difficult relations with Western countries, especially the United States. Iran has been under constant US unilateral sanctions, which were tightened under the presidency of Bill Clinton. William Jefferson Bill Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III[1] on August 19, 1946) was the 42nd President of the United States, serving from 1993 to 2001. Iran has had a civilian nuclear program since before the 1979 revolution. However, since the revolution, there has been some worries that Iran could use this program to develop nuclear weapons. These worries have been raised by the revelation, on August 2002, by Alireza Jafarzadeh, a prominent associate of MKO, of the existence of two secret nuclear sites: a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz (part of which is underground), and a heavy water facility in Arak. There is however no proof at this stage that this program is not purely civilian. This article is about Irans nuclear power programme. ... Alireza Jafarzadeh Alireza Jafarzadeh (born 1957) is an expert on the Middle East, an author, a media commentator, and and an active dissident figure to the Iranian government who is best known for revealing the existence of clandestine nuclear facilities in Iran in 2002. ... MKO Logo The Peoples Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI) (Persian: سازمان مجاهدين خلق ايران sazmaan-e mujahedin-e khalq-e Iran) is a political party that advocates overthrowing the government in the Islamic Republic of Iran and replacing it with its own leadership. ... At the same time, Iran has been accused by the United States of supporting Islamic movements in the Middle East, and supplying militias in Iraq. Iran has also directed strong rhetoric towards Israel, including questioning the legitimacy of its existence. Because of these factors, tensions between between some states and Iran has degenerated into what some politicians, like Romano Prodi[1], Prime Minister of Italy or journalists call an "international crisis", up the point where the United States and Israel have refused to exclude the use of force to stop the Iranian nuclear program, although they have always stressed that they consider the use of force as a last resort. (born 9 August 1939) is a centre-left Italian politician. ... An international crisis is a crisis between nations. ...

Diplomatic activity linked to Iranian nuclear program Main article: #uclear program of Iran The Iranian nuclear program has been controversial as, although the development of a civilian nuclear power program, including enrichment activities, is explicitly allowed under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, there have been allegations that Iran has been illicitly persuing a nuclear weapons program, in violation of the NPT (see Iran and weapons of mass destruction). This article is about Irans nuclear power programme. ... Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Opened for signature July 1, 1968 in New York Entered into force March 5, 1970 Conditions for entry into force Ratification by the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, the United States, and 40 other signatory states. ... As of 2006, Iran is not known to possess weapons of mass destruction and has signed treaties repudiating possession of them, including the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). ... Under the leadership of the United States and of the European Union, the international community has requested the end of enrichment activities in Iran. The 118 member states of the Non-Aligned Movement however have backed Iran's right to "acquire peaceful nuclear technology".[2] These pie-graphs showing the relative proportions of uranium238 (blue) and uranium-235 (red) at different levels of enrichment. ... Member states of the Non-Aligned Movement (2005). ... This diplomatic effort culminated in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737, adopted (after a significant amount of diplomatic efforts) with the approval of both China and Russia (which held veto power). This resolution imposes specific, but light, economic sanctions solely linked to Iran's nuclear program. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737 was unanimously passed by the United Nations Security Council on 23 December 2006. ... The resolution mentions that in the event that "Iran has not complied with this resolution, [the security council will] adopt further appropriate measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United #ations to persuade Iran to comply with this resolution and the requirements of the IAEA, and underlines that further decisions will be required should such additional measures be necessary." According to the resolution, Iran must comply within 60 days, i.e. before 20th February, 2007.

20

Iran has strongly rejected this resolution. Iran's parliament passed a bill on 27 December 2006 obliging the government to "revise" its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and to accelerate its drive to master nuclear technology in a reaction to the U.N. resolution. The bill gave President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government a free hand to adopt a tougher line against the IAEA, including ending its inspections of Iran's atomic facilities.

On February 20, 2007, before the expiration of the United Nations Security Council deadline asking Iran to suspend uraninium enrichement, Ali Larijani, Iran's Head of the National Security Council, warned that “double standards will severely damage the credibility of international bodies“. “I think certain countries are seeking adventure on Iran’s nuclear case. You know that some countries until now have not signed the NPT, but are conducting nuclear activities,“ he said, regretting that no action has been taken against such countries while the UN Security Council has passed a resolution against Iran. [3] The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is the organ of the United Nations charged with maintaining peace and security among nations. ... A double standard is an ethical rule applied more stringently to one party than to others. ...

On March 2, 2007, six key nations, including the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council, which hold veto power, have agreed to pass a new resolution to impose tougher sanctions on Iran regarding its nuclear issue at the United Nations Security Council, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said.[4]

Opposition inside Iran to non-cooperation with U On 20 February 2007, one small radical reformist political party, the Islamic Revolutionary Mujahadin Organisation, has complained that Iran's drive to produce nuclear energy has endangered national security, the national interest and the destiny of the Iranian people.[5]

On 26 February, 2007, the conservative daily Resalat chided Ahmadinejad, saying "neither weakness nor unnecessarily offensive language is acceptable in foreign policy."[6]

Statements by Iranian leaders against Israel Main article: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel See also: Iran-Israel relations Iranian leaders have made vehement declarations against Israel. Ahmadinejad was widely reported as calling for Israel to be "Wiped off the map."[7] However, this translation is disputed, and some have considered it a psyop[8] (See: Translation of phrase "wiped off the map"). During his presidency, Mahmoud Ahmadinejads speeches and statements have contributed to increased tensions between Iran and Israel, and between Iran and a few Western nations. ... Relations between Iran and Israel have alternated from close political alliances between the two states during the era of the Pahlavi dynasty to hostility following the rise to power of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. ... Psychological Operations or PSYOP or PSYOPS are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to specific audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. ... During his presidency, Mahmoud Ahmadinejads speeches and statements have contributed to increased tensions between Iran and Israel, and between Iran and a few Western nations. ...

The Iranian government has stressed they did not call for an attack on Israel. Rather, they wish to allow Palestinian refugees to return to Palestine, whereupon all inhabitants will vote on its political future.[9] These "clarifications" are seen in Israel as a diplomatic smokescreen. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a Palestinian refugee is a refugee from Palestine created by the Palestinian Exodus, which Palestinians call the Nakba (نكبة, meaning disaster). History Most of the refugees had already fled by the time the neighboring Arab states intervened on the side of Palestinians...

"For many long years, we have followed Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, in the guise of a civilian nuclear program," said Prime Minister of Israel Olmert.[10]

21

In November 2003, Israel’s defence minister Shaul Mofaz has made what sources have described as a warning of "unprecedented severity." Mofaz set out his government’s position last week during a visit to the United States stating that "under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession".[11] Israel's fear of Iran grew after former CIA Director James Woolsey told the January 2007 security conference that "Iran is not remotely interested in nuclear power for purposes of electricity." He described the Islamic republic as "a theocratic totalitarian movement for which destruction of Israel and the United States is not a policy but its very essence. It defines itself in that way. Saying that it should change its policy with respect to destroying Israel and the United States is like trying to persuade Hitler away from anti-semitism." [12] Robert James Woolsey, Jr. ... Adolf Hitler Adolf Hitler (April 20, 1889 – April 30, 1945, standard German pronunciation in the IPA) was the Führer (leader) of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi Party) and of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. ... The Eternal Jew: 1937 German poster. ...

Support of "Islamism" The Islamic Republic funds and arms militant groups Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.[13] Iran (Persian: ایران) is a Middle Eastern country located in southwestern Asia. ... For other uses, see Hezbollah (disambiguation). ... Hamas (Arabic: ‎; acronym: Arabic: ‎, or Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya or Islamic Resistance Movement; the Arabic acronym means zeal) is a Palestinian Islamist organization that currently (since January 2006) forms the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority. ... Islamic Jihad (Arabic: ‎, Harakat al-Jihad al-Islami) is a terrorist Islamist group based in the Syrian capital, Damascus. ... The U.S. State Department claims this makes Iran an active sponsor of terrorism.[14] Iran was added in 1984 on the U.S. list of state sponsors of international terrorism. According to the State Department, Iran "continued to provide Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian rejectionist groups—notably Hamas, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the PFLP-GC—with varying amounts of funding, safe haven, training, and weapons. It also encouraged Hezbollah and the rejectionist Palestinian groups to coordinate their planning and to escalate their activities." The United States Department of State, often referred to as the State Department, is the Cabinet-level foreign affairs agency of the United States government, equivalent to foreign ministries in other countries. ... Terrorist redirects here. ... The U.S. list of state sponsors of international terrorism is a list, compiled by the U.S. State Department, of countries that the United States sees as sponsoring terrorism. ... Hamas (Arabic: ‎; acronym: Arabic: ‎, or Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya or Islamic Resistance Movement; the Arabic acronym means zeal) is a Palestinian Islamist organization that currently (since January 2006) forms the majority party of the Palestinian National Authority. ... Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ, Arabic Harakat al-Jihad al-Islami al-Filastini) is a militant group, widely regarded as terrorist throughout the world, whose goal is the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with an Islamist state for Palestinian Arabs. ... The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command is a left-wing Palestinian nationalist organization. ... For other uses, see Hezbollah (disambiguation). ... Iran, like several countries, does not recognize these groups as terrorist groups, instead qualifying them as resistance movements to Israeli occupation.

Iranian activity in Iraq Iran has taken an active role in Iraq. Talks between the two nations (Iran and Iraq) have been successful, with Iran even going so far as to build a major Iranian Bank branch inside Iraq.[15]. Iran stresses that it supports the government of Iraq. Indeed the main party that supports the Iraqi government and the US coalition, SCIRI, is also close to Iran. Its leader, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who has been invited at the White House, was a refugee in Iran when Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq. On 21 February 2007, his own son, coming from Iran with armed guards, has been arrested by US forces and later released with excuses by US forces.[16] Image File history File links Meeting_of_Irap_president_Jalal_Talabani_with_supreme_leader_of_Iran_Khamenei. ... Image File history File links Meeting_of_Irap_president_Jalal_Talabani_with_supreme_leader_of_Iran_Khamenei. ... Jalal Talabani (Kurdish: / Celal Talebanî / Jelal Talebanà Arabic: ‎, ) (born 1933), is an Iraqi politician, who was elected President of Iraq on April 6, 2005, (sworn in the next day, April 7, and once again on April 22, 2006, by the Iraqi National Assembly. ... Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei (Persian: آیت‌الله سید علی خامنه‌ای) (born July 15, 1939) is the Supreme Leader of Iran. ... The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) is an Iraqi political party; its support comes from the countrys Shia Muslim community and from their fellow religionists in neighbouring Iran. ... Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim (Arabic: عبدالعزيز الØكيم ) (born 1953) is an Iraqi theologian and politician and the leader of SCIRI, the largest political party in the Iraqi Council of Representatives. ... The US have, however, contended that Iran supports some Shiite militias that are alleged to be against the Iraq government, especially the Mahdi army of Muqtada al-Sadr. According to the Iranian ambassador to Iraq, the US is currently detaining 6 Iranian diplomats and 30 Iranian nationals in Iraq.[17] This number has neither been confirmed nor denied by US officials. On February 28, 2007, the United States however agreed to participate to an international conference to be called by the government of Iraq to discuss Iraq security crisis, where the government of Iran is also invited. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the United States would join the meeting and that Washington supported the Iraqi government's invitation to Iran and Syria.[18] Members parade in Sadr City The Mahdi Army, also known as the Mahdi Militia, Mehdi Army or Jaish al Mahdi (Arabic جيش المهدي) , is a militia force created by the Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in June of 2003. ... Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr ( MuqtadÄ aá¹£-á¹¢adr) (b. ... Iranian officials arrested by US forces in Baghdad Main article: Qods Force#2006 Arrests in Iraq On December 25, 2006, the United States arrested at least four senior military officials on their visit to Baghdad.[19] It has been mentioned that the Iranians have been arrested after US soldiers raided the compound of Shiite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the influential Shiite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). President of Iraq Talabani, a strong US ally, has asked for their release. Hiwa Othman, Talabani's media adviser, told Reuters: "The president is unhappy. He is talking to the Americans about it as we speak."

22

Othman said the Iranian diplomats came to Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi leader but he was not aware if they had met with him."The invitation was within the framework of an agreement between Iran and Iraq to improve the security situation." Finally, it seems that they have been released on 30 December. One of the commanders, identified by officials simply as Chizari, was the thirdhighest-ranking official of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' al-Quds Brigade, the unit most active in aiding, arming and training groups outside Iran, including Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, U.S. officials said. Qods (Jerusalem) Force is an elite unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) that carries out operations outside of Iran. ... December 25 is the 359th day of the year (360th in leap years) in the Gregorian Calendar, with 6 days remaining in the year. ... For the Manfred Mann album, see 2006 (album). ... Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim (Arabic: عبدالعزيز الØكيم ) (born 1953) is an Iraqi theologian and politician and the leader of SCIRI, the largest political party in the Iraqi Council of Representatives. ... The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) is an Iraqi political party; its support comes from the countrys Shia Muslim community and from their fellow religionists in neighbouring Iran. ... This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ... According to the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which mentions as a source "American intelligence officials", without naming them, Iran "is working closely with both the Shiite militias and Sunni Jihadist groups" in order to stymie a secular government in Iraq.[20] To meet Wikipedias quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. ... Private militias in Iraq is a phenomenon that has not been common after complete revolutions that terminate a nations constitution. ... The Iraqi insurgency is the armed resistance by diverse groups within Iraq of the coalition occupation of Iraq. ... On 4 January 2007, the BBC's flagship political programme Newsnight cited British authorities in Iraq as saying that while the arrests produced highly important intelligence information, there was no "smoking gun" about weapons supplies or attacks. "There was discussion of whether the Maliki government would succeed, who should be in which ministerial jobs... It was a very significant meeting," one official said. The BBC said US sensitivity to the matter comes from discovering evidence that Iran is trying to turn the situation in Iraq to its advantage, to the extent of trying to influence the make-up of the Baghdad government. Attack by US forces on an Iranian consulate in Irbil Main article: US attack on Iranian liaison office in Arbil Five United States helicopters landed on the roof of the consulate in the northern city of Irbil. American soldiers broke down the doors, detained five people and took away papers and computers. The raid came as American leaders step up their rhetoric against Iran. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Tehran is arming the insurgents in Iraq.[21] An Iranian foreign ministry official in a meeting with the Iraqi ambassador to Tehran here on Friday stressed that Baghdad should not allow the United States to interfere in Iran-Iraq relations. "We expect the Iraqi government to take immediate measures to set the aforesaid individuals free and to condemn the US troopers for the measure," the official stressed. For his part, Iraqi ambassador to Tehran expressed regret over the incident and pledged to pursue the case through the officials of his country.[22] According to Associated Press, The Iraqi foreign minister called Sunday 14 January for the release of five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in what he said was a legitimate mission in northern Iraq. US accusation of supporting attacks on American troops Further information: Kill or Capture strategy , Karbala provincial headquarters raid, and Iranian Support for Lethal Activity in Iraq In his January 10, 2007 address to the nation, President Bush asserted that succeeding in Iraq begins with addressing Iran and Syria. "Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq," Bush said.[23] Combatants United States Iraqi insurgents Strength at least 12 9-12 Casualties 5 killed (4 initially captured then killed), 3 wounded none The raid of the Karbala provincial headquarters was an infiltration attack carried out on 20 January 2007 by insurgent commandos, with possible Iranian involvement,[1] on a meeting... January 10 is the 10th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. ... 2007 (MMVII) is the current year, a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar and the Anno Domini (common) era. ... During the following weeks, Bush's statements were criticized for preparing the US for an attack on Iran without Congressional approval. His actions with regards to Iran were also called "offensive and provocative."[24] On 2nd February, 2007, Bush administration officials acknowledged that they had yet to compile evidence strong enough to back up publicly their claims that Iran is fomenting violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.[25] On 12th February, 2007, US administration organized a briefing in Bagdad to make their case. Journalists were told that the use of the deadliest form of roadside bomb known as EFP's - explosively formed penetrators - had nearly doubled last year. They were said there was a "growing body of evidence pointing to Iranian supply of EFPs to Iraqi extremist groups". "They condemn us for making problems in Iraq, but they don't have any documentary proof," Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hossaini told reporters. "Lots of this evidence is fake, artificial. For example, when they wanted to start a war in Iraq, they made plenty of evidence that there were lots of weapons in Iraq, though the investigators of the International Atomic Energy Agency said they couldn't find any weapons in Iraq," he said. "Right now they're using weapons [with certain markings], but it doesn't prove where these weapons came from.[26] Iranian envoy kidnapped by Iraqi gunmen Main article: Baghdad kidnapping of Iranian diplomat (February 2007) Iraqi gunmen dressed in military uniforms kidnapped the second secretary of the Iranian embassy, Jalal Sharafi, on February 4, 2007 as he drove through central Baghdad. One official of the Iraqi government stated that the abduction occurred at the hands of a special army unit that reports directly to the US military command, but this was denied by American military officials.[27] Iran's Foreign Ministry has condemned the kidnapping and pinned the blame on the US.[28] February 4 is the 35th day of the year in the Gregorian Calendar. ... 2007 (MMVII) is the current year, a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar and the Anno Domini (common) era. ...

23

Economic sanctions against Iran Since the 1979 revolution in Iran, the country has been under constant US unilateral sanctions. The first U.S. sanctions against Iran were formalized in November of 1979, and during the hostage crisis, many sanctions were leveled against the Iranian government. By 1987 the import of Iranian goods into the United States had been banned. In 1995, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12957, banning U.S. investment in Iran's energy sector, followed a few weeks later by Executive Order 12959 of May 9, 1995, eliminating all trade and investment and virtually all interaction between the United States and Iran. For details of current US sanctions, see the page of US Treasury. The United States have not been followed yet by other countries. But the UN sanctions are the first international sanctions levied on Iran. The United States is pushing for more economic sanctions against Iran [29]. Under a proposal by Germany, which holds the EU presidency during the first semester of 2007, the European Union is also considering imposing sanctions that go beyond the UN sanctions[30] but has not made any decision yet. Presidency of the Council of the European Union refers to the responsibility of presiding over all aspects of the Council of the European Union, when exercised collectively by a government, on a pre-established rota of the member states, of the European Union. ...

Alleged preparation for a war Further information: Plans for strikes against the Iranian nuclear program United States and Israel have refused to exclude the use of force to stop the Iranian nuclear program. They have, however, always stressed that they consider the use of force as a last resort. As negotiations continue over the Iranian nuclear program, many press reports have revealed possible military plans for airstrikes against facilities connected to the program by the Israeli and or US military. ... Starting in 2005, several analysts, including Seymour Hersh,[31] former UN weapons of mass destruction inspector in Iraq from 1991-1998, Scott Ritter[32], Joseph Cirincione, director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace[33], Professor at the University of San Francisco and Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project, Stephen Zunes[34] claimed that the United States planned a military attack against Iran. 2005 (MMV) was a common year starting on Saturday of the Gregorian calendar. ... Seymour Myron Sy Hersh (born April 8, 1937 Chicago) is an American Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist and author based in Washington, DC. He is a regular contributor to The New Yorker magazine on military and security matters. ... For the album, see Weapons of Mass Destruction (album). ... Iraq and weapons of mass destruction concerns the Iraqi governments use, possession, and alleged intention of acquiring more types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) during the presidency of Saddam Hussein. ... 1991 (MCMXCI) was a common year starting on Tuesday of the Gregorian calendar. ... 1998 (MCMXCVIII) was a common year starting on Thursday of the Gregorian calendar, and was designated the International Year of the Ocean. ... Scott Ritter speaks at SUNY New Paltz on March 16, 2006. ... Joseph Cirincione (b. ... The Endowments headquarters at 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a private nonprofit organization promoting international cooperation and active international engagement by the United States of America. ... The University of San Francisco (often abbreviated USF, or sometimes USFCA) is a private, coeducational Jesuit university in the United States. ... Stephen Zunes (b. ... Dec 19, 2006: According to CBS News report, the Pentagon is planning to bolster its presence in the Persian Gulf as a warning to Iran's continuously defiant government. CBS News national security correspondent David Martin says the U.S. military build-up, which would include adding a second aircraft carrier to the one already in the Gulf, is being proposed as a response to what U.S. officials view as an increasingly provocative Iranian leadership.[35] Dec 22, 2006: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that an increased US naval presence in the Persian Gulf is not a response to any action by Iran but a message that the United States will keep and maintain its regional footprint "for a long time." Jan 6, 2007, a news agency reported that Israeli military sources had revealed a plan to strike the enrichment plant at Natanz using low-yield nuclear "bunker-busters."[36] The disclosure may have been done to increase pressure on Iran to cease enrichment activities. The Israeli government denied this report. In Tehran, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told a news conference that the newspaper report "will make clear to the world public opinion that the Zionist regime is the main menace to global peace and the region." He said "any measure against Iran will not be left without a response and the invader will regret its act immediately."[37]. Categories: Wikipedia cleanup | Iran geography stubs | Cities in Iran ... Jan 11, 2007: Administration officials said that the battle group would be stationed within quick sailing distance of Iran, a response to the growing concern that Iran is building up its own missile capacity and naval power, with the goal of military dominance in the Gulf.[38]. Jan 12, 2007: President Bush accused Iran in a speech this week of helping launch attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq. His remarks were followed by combative comments from his top war advisors, new moves by U.S. naval forces and a raid Thursday in the Kurdish-controlled city of Irbil. The administration moved Friday 12 January to defuse concerns that it was planning or inviting a confrontation with Tehran. At a news conference, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow dismissed as an "urban legend" suggestions that the United States was preparing for another war. Similar denials were issued by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.[39] Jan 14, 2007: A former Russian Black Sea Fleet Commander, Admiral Edward Baltin, says he believes the presence of so many US nuclear submarines in the Persian Gulf meant a strike was likely.[40] Jan 24, 2007: Iranian officials said Wednesday that they had received a delivery of advanced Russian air defense systems that are designed to protect its nuclear facilities at Isfahan, Bushehr, Tehran, and eastern Iran from attack, primarily from Israeli or American aircraft.[41] Jan 24, 2007: Writing for Global Research, General Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy on Geopolitical Affairs and former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armies, forecasts an American nuclear attack on Iran by the end of April. He also believes, like Scott Ritter, that the US will use tactical nuclear weapons.[42] Feb 18, 2007: According to Scott Ritter, who reiterated his view that Iran will be attacked by the US, the Pentagon has negotiated basing rights in Romania and Bulgaria so that B-1 and B-2 bombers can operate out of airfields there.[43]

24

Opposition to a possible war Main article: Opposition to war against Iran Opposition to a perceived risk of a military attack on Iran by the United States is known to have started during 2005-2006. ... Opposition inside the United States For opponents to war like Scott Ritter, there is no proof that Iran nuclear program is not peaceful, but the real reason for war is regime change, not nuclear weapons. "We are seeing history repeat itself", says Scott Ritter, comparing preparation of Iran war with preparation of Iraq war. Scott Ritter speaks at SUNY New Paltz on March 16, 2006. ... This article is about the act of overthrowing a government. ... In reaction to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737, the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran issued a statement titled "A Terrible Day for International Diplomacy"[44] dated December 24, 2006. In the statement CASMII expresses grave concern over the UN resolution. It characterizes the unanimous verdict as having been engineered by the US. The statement argues that the resolution could be abused and taken as a justification for war, just like the 2002 resolution -also unanimously passed- was used as an eventual justification for the US/UK invasion of Iraq. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737 was unanimously passed by the United Nations Security Council on 23 December 2006. ... Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) is a group of people, especially academics, students and professionals of both Iranian and non-Iranian backgrounds whose aim is to advocate against war and sanctions, especially as they pertain to current United States-Iran relations. ... Opposition in the United States Congress The War Powers Act of 1973 gives the US president legal authority to wage war against any country for 60 days. The War Powers Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-148) limits the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of Congress. ... However, some congressmen denied this: "The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid on January 18, 2007, at the National Press Club.[46] The same day, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives pushed legislation to prohibit a U.S. attack on Iran without congressional permission. The effort, led by Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican. "The resolution makes crystal clear that no previous resolution passed by Congress authorizes a U.S. attack on Iran", Jones told reporters, referring to the 2002 vote by Congress authorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The joint resolution would have to be passed by the House and Senate and signed by President George W. Bush to acquire the force of law. It would waive the congressional authorization only if Iran attacked the United States or its armed forces, or if such an attack was "demonstrably" imminent. So far, Jones' resolution has 11 co-sponsors in the 435-member House.[47] Seal of the House of Representatives The United States House of Representatives (or simply the House) is one of the two chambers of the United States Congress, the other being the Senate. ... Seal of the U.S. Senate Federal courts Supreme Court Chief Justice Associate Justices Elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Political Parties Democratic Republican Third parties State & Local government Governors Legislatures State Courts Counties, Cities, and Towns Other countries Politics Portal Senate composition following 2006 elections The United States Senate is... International opposition to war by a majority of countries and the majority of the World Population On September 16, 2006 in Havana, Cuba, all of the 118 on-Aligned Movement member countries representing 55% of the world population and the majority of all the 192 U member countries, at the summit level, declared supporting Iran's nuclear programme for civilian purposes and opposing any military attacks against nuclear facilities in their final written statement.[48] Map of countries by population —showing the population of the Peoples Republic of China and India, the only two countries to have a population greater than a billion. ... Member states of the on-Aligned Movement (2005). ... Map of countries by population —showing the population of the Peoples Republic of China and India, the only two countries to have a population greater than a billion. ... Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Thursday, 25 January 2007 that An attack on Iran would be catastrophic and encourage it to develop a nuclear bomb. Pakistan's Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz also warned against an attack. "If there is military action, it will have catastrophic results, not only in the region, but the whole world," Aziz said during a panel discussion on nuclear proliferation at the World Economic Forum in Davos.[49] This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ... See also Iran for all general information concerning Iran Nuclear program of Iran Iran and weapons of mass destruction Military of Iran United States-Iran relations Iran-Israel relations Opposition to war against Iran Islamism Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel Government-organized demonstration in Iran Anti-Iranianism

25

This article is about Irans nuclear power programme. ... As of 2006, Iran is not known to possess weapons of mass destruction and has signed treaties repudiating possession of them, including the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). ... The Islamic Republic of Iran has two kinds of armed forces: the regular forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). ... Political relations between Iran (Persia) and the United States began when the Shah of Persia, Nassereddin Shah Qajar, officially dispatched Persias first ambassador, Mirza Abolhasan Shirazi (ميرزا ابولØسن شيرازی), to Washington D.C. in the mid to late 1800s. ... Relations between Iran and Israel have alternated from close political alliances between the two states during the era of the Pahlavi dynasty to hostility following the rise to power of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. ... Opposition to a perceived risk of a military attack on Iran by the United States is known to have started during 2005-2006. ... Political Ideologies Part of the Politics series Politics Portal This box: This article is about political Islamism. ... (Persian: ‎ ​, IPA: ), transcribed into English as Mahmud or Mahmood, Ahmadinezhad, AhmadiNejad, Ahmadi Nejad, Ahmady Nejad) (born October 28, 1956) is the current president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. ... During his presidency, Mahmoud Ahmadinejads speeches and statements have contributed to increased tensions between Iran and Israel, and between Iran and a few Western nations. ... Government-organized demonstrations or state demonstrations are demonstrations whereat government employees march and protest on behalf and at the behest of the government in civilian clothes. ... Teddy Bear with Nuke Iran T-Shirt. ... External links References and notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

^ Iran nuclear ^ Fars News Agency, Jan 18, 2007. Link: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8510280149 ^ http://iran-daily.com/1385/2788/html/ ^ Key countries agree on new UN resolution on Iran ^ Iran swiftly seeks nuclear goal ^ Some in Iran denounce Ahmadinejad stance ^ AL Jazeera Article: Iranian leadership calls against Israel's existence ^ http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html ^ Interview of Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Time magazine ^ Israel tense over 'the Iranian threat' ^ Israel threatens strikes on Iranian nuclear targets, Ross Dunn, Scotsman.com, Nov 23, 2003 ^ Israel tense over "the Iranian threat" ^ Islam Has Nothing in Common with Democracy Address by an Islamic Revolutionary Guards official. ^ State Sponsors of Terror Overview April 28, 2006 ^ THE REACH OF WAR; IRANIAN REVEALS PLAN TO EXPAND ROLE INSIDE IRAQ. #ew York Times (1-292007). ^ Shiite Protests Send Message ^ Lake, Eli. "Yanks Holding 36 Iranians, Tehran Regime Charges", The #ew York Sun, February 7, 2007. Retrieved February 8, 2007. ^ Iraq's Neighbors Agree to Baghdad Summit ^ White House: Officials Investigating Iranians Detained in Iraq, December 25, 2006 ^ Iran's secret plan for mayhem ^ Iran Protests Consulate Raid In Iraq ^ Tehran Calls on Iraq to Stop US Intervention in Iran-Iraq Ties ^ President's Address to the Nation, The White House, January 10, 2007. Retrieved February 1, 2007. ^ President's Actions Could Lead to Impeachment ^ U.S. can't prove Iran link to Iraq strife ^ ["http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran13feb13,0,5090233.story?coll=la-home-world Iran seen as key to untangling Iraq] ^ Abdul-Zahra, Qassim. "Iraqi Gunmen Seize Iranian Diplomat", Forbes, February 6, 2007. Retrieved February 6, 2007. ^ "Iran foreign ministry condemns recent Iranian diplomat kidnapping", Iranian Students News Agency, February 6, 2007. Retrieved February 7, 2007. ^ The Plan for Economic Strangulation of Iran ^ Germany proposes wider Iran sanctions ^ The Coming War ^ Sleepwalking To Disaster In Iran, April 01, 2005, Scott Ritter ^ Fool Me Twice, March 27, 2006, Joseph Cirincione, Foreign Policy ^ The United States, Israel, and the Possible Attack on Iran, Stephen Zunes, May 2, 2006, ZNet ^ CBS News reports ^ Israel has plans for nuclear strike on Iran: paper Reuters ^ Israel denies plan to hit Iran enrichment plant with tactical nukes ^ Bush signals confrontational turn in Iran policy ^ White House softens Iran tone ^ Russian admiral: Numerous US nuclear subs signals imminent strike on Iran ^ Iran takes possession of Russian air defense missiles

26

42.

^ [http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=IVA20070124&articleId=4581 Iran Must Get Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack] ^ Ritter: Iran is target 43. 44. ^ "A Terrible Day for International Diplomacy", Z#et. Retrieved on 2006-12-24. ^ Tens of Thousands March Against Iraq War 45. ^ Democrats Warn Bush Not to Attack Iran 46. 47. ^ U.S. lawmakers seek to bar U.S. attack on Iran ^ Iran Wins Backing From Nonaligned Bloc. Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty (2006). Retrieved on 2006-09-29. 48. ^ IAEA chief says attack on Iran would be catastrophe 49. Categories: Temporarily page-move protected | Accuracy disputes | Current events | Foreign relations of Iran | Politics of Iran | Middle East | Persian Gulf | United States-Middle Eastern relations | 2006 in Iran The Fars News Agency is an Iranian news agency based in Tehran. ... November 23 is the 327th day of the year (328th in leap years) in the Gregorian Calendar, with 38 days remaining. ... 2003 (MMIII) was a common year starting on Wednesday of the Gregorian calendar. ... This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ... April 28 is the 118th day of the year (119th in leap years) in the Gregorian Calendar, with 247 days remaining. ... For the Manfred Mann album, see 2006 (album). ... The New York Times is an internationally known daily newspaper published in New York City and distributed in the United States and many other nations worldwide. ... December 25 is the 359th day of the year (360th in leap years) in the Gregorian Calendar, with 6 days remaining in the year. ... For the Manfred Mann album, see 2006 (album). ... April 1 is the 91st day of the year (92nd in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar, with 274 days remaining. ... 2005 (MMV) was a common year starting on Saturday of the Gregorian calendar. ... Scott Ritter speaks at SUNY New Paltz on March 16, 2006. ... March 27 is the 86th day of the year in the Gregorian Calendar (87th in leap years). ... For the Manfred Mann album, see 2006 (album). ... Joseph Cirincione (b. ... A foreign policy is a set of political goals that seeks to outline how a particular country will interact with the other countries of the world. ... Stephen Zunes (b. ... May 2 is the 122nd day of the year in the Gregorian calendar (123rd in leap years). ... For the Manfred Mann album, see 2006 (album). ... ZNet, of Z Communications, founded in 1995, is a large website updated many times daily to convey information and provide community, generally focusing on politics from a left-wing perspective. ... ZNet, of Z Communications, founded in 1995, is a large website updated many times daily to convey information and provide community, generally focusing on politics from a left-wing perspective. ... For the Manfred Mann album, see 2006 (album). ... December 24 is the 358th day of the year in the Gregorian Calendar (359th in leap years). ... For the Manfred Mann album, see 2006 (album). ... September 29 is the 272nd day of the year (273rd in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Subcategories There are 3 subcategories to this category. ...

27

Diplomatic tensions between Iran and the United States From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikinews has related news: Iranian President Ahmadinejad speaks at Columbia University

This article is about the current international tensions between Iran and other countries, especially the United States and Israel. Since the Iranian revolution of 1979, Iran has had some difficult relations with Western countries, especially the United States. Iran has been under constant US unilateral sanctions, which were tightened under the presidency of Bill Clinton. Iran has had a civilian nuclear program since before the 1979 revolution. However, since the revolution, there has been some worries that Iran could use this program to develop nuclear weapons. These worries have been raised by the revelation, on August 2002, by Alireza Jafarzadeh, a prominent associate of MKO, of the existence of two secret nuclear sites: a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz (part of which is underground), and a heavy water facility in Arak. There is however no proof at this stage that this program is not purely civilian. At the same time, Iran has been accused by the United States of supporting extremist Islamic movements in the Middle East, and supplying militias in Iraq. Iran has also directed strong rhetoric towards Israel, including questioning the legitimacy of its existence. Because of these factors, tensions between some states and Iran has degenerated into what some politicians, like Romano Prodi[1], Prime Minister of Italy or journalists call an "international crisis", up the point where the United States and Israel have refused to exclude the use of force to stop the Iranian nuclear program, although they have always stressed that they consider the use of force as a last resort.

uclear controversy Diplomatic activity linked to Iranian nuclear program Main article: #uclear program of Iran The Iranian nuclear program has been controversial as, although the development of a civilian nuclear power program, including enrichment activities, is explicitly allowed under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), there have been allegations that Iran has been illicitly pursuing a nuclear weapons program, in violation of the NPT (see Iran and weapons of mass destruction). Under the leadership of the United States and of the European Union, the international community has requested the end of enrichment activities in Iran. The 118 member states of the Non-Aligned Movement however have backed Iran's right to "acquire peaceful nuclear technology".[2] This diplomatic effort culminated in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737, adopted (after a significant amount of diplomatic efforts) with the approval of both China and Russia (which held veto power). This resolution imposes specific, but light, economic sanctions solely linked to Iran's nuclear program. The resolution mentions that in the event that "Iran has not complied with this resolution, [the security council will] adopt further appropriate measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United #ations to persuade Iran to comply with this resolution and the requirements of the IAEA, and underlines that further decisions will be required should such additional measures be necessary." According to the resolution, Iran must comply within 60 days, i.e. before 20th February, 2007. Iran has strongly rejected this resolution. Iran's parliament passed a bill on 27 December 2006 obliging the government to "revise" its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and to accelerate its drive to master nuclear technology in a reaction to the U.N. resolution. The bill gave President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government a free hand to adopt a tougher line against the IAEA, including ending its inspections of Iran's atomic facilities. On March 2, 2007, six key nations, including the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council, which hold veto power, have agreed to pass a new resolution to impose tougher sanctions on Iran regarding its nuclear issue at the United Nations Security Council, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said.[3] In March 2007, Russia announced that construction of a nuclear reactor would be delayed at least two months because Iran had failed to make monthly payments since January. It said the delay could cause "irreversible" damage to the project. Because of the delay, Russia also indefinitely put off the delivery of enriched uranium fuel it had promised to provide Iran in March. Iran, which denied falling behind in payments, was furious, convinced Russia was pressuring the country to bend to the U.N. Security Council, which has placed sanctions against it for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment. The pattern of Russia's behavior has strengthened Iran's determination to obtain the full technology to build nuclear power plants and end its dependence because they say Russia has never been and will never be a reliable partner.[4] Accusation of hypocrisy and double standards by Iran toward the West On February 20, 2007, before the expiration of the United Nations Security Council deadline asking Iran to suspend uraninium enrichment, Ali Larijani, Iran's Head of the National Security Council, warned that “double standards will severely damage the credibility of international bodies“. “I think certain countries are seeking adventure on Iran’s nuclear case. You know that some countries until now have not signed the NPT, but are conducting nuclear activities,“ he said, regretting that no action has been taken against such countries while the UN Security Council has passed a resolution against Iran. [5] On March 18, 2007, Iran, under fire from Western powers over its atomic program, criticized Britain's plans to renew its nuclear arsenal as a "serious setback" to international disarmament efforts. Britain's parliament backed Prime Minister Tony Blair's plans to renew the country's Trident missile nuclear weapons system. "Britain does not have the right to question others when they're not complying with their obligations" referring to the obligation by the U.K., USA, Russia and France to disarm under the NPT accord and "It is very unfortunate that the UK, which is always calling for non-proliferation not only has not given up the weapons but has taken a serious step toward further development of nuclear weapons," Iran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, told a conference examining the Trident decision.[6] In a Question and Answer session following his address

28

to Columbia University on September 24, 2007, the Iranian President remarked: "I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs, or testing them, making them, politically they are backward, retarded."[7] Opposition inside Iran to nuclear energy policy On 20 February 2007, one small radical reformist political party, the Islamic Revolutionary Mujahadin Organisation, has complained that Iran's drive to produce nuclear energy has endangered national security, the national interest and the destiny of the Iranian people.[8] On 26 February, 2007, the conservative daily Resalat chided Ahmadinejad, saying "neither weakness nor unnecessarily offensive language is acceptable in foreign policy."[9]

Statements by Iranian leaders against Israel Main article: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel See also: Iran-Israel relations Iranian leaders have made vehement declarations against Israel. Ahmadinejad was widely reported as calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map."[10] However, this translation is disputed, and some have considered it a psyop[11] (See: Translation of phrase "wiped off the map"). A Call for Israel's destruction is also attributed to Khomeini, the political leader of the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution.[12], and Iranian military parades featured ballistic missiles adorned with slogans such as 'Israel must be uprooted and erased from history'.[13] The Iranian government has stressed they did not call for an attack on Israel. Rather, they wish to allow Palestinian refugees to return to Palestine, whereupon all inhabitants will vote on its political future.[14] These "clarifications" are seen in Israel as a diplomatic smokescreen. "For many long years, we have followed Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, in the guise of a civilian nuclear program," said Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert.[15] In November 2003, Israel’s defence minister Shaul Mofaz has made what sources have described as a warning of "unprecedented severity." Mofaz set out his government’s position last week during a visit to the United States stating that "under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession".[16] Former CIA Director James Woolsey said at the Herzliya conference on January 22, 2007 that "Iran is not remotely interested in nuclear power for purposes of electricity." He described the Islamic republic as "a theocratic totalitarian movement for which destruction of Israel and the United States is not a policy but its very essence. It defines itself in that way. Saying that it should change its policy with respect to destroying Israel and the United States is like trying to persuade Hitler away from antisemitism."[17]

Support of "Islamism" The Islamic Republic allegedly funds and arms militant groups Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.[18] The U.S. State Department claims this makes Iran an active sponsor of terrorism.[19] Iran was added in 1984 on the U.S. list of state sponsors of international terrorism. According to the State Department, Iran "continued to provide Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian rejectionist groups—notably Hamas, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the PFLP-GC—with varying amounts of funding, safe haven, training, and weapons. It also encouraged Hezbollah and the rejectionist Palestinian groups to coordinate their planning and to escalate their activities."

Iranian activity in Iraq Iran has taken an active role in Iraq. Talks between the two nations (Iran and Iraq) have been successful, with Iran even going so far as to build a major Iranian Bank branch inside Iraq.[20] Iran stresses that it supports the government of Iraq. Indeed the main party that supports the Iraqi government and the US coalition, SCIRI, is also close to Iran. Its leader, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who has been invited at the White House, was a refugee in Iran when Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq. On 21 February 2007, his own son, coming from Iran with armed guards, was arrested by US forces and later released with excuses by US forces.[21] The US have, however, contended that Iran supports some Shiite militias that are alleged to be against the Iraq government, especially the Mahdi army of Muqtada al-Sadr. According to the Iranian ambassador to Iraq, the US is currently detaining 6 Iranian diplomats and 30 Iranian nationals in Iraq.[22] This number has neither been confirmed nor denied by US officials. On February 28, 2007, the United States however agreed to participate to an international conference to be called by the government of Iraq to discuss Iraq security crisis, where the government of Iran is also invited. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the United States would join the meeting and that Washington supported the Iraqi government's invitation to Iran and Syria.[23] Iranian officials arrested by US forces in Baghdad Main article: Qods Force#2006 Arrests in Iraq On December 25, 2006, the United States arrested at least four senior military officials on their visit to Baghdad.[24] It has been mentioned that the Iranians have been arrested after US soldiers raided the compound of Shiite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the influential Shiite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). President of Iraq Talabani, a strong US ally, has asked for their release. Hiwa Othman, Talabani's media adviser, told Reuters: "The president is unhappy. He is talking to the Americans about it as we speak." Othman said the Iranian diplomats came to Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi leader but he was not aware if they had met with him."The invitation was within the framework of an agreement between Iran and Iraq to improve the security situation." Finally, it seems that they have been released on 30 December. One of the commanders, identified by officials simply as Chizari, was the thirdhighest-ranking official of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' al-Quds Brigade, the unit most active in aiding, arming and training groups outside Iran, including Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, U.S. officials said. According to the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which mentions as a source "American intelligence officials", without naming them, Iran "is working closely with both the Shiite militias and Sunni Jihadist groups" in order to stymie a secular government in Iraq.[25] On 4 January 2007, the BBC's flagship

29

political programme Newsnight cited British authorities in Iraq as saying that while the arrests produced highly important intelligence information, there was no "smoking gun" about weapons supplies or attacks. "There was discussion of whether the Maliki government would succeed, who should be in which ministerial jobs... It was a very significant meeting," one official said. The BBC said US sensitivity to the matter comes from discovering evidence that Iran is trying to turn the situation in Iraq to its advantage, to the extent of trying to influence the make-up of the Baghdad government. Attack by US forces on an Iranian consulate in Irbil Main article: US attack on Iranian liaison office in Arbil Five United States helicopters landed on the roof of the consulate in the northern city of Irbil. American soldiers broke down the doors, detained five people and took away papers and computers. The raid came as American leaders step up their rhetoric against Iran. U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Tehran is arming the insurgents in Iraq.[26] An Iranian foreign ministry official in a meeting with the Iraqi ambassador to Tehran here on Friday stressed that Baghdad should not allow the United States to interfere in Iran-Iraq relations. "We expect the Iraqi government to take immediate measures to set the aforesaid individuals free and to condemn the U.S. troopers for the measure," the official stressed. For his part, Iraqi ambassador to Tehran expressed regret over the incident and pledged to pursue the case through the officials of his country.[27] According to Associated Press, The Iraqi foreign minister called Sunday 14 January for the release of five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in what he said was a legitimate mission in northern Iraq. US accusation of supporting attacks on American troops Further information: Kill or Capture strategy and Karbala provincial headquarters raid In his January 10, 2007 address to the nation, President Bush asserted that succeeding in Iraq begins with addressing Iran and Syria. "Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq," Bush said.[28] During the following weeks, Bush's statements were criticized for preparing the US for an attack on Iran without Congressional approval. His actions with regards to Iran were also called "offensive and provocative."[29] On 2nd February, 2007, Bush administration officials acknowledged that they had yet to compile evidence strong enough to back up publicly their claims that Iran is fomenting violence against U.S. troops in Iraq. On 12th February, 2007, US administration organized a briefing in Bagdad to make their case. Journalists were told that the use of the deadliest form of roadside bomb known as EFP's - explosively formed penetrators - had nearly doubled last year. They were said there was a "growing body of evidence pointing to Iranian supply of EFPs to Iraqi extremist groups". "They condemn us for making problems in Iraq, but they don't have any documentary proof," Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hossaini told reporters. "Lots of this evidence is fake, artificial. For example, when they wanted to start a war in Iraq, they made plenty of evidence that there were lots of weapons in Iraq, though the investigators of the International Atomic Energy Agency said they couldn't find any weapons in Iraq," he said. "Right now they're using weapons [with certain markings], but it doesn't prove where these weapons came from. Iranian envoy kidnapped by Iraqi gunmen Main article: Baghdad kidnapping of Iranian diplomat (February 2007) Iraqi gunmen dressed in military uniforms kidnapped the second secretary of the Iranian embassy, Jalal Sharafi, on February 4, 2007 as he drove through central Baghdad. One official of the Iraqi government stated that the abduction occurred at the hands of a special army unit that reports directly to the US military command, but this was denied by American military officials.[30] Iran's Foreign Ministry has condemned the kidnapping and pinned the blame on the US.[31]

Economic sanctions against Iran Main article: Sanctions against Iran Since the 1979 revolution in Iran, the country has been under constant US unilateral sanctions. The first U.S. sanctions against Iran were formalized in November 1979, and during the hostage crisis, many sanctions were leveled against the Iranian government. By 1987 the import of Iranian goods into the United States had been banned. In 1995, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12957, banning U.S. investment in Iran's energy sector, followed a few weeks later by Executive Order 12959 of May 9, 1995, eliminating all trade and investment and virtually all interaction between the United States and Iran. For details of current US sanctions, see the page of US Treasury. The United States have not been followed yet by other countries. But the UN sanctions are the first international sanctions levied on Iran. The United States is pushing for more economic sanctions against Iran [32]. Under a proposal by Germany, which holds the EU presidency during the first semester of 2007, the European Union is also considering imposing sanctions that go beyond the UN sanctions[33] but has not made any decision yet. In June 2007 leading EU countries including Britain, France and Germany cautioned Iran that it faces further sanctions for expanding uranium enrichment and curbing U.N. inspectors' access to its nuclear program. "Iran continues to ignore its obligations and has not taken any steps to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its program". Additionally, the EU offers Iran suspension of sanctions and a package of trade and industrial benefits if it suspends its nuclear program. [34]. The Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act of 2007, introduced by Representative Mark Kirk, Republican-Illinois, and Representative Rob Andrews, Democrat-New Jersey, would threaten sanctions against any company or individual that provides Iran with refined petroleum products or engages in an activity that could contribute to the enhancement of Iran's ability to import refined products after December 31. The bill could potentially lead to sanctions against gasoline brokers, tankers and insurers.[35]

Alleged preparation for a war United States and Israel have refused to exclude the use of force to stop the Iranian nuclear program. They have, however, always stressed that they consider the use of force as a last resort. Starting in 2005, several analysts, including journalist Seymour Hersh,[36] former UN weapons of mass destruction inspector in Iraq from 1991-1998, Scott Ritter[37], Joseph Cirincione, director for non-

30

proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace[38], Professor at the University of San Francisco and Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project, Stephen Zunes[39] claimed that the United States planned a military attack against Iran. Dec 19, 2006: According to CBS News report, the Pentagon is planning to bolster its presence in the Persian Gulf as a warning to Iran's continuously defiant government. CBS News national security correspondent David Martin says the U.S. military build-up, which would include adding a second aircraft carrier to the one already in the Gulf, is being proposed as a response to what U.S. officials view as an increasingly provocative Iranian leadership.[40] Dec 22, 2006: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that an increased US naval presence in the Persian Gulf is not a response to any action by Iran but a message that the United States will keep and maintain its regional footprint "for a long time." Jan 6, 2007, a news agency reported that Israeli military sources had revealed a plan to strike the enrichment plant at Natanz using low-yield nuclear "bunker-busters."[41] The disclosure may have been done to increase pressure on Iran to cease enrichment activities. The Israeli government denied this report. In Tehran, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told a news conference that the newspaper report "will make clear to the world public opinion that the Zionist regime is the main menace to global peace and the region." He said "any measure against Iran will not be left without a response and the invader will regret its act immediately."[42]. Jan 11, 2007: Administration officials said that the battle group would be stationed within quick sailing distance of Iran, a response to the growing concern that Iran is building up its own missile capacity and naval power, with the goal of military dominance in the Gulf.[43]. Jan 12, 2007: President Bush accused Iran in a speech this week of helping launch attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq. His remarks were followed by combative comments from his top war advisors, new moves by U.S. naval forces and a raid Thursday in the Kurdish-controlled city of Irbil. The administration moved Friday 12 January to defuse concerns that it was planning or inviting a confrontation with Tehran. At a news conference, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow dismissed as an "urban legend" suggestions that the United States was preparing for another war. Similar denials were issued by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.[44] Jan 14, 2007: A former Russian Black Sea Fleet Commander, Admiral Edward Baltin, says he believes the presence of so many US nuclear submarines in the Persian Gulf meant a strike was likely.[45] Jan 24, 2007: Iranian officials said Wednesday that they had received a delivery of advanced Russian air defense systems that are designed to protect its nuclear facilities at Isfahan, Bushehr, Tehran, and eastern Iran from attack, primarily from Israeli or American aircraft.[46] Jan 24, 2007: Writing for Global Research, General Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy on Geopolitical Affairs and former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armies, forecasts an American nuclear attack on Iran by the end of April. He also believes, like Scott Ritter, that the US will use tactical nuclear weapons.[47] Feb 18, 2007: According to Scott Ritter, who reiterated his view that Iran will be attacked by the US, the Pentagon has negotiated basing rights in Romania and Bulgaria so that B-1 and B-2 bombers can operate out of airfields there.[48]

Opposition to a possible war Main article: Opposition to war against Iran Organized opposition to a possible future military attack against Iran by the United States (US) is known to have started during 2005-2006. Beginning in early 2005, journalists, activists, and academics such as Seymour Hersh, Scott Ritter, Joseph Cirincione, and Jorge E. Hirsch began publishing claims that American concerns over the alleged threat posed by Iran's nuclear program might lead the US government to take military action against that country in the future. These reports, and the concurrent escalation of tensions between Iran and some Western governments, prompted the formation of grassroots organisations, including Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran in the US and the United Kingdom, to advocate against potential military strikes on Iran. Additionally, several organizations and individuals, including the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, the Non-Aligned Movement of 118 states, and the Arab League, have publicly stated their opposition to a would-be attack on Iran. See also Iran portal 2006 US raid on Iranian diplomats United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 United States-Iran relations Iran-Israel relations The Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act of 2007 United States oil politics Anti-Iranianism External links References and notes 1. ^ Iran nuclear 2. ^ Fars News Agency, Jan 18, 2007. Link: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8510280149 3. ^ Key countries agree on new UN resolution on Iran 4. ^ ABC News: Delayed Nuke Plant Bolsters Iran Resolve 5. ^ Iran Daily - Front Page - 02/22/07 6. ^ [1]

• • • • • • •

31

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

^ Ahmadinejad's Performance Gets Mixed Reaction From Iranians Radio Free Europe September 25, 2007 ^ Iran swiftly seeks nuclear goal ^ Some in Iran denounce Ahmadinejad stance ^ AL Jazeera Article: Iranian leadership calls against Israel's existence ^ "Lost in translation", by Jonathan Steele, The Guardian, 2006-06-14 ^ "Khomeini Called for Israel's destruction",France24, 2008-03-10 ^ Erase Israel slogans spotted on Iranian ballistic missiles in Teheran Army Parade ^ Interview of Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Time magazine ^ Israel tense over 'the Iranian threat' ^ Israel threatens strikes on Iranian nuclear targets, Ross Dunn, Scotsman.com, Nov 23, 2003 ^ Israel tense over "the Iranian threat" ^ Islam Has Nothing in Common with Democracy Address by an Islamic Revolutionary Guards official. ^ State Sponsors of Terror Overview April 28, 2006 ^ "THE REACH OF WAR; IRANIAN REVEALS PLAN TO EXPAND ROLE INSIDE IRAQ". #ew York Times. 200701-29. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/world/middleeast/29iranians.html?ei=5094&en=d4deb1d521cb8706&hp=&ex=1170 046800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print. ^ Shiite Protests Send Message ^ Lake, Eli. "Yanks Holding 36 Iranians, Tehran Regime Charges", The #ew York Sun, February 7, 2007. Retrieved February 8, 2007. ^ Iraq's Neighbors Agree to Baghdad Summit ^ White House: Officials Investigating Iranians Detained in Iraq, December 25, 2006 ^ Iran's secret plan for mayhem ^ Iran Protests Consulate Raid In Iraq ^ Tehran Calls on Iraq to Stop U.S. Intervention in Iran-Iraq Ties ^ President's Address to the Nation, The White House, January 10, 2007. Retrieved February 1, 2007. ^ President's Actions Could Lead to Impeachment ^ Abdul-Zahra, Qassim. "Iraqi Gunmen Seize Iranian Diplomat", Forbes, February 6, 2007. Retrieved February 6, 2007. ^ "Iran foreign ministry condemns recent Iranian diplomat kidnapping", Iranian Students News Agency, February 6, 2007. Retrieved February 7, 2007. ^ The Plan for Economic Strangulation of Iran ^ Germany proposes wider Iran sanctions ^ Iran faces more sanctions over nuclear advances: EU ^ Platts ^ The Coming War ^ Sleepwalking To Disaster In Iran, April 01, 2005, Scott Ritter ^ Fool Me Twice, March 27, 2006, Joseph Cirincione, Foreign Policy ^ The United States, Israel, and the Possible Attack on Iran, Stephen Zunes, May 2, 2006, ZNet ^ CBS News reports ^ Israel has plans for nuclear strike on Iran: paper Reuters ^ Israel denies plan to hit Iran enrichment plant with tactical nukes ^ Bush signals confrontational turn in Iran policy ^ White House softens Iran tone ^ Russian admiral: Numerous US nuclear subs signals imminent strike on Iran ^ Iran takes possession of Russian air defense missiles ^ [http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=IVA20070124&articleId=4581 Iran Must Get Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack] ^ Ritter: Iran is target

32

Sanctions against Iran From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US imposed sanction of 1995 bans aviation companies from selling aircraft and repair parts to Iranian airlines directly. This article outlines economic, trade, scientific and military sanctions against Iran, which have been imposed by the U.S. government, or under U.S. pressure. Currently the sanctions include a total embargo on dealings with Iran by U.S. citizens, threatening the world's oil and gas companies against investment in Iran, and a ban on selling aircraft and repair parts to Iranian aviation companies.

Effects and criticism According to an Iranian journalist using the name "Sara Shams", one of the effects of sanctions in Iran is expensive basic goods, another is an aging and increasingly unsafe aircraft fleet. "According to reports from Iranian news agencies, 17 planes have crashed over the past 25 years, killing approximately 1,500 people."[1] The U.S. denies aircraft manufacturer Boeing the freedom to sell aircraft to Iranian aviation companies. The International Civil Aviation Organization warned that U.S. sanctions against Iran were placing civilian lives in danger by denying Iranian aviation necessary spare parts for aircraft repair. The European Union has been critical of most of the U.S. trade sanctions against Iran. Some EU states have criticized ILSA as a “double standard” in U.S. foreign policy, in which the United States fiercely worked against the Arab League boycott of Israel while at the same time promoted a worldwide boycott of Iran. The EU countries threatened formal counter-action in the World Trade Organization. [2] Also see this article "Impacts of the US Trade and Financial Sanctions on Iran", by AKBAR E. TORBAT, The World Economy, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 407-434, March 2005. The following is the abstract of the article: This article presents a case study of the effectiveness of the US unilateral trade and financial sanctions on Iran. To assess the trade sanctions' effect, the US-Iran historical trade data are examined, and the economic cost of trade sanctions is measured by applying the concept of welfare loss. The financial sanctions' impacts are evaluated by assessing the extra charges Iran has paid on its foreign debt obligations and for financing its oil development projects. At the end, the efficacy of the US sanctions policy towards Iran is evaluated. It is found that the financial sanctions have had a more powerful impact than the trade sanctions. The analysis also shows that the unilateral import sanctions on the fungible crude oil have been ineffective. It is concluded that, overall, the sanctions' economic effect has been significant, while its political effect has been minimal. In the medium-term, lifting US sanctions and liberalizing Iran’s economic regime would increase Iran's total trade annually by as much as $61 billion (at the 2005 world oil price of $50/bbl), adding 32 percent to Iran’s GDP. In the oil-and-gas sector, output and exports would expand by 25-to-50 percent (adding 3 percent to world crude oil production).[3] According to the U.S. National Foreign Trade Council: Iran could reduce the world price of crude petroleum by 10 percent, saving the United States annually between $38 billion (at the 2005 world oil price of $50/bbl) and $76 billion (at the proximate 2008 world oil price of $100/bbl). Opening Iran’s market place to foreign investment could also be a boon to competitive US multinational firms operating in a variety of manufacturing and service sectors.[4]

History Before the revolution Although all of the current sanctions were imposed after the Iranian Revolution, the United States along with the U.K. had previously followed a British worldwide boycott of Iranian oil in early 1950s. The boycott was a response to the nationalization of the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Iran's oil industry. The incident submerged the country into a financial crisis.[5] As a result of Operation Ajax, Mosaddeq was deposed, and the exiled Shah was re-installed. Hostage crisis The first U.S. economic sanctions against Iran after the Iranian Revolution were in 1979. In response to the permitting of the exiled Shah to enter the United States and rumors of another U.S. backed coup and re-installation of the Shah, a group of radical students seized the American Embassy in Tehran.[6] The United States responded by freezing about $12 billion in Iranian assets, including bank deposits, gold and other properties. Some assets —Iranian officials say $10 billion, U.S. officials say much less— still remain frozen pending resolution of legal claims arising from the revolution.

33

Iran–Iraq War After invasion of Iran by Iraq, the United States intensified Iran's sanctions. In 1984, sanctions were approved to oppose all loans to Iran from international financial institutions, prohibit weapons sales, and prohibit all assistance to Iran. In 1987, the U.S. further prohibited the importation and exportation of any goods or services from Iran, and U.S. naval and air forces struck Iranian naval units in response to Iranian efforts to disrupt the flow of Iraqi oil from the Persian Gulf with naval mines and missile attacks.[citation needed] Rafsanjani and Khatami governments Pragmatist President Rafsanjani, a critic of President Ahmadinejad, says that he had tried to reduce tensions between Iran and the West,[citation needed] although his term was marked by some of the toughest sanctions against Iran. In April 1995, President Bill Clinton issued a total embargo on dealings with Iran, prohibiting all commercial and financial transactions with Iran. Trade with the U.S., which had been growing following the end of the Iran–Iraq War ended abruptly. [7] The next year, the United States Congress passed the Iran–Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) which threatened even non-U.S. countries making certain investments in Iran. Under ILSA, all foreign companies that provide investments over $20 million for the development of petroleum resources in Iran will be imposed two out of seven possible sanctions, by the U.S.:[8]

• • • • • • •

denial of Export-Import Bank assistance; denial of export licenses for exports to the violating company; prohibition on loans or credits from U.S. financial institutions of over $10 million in any 12-month period; prohibition on designation as a primary dealer for U.S. government debt instruments; prohibition on serving as an agent of the United States or as a repository for U.S. government funds; denial of U.S. government procurement opportunities (consistent with WTO obligations); and a ban on all or some imports of the violating company.

In response to the election of Iranian reformist President Mohammad Khatami, President Clinton eased sanctions on Iran. A debate in the US Congress on whether to allow the expiration of ILSA, which some legislators argued hindered bilateral relations, and others argued would be seen as a concession on an effective program, ended on August 5, 2001, with its renewal by the Congress and signing into law by President George W. Bush.[2] Furthermore, in January 2002, IEEE stripped Iranian members from full membership privileges and support of activities, and without notice, blocked Iranian members from accessing their e-mail accounts.[9] In February 2004, during the final year of the reformist era, the U.S. Department of the Treasury ruled against editing or publishing scientific manuscripts from Iran, and stated that U.S. scientists collaborating with Iranians could be prosecuted.[10] Khatami government could only manage to reduce the sanctions for some items like pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, caviar or Persian rugs, in 2000. Ahmadinejad government See also: United #ations Security Council Resolution 1737, United #ations Security Council Resolution 1747, and U# Security Council Resolution 1803 After being elected president in 2005 Ahmadinejad reversed the retroactive nuclear policy and lifted the suspension of uranium enrichment, that had been put in place by the reformists. This infuriated the United States, which began pushing for international sanctions against Iran over its atomic ambitions.[11] The U.S. government imposed sanctions on an Iranian bank on September 8, 2006, barring it from dealing with U.S. financial institutions, even indirectly. The move against Bank Saderat Iran was announced by Stuart Levey, the undersecretary for treasury, who accused the major state-owned bank in Iran of transferring funds for certain groups, including Hezbollah. While Iranian financial institutions are barred from directly accessing the U.S. financial system, they are permitted to do so indirectly through banks in other countries. But the latest move severs that access for Bank Saderat and Levey said the action does not apply to other Iranian banks. Levey said since 2001 a Hezbollah-controlled organization had received 50 million U.S. dollars directly from Iran through Bank Saderat. He said the U.S. government will also persuade European banks and financial institutions not to deal with Iran.[12] Florida enacted a boycott on companies trading with Iran and Sudan in June 2007, while New Jersey's state legislature was considering similar action.[13] As of November, 2007, the following Iranian banks are prohibited from transferring money to or from United States banks:[14]:

• • • • • • •

Bank Sepah Bank Saderat Iran Bank Melli Iran Bank Kargoshaee (aka Kargosa’i Bank) Arian Bank (aka Aryan Bank) Bank Mellat Persia International Bank PLC

For individuals and small businesses, these banking restrictions have created a large opportunity for the hawala market, which allows Iranians to transfer money to and from foreign countries using an underground unregulated exchange system.[15] The targeted banks, such as Bank Mellat, have also been able to replace banking relationships with a few large sanction-compliant banks with relationships with a larger number of smaller non-compliant banks.[16] References 1. ^ Sara Shams | Tehran | 29 January 2009 2. ^ a b ILSA - CRS Report for Congress

34

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. See also

^ http://www.nftc.org/default/trade/NFTC%20Iran%20Normalizaton%20Book.pdf ^ http://www.nftc.org/default/trade/NFTC%20Iran%20Normalizaton%20Book.pdf ^ "A Very British Coup" (in English) (radio show). Document. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2005. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20050822.shtml. Retrieved on 2006-06-14. ^ Moin Khomeini, (2000), p.220 ^ Keddie, Nikki R.. "Politics and Economics in Post-Khomeini Iran". Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution. Yale University Press. pp. 265. ISBN 0300098561. "the Clinton administration, under pressure from Congress and the proIsraeli lobby, announced a total embargo on dealings with Iran in April 1995. Trade with the United States, which has climbed after the war, virtually ended." ^ Wright, Steven. The United States and Persian Gulf Security: The Foundations of the War on Terror, Ithaca Press, 2007 ISBN 978-0863723216 ^ Under Fire for Withdrawing Iranian Members' Benefits ^ Nature journal: Reza Mansouri explains hostilities toward Iranian scientists ^ "Iraq prime minister to visit Iran". Al Jazeera. September 9 2006. ^ U.S. imposes sanctions on Iranian bank ^ Associated Press (June 14, 2007). "New Jersey mulls banning Iran investments". The Jerusalem Post. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813036172&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. ^ "U.S. Dollar Transactions with Iran are Subject to New Restrictions – Tough Policy Decisions Face International Financial Institutions", by John B. Reynolds, III, Amy E. Worlton and Cari N. Stinebower, Wiley Rein LLP, November 28, 2007 ^ "Iranians scheme to elude sanctions", by FARNAZ FASSIHI in Beirut and CHIP CUMMINS in Tehran, Wall Street Journal, February 13, 2008 ^ "Iran gets around US bank sanctions", By Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran, Financial Times, August 21, 2008

Economy of Iran United States-Iran relations Sanctions against Iranian scientists Anti-Iranian sentiments Chicago's Persian heritage crisis Foreign Direct Investment in Iran The Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act of 2007 House Resolution 362 External links • ILSA - CRS Report for Congress • Global Energy Sanctions • Sanctions-Blog • US Treasury - Iran Sanctions • Stop War on Iran Campaign

• • • • • • • •

35

Support for military action against Iran From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Support for military action against Iran has been endorsed by some mainstream American politicians and some in the media. However support from the American people is low.[citation needed] Polls In 2007, some US polls suggested that support for a possible war against Iran by the American people was very low. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll conducted May 4-6, 2007 found that only 33% of Americans supported potential military action in Iran. This was up from 26% in January 2007 who said they would support such a war. 46% of Americans said that Iran was an enemy, compared to 3% who said they were an ally. In a poll conducted by CBS in March 26-27, 2007, 18% of Americans favoured an invasion of Iran at that moment and 54% favoured diplomacy, 18% believed that Iran was not a threat to America. In a NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted March 2-5, 2007, 43% of Americans support the destruction of nuclear weapons production if Iran were producing nuclear weapons. 55% supported war against Iran if it was found that Iran was providing technology for insurgents in Iraq. [1] In a TNS survey conducted in March 2007 among 17,443 people in 27 European Union member states, a minority of 22% agreed with the statement "We must stop countries like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, even if that means taking military action". A majority agreed with the statement in 18 member states, while a majority were against in 9 member states.[2]

Support in the media Norman Podhoretz published the article "The Case for Bombing Iran" ([1]) in June 2007. Podhoretz, a prominent neoconservative, especially stressed the need to protect Israel's interests.

Support from politicians Former Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut stated that he believed an attack against Iran was necessary to prevent the production of nuclear weapons. "I think the only justifiable use of military power would be an attempt to deter the development of their nuclear program if we felt there was no other way to do it" He stopped short of endorsing an all out invasion stating that this attack would be different from Iraq in that only air strikes would be necessary. "I don't think anyone is thinking of this as a massive ground invasion, as in Iraq, to topple the government." [3] Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani stated that the United States and allies would do everything necessary to prevent Iran from going nuclear stating the "absolute assurance that we will - if they get to the point where they are going to become a nuclear power - we will prevent them or we'll set them back five or 10 years. And that is not said as a threat. That should be said as a promise." [4] Freedom's Watch, an NPO created by Dick Cheney, planned to sponsor a private conservative forum on radical Islam to prove that Iran was a threat to the security of the USA and to gather support for the war against Iran.[5] Former Massachusetts Governor and 2008 Presidential candidate Mitt Romney had stated his support for military action against the Iranian regime categorizing the possible bombardment of nuclear facilities as a way to prevent Iran from proliferating a nuclear weapon. He stated that he would support a "bombardment of some kind...if severe economic and diplomatic sanctions aren't enough". [6] References 1. ^ Support for war against Iran 2. ^ Open Europe (April 4, 2007). European poll findings on globalisation and foreign policy: Majority of UK and EU citizens would back military action against Iran. Press release. http://www.openeurope.org.uk/mediacentre/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=36. Retrieved on 2007-04-05. 3. ^ Sen. Joseph Lieberman: I'd Support Iran Attack 4. ^ Lines harden over Iran leader's visit to US - The Boston Globe 5. ^ Van Natta D, New Group Boasts Big War Chest and Rising Voice, The New York Times, September 30, 2007 6. ^ Romney: 'Bombardment' on the table for Iran - On Politics - USATODAY.com See also • United States-Iran relations • Iran and weapons of mass destruction • Opposition to war against Iran • United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 • Allegations of Iranian state terrorism

36

Opposition to military action against Iran From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Organised opposition to a possible future military attack against Iran by the United States (US) is known to have started during 2005-2006. Beginning in early 2005, journalists, activists and academics such as Seymour Hersh[1][2], Scott Ritter[3], Joseph Cirincione[4] and Jorge E. Hirsch[5] began publishing claims that United States' concerns over the alleged threat posed by the possibility that Iran may have a nuclear weapons program might lead the US government to take military action against that country in the future. These reports, and the concurrent escalation of tensions between Iran and some Western governments, prompted the formation of grassroots organisations, including Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran in the US and the United Kingdom, to advocate against potential military strikes on Iran. Additionally, several individuals, grassroots organisations and international governmental organisations, including the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei[6], a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter[3], Nobel Prize winners including Shirin Ebadi, Mairead Corrigan-Maguire and Betty Williams, Harold Pinter and Jody Williams[7], Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament[7], Code Pink[8], the Non-Aligned Movement[9] of 118 states, and the Arab League[10], have publicly stated their opposition to a would-be attack on Iran.

Reports of a potential military attack on Iran Opposition to a would-be military attack on Iran followed several claims that the United States and/or Israel might carry out such an attack on Iran, in relation to claims that Iran may try to produce nuclear weapons. Some analysts say that Iran's potential production of nuclear weapons is the real reason for a would-be attack, while others say that it is an excuse for an attack. Noam Chomsky claims that the real reason for a would-be attack would be to "control Middle East energy resources", in particular oil.[11] and physicist Jorge Hirsch claims that the real reason is that the US wishes to demonstrate its intent and capability to "use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear countries".[5]. Starting in 2005, these analysts, including Seymour Hersh[1], former UN weapons of mass destruction inspector in Iraq from 1991-1998, Scott Ritter[3], Joseph Cirincione, director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace[4], Professor at the University of San Francisco and Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus, Stephen Zunes[12] claimed that the United States planned a military attack against Iran. Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer[13], physicist Jorge E. Hirsch[14] [15], Michel Chossudovsky[16], and Seymour M. Hersh [2] claimed that the attack could be expected to use nuclear weapons, in line with the US Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations which was revised in March 2005.

2007 In early April 2007, Michael T. Klare claimed that references to Iran by US president George W. Bush in major televised speeches on January 10, January 23 and February 14, 2007 establish that Bush "has already decided an attack is his only option and the rest is a charade he must go through to satisfy his European allies". Klare claims that in these speeches in particular, Bush has developed a casus belli in order to prepare public opinion for an attack, focussed on three reasons: claims that Iran supports attacks on US troops in Iraq, claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and claims that Iran could become a dominant power in the region and destabilise pro-US governments in Israel, Jordan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.[17] In October 2007, The Times reported that the UK had already begun attacking Iran with the SAS launching a series of limited ground invasions: BRITISH special forces have crossed into Iran several times in recent months as part of a secret border war against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Al-Quds special forces, defence sources have disclosed. There have been at least half a dozen intense firefights between the SAS and arms smugglers, a mixture of Iranians and Shi’ite militiamen. The unreported fighting straddles the border between Iran and Iraq and has also involved the Iranian military firing mortars into Iraq. UK commanders are concerned that Iran is using a militia ceasefire to step up arms supplies in preparation for an offensive against their base at Basra airport.[18]

2008 In an interview with Esquire magazine in March, Admiral William Fallon, then head of United States Central Command, expressed opposition to war with Iran.[19] On March 11, Fallon resigned in part because of his opposition.[20] In March, United States Vice President Dick Cheney went on a tour of the Middle East.[21] On March 22, Cheney visited with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.[22] On the next day, the Saudi Arabian government began preparing for nuclear and radiological emergencies.[23][24] Israel conducted the largest emergency and evacuation drill in its history from April 6 to April 10. The drill, dubbed Turning Point 2, simulated conventional, chemical, and biological attacks from the Gaza Strip, Iran, Lebanon, and Syria.[25][26][27] During the drill, on April 7, Israeli National Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said that if Iran attacked Israel, Israel would "destroy the Iranian nation."[28] On April 15, Iranian Deputy Chief of Staff Mohammed Rada Ashtiani responded by saying that if Israel attacked Iran, Iran would "eliminate Israel from the universe."[29] On May 8, United States Representative John Conyers, Jr. wrote a letter to President George W. Bush, threatening him with impeachment if he were to attack Iran without Congressional authorization.[30]

37

On May 19, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with several members of the United States House of Representatives, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and asked the United States to impose a naval blockade on Iran.[31] On May 22, Representative Gary Ackerman introduced H.Con. Res. 362, part of which reads "Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program."[32] The bill has 261 cosponsors.[33] Several commentators expect the resolution to pass and claim that it calls for a naval blockade against Iran.[34][35][36][37] On June 28, on the floor of the House, Representative Ron Paul labeled the resolution a "virtual war resolution."[38] On June 6, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said that "[a]ttacking Iran in order to stop its nuclear plans will be unavoidable."[39] On June 9, Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said that if Israel attacks Iran, Iran will attack Israel's nuclear reactor at Dimona.[40] In June, Israel set up an Iran Command within the Israeli Air Force.[41][42] Early that month, Israel carried out a rehearsal, dubbed Glorious Spartan 08, for an attack on Iran with over 100 F-15s and F-16s along with refueling tankers and rescue helicopters.[43][44] In an interview with The Observer, Shmuel Bar, Director of Studies at the Institute of Policy and Strategy at Herzliya, said of public support for war with Iran that "The support is almost unanimous for this in Israel. One hundred percent."[45][46] On June 20, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned Israel not to attack Iran.[47] On June 21, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei threatened to resign if Iran is attacked, saying that such an attack would turn the Middle East into a "ball of fire."[48] On June 25, Bahraini Major General Abdul Latif bin Rashid Al Zayani asked the United States to provide early warning to Bahrain before attacking Iran.[49] On June 20, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with retired Colonel Aviam Sela, the planner for Operation Opera, the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear reaction at Osirik in 1981, to discuss the possibility of an attack on Iran.[50] In June the United States completed construction of four advance bases on the Iraqi side of the Iran-Iraq border.[51] On June 27, Iran moved its Shihab-3 ballistic missiles into launch positions within striking range of the Israeli nuclear reactor at Dimona.[52] On April 15, the Israeli Arrow 2 anti-ballistic missile system successfully intercepted a simulated Iranian Shihab-3 medium-range ballistic missile.[53][54] On July 6, Israel tested Iron Dome, a missile defense system that is under development.[55] On June 28, Chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen met with Israeli Armed Forces Chief Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi, in part to discuss Iran's nuclear weapons program.[56] On June 29, Iranian General Mir-Faisal Bagherzadeh said that Iran will dig 320,000 graves "to provide for the burial of enemy soldiers."[57] In the July issue of Proceedings Magazine of the United States Naval Institute, Vice Admiral Sandy Winnefeld, Commander of the United States Sixth Fleet, wrote that an Iranian ballistic missile attack on Israel is "by far the most likely employment of ballistic missiles in the world today."[58] He went on to write that there may be "a need for a U.S. or NATO response." On July 2, a Russian Foreign Ministry official said that "[i]f force is used it will be catastrophic for the whole Middle East."[59] On July 3, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called on the United States to stop threatening Iran.[60] On July 3, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, Head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, said that "[a]ny action against Iran is regarded as the beginning of war" and that Iran would respond to an attack by closing the Strait of Hormuz.[61][62] Forty percent of the world's oil supply passes through the Strait of Hormuz.[63] On July 7, Commander of the United States Fifth Fleet Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff said that the US Navy "will not allow" Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz.[63] Last month Vice Admiral Cosgriff warned that any attempt to seal off the Strait of Hormuz would be an act of war.[64] On July 4, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said that he will not allow Iraqi land, sea, or airspace to be used for an attack on Iran.[65] On July 5, Iraqi representative Mahmoud Othman warned that military action against Iran would destabilize Iraq.[66] On July 8, Ali Shirazi, a representative of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that Iran would respond to an attack by attacking Tel Aviv and the United States Fifth Fleet.[67] On July 9, as part of an exercise dubbed Great Prophet III or 'Noble Prophet', Iran test fired nine ballistic missiles, including Shahab-3s, Zelzals, and Fatehs.[68][69] Speaking of the tests, General Hossein Salami, Air Force Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, said "Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch."[64] On July 10, Iran launched a second round of missile tests.[70] On July 10, OPEC Secretary General Abdalla Salem El-Badri warned that if Iran is attacked, oil prices "would go unlimited."[71] On July 12, Iranian official Mojtaba Zolnour said that, if attacked, Iran would destroy Israel and 32 United States bases.[72] From July 21 to July 31, Brazil, Italy, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States participated in Joint Task Force Exercise 08-4/Operation Brimstone, a "a graduate-level exercise for strike groups who are preparing to forward deploy."[73][74][75] The exercise involved 15,000 service members.[76] On July 23, Israeli officials reported that Iran could acquire Russian SA-20/S-300 surface to air missiles as early as September.[77] On July 24, Associated Press distributed a report by journalist George Jahn which suggested that Iranian Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh had announced that Iran would end cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency.[78][79] A day later, George Jahn published another article, titled "Iran to increase cooperation with IAEA".[80] A press release by Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran a few days later published an English translation of the words stated by Aghazadeh: "The two sides were conscious that the so-called alleged studies is a side issue and does not affect our ongoing and bilateral cooperation with the Agency. Iran has done whatever it could in connection with the alleged studies case and the IAEA will draw necessary conclusion on the issue at an appropriate time." [81] On July 27, Israeli Defense minister Ehud Barak traveled to the United States to have talks with President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Michael Mullen, and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.[82] Gates told Barak that he is considering providing Israel with early warning radars and missile defenses.[83] On July 28, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul warned that the United States may be preparing to invade or attack Iran.[84][85]

38

On August 4, Revolutionary Guards Commander General Mohammad Ali Jafari claimed that Iran had tested a new anti-ship missile with a range of 186 miles.[86] On August 5, he threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz.[87] On August 7, the Kuwait Times reported the Kuwaiti government "is finalizing its emergency plan" and that two more United States aircraft carriers are en route to the Persian Gulf and Red Sea.[88] Currently the Nimitz class USS Abraham Lincoln is operating in the Persian Gulf. The Jerusalem Post believes that the two carriers en route may be the Nimitz class USS Ronald Reagan and the Nimitz class USS Theodore Roosevelt[89] On August 7, the Associated Press reported that Israel had purchased 90 additional F-16l fighters and two additional Dolphin class ballistic missile submarines.[90] On September 26, The Guardian newspaper reported that President Bush had vetoed a plan developed by the Israelis to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. The precise motivation for the veto was not explored.

Public opinion Opposition to an attack A Reuters/Zogby opinion poll taken in the United States and published on September 28, 2006 found 70 percent opposed any attack on Iran, 9 percent in favor of "air strikes on selected military targets," and 26 percent supporting the use of ground forces. Opposition to Israeli intervention weighed in at 47 (to 42) percent.[91] A compilation of polls regarding the opinion of US adults about an attack Iran also suggested majority opposition to an attack on Iran among US adults during 2006 and early 2007, for questions where no leading information was supplied to those polled: a CBS February 2007 poll indicated about 10-20% of US citizens supported a USA attack on Iran at the time of taking the poll between June 2006 and early February 2007; a CNN poll on January 19-21, 2007 indicated 70% opposition to an attack on Iran; a Newsweek Poll taken on October 19-20, 2006 indicated about 76% opposition to a land attack and 54% opposition to an air attack. [92] During 2007, CNN/Opinion Research Corporation polls in January, June and October 12-14, 2007, found an approximately stable, roughly 2/3 majority (68 percent, 63 percent and 68 percent respectively) opposed to a US military attack against Iran.[93] Polls with leading information Polls with leading information, such as a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll taken June 24-27, 2006, asking "If Iran continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, would you support or oppose the U.S. taking military action against Iran?", mostly gave minority opposition to an attack on Iran. This Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll gave minority (about 40 percent) opposition to an attack. A Newsweek Poll taken on October 19-20, 2006 with the leading information "if that country [Iran] continues its efforts to develop nuclear weapons" gave a large majority (76 percent) opposed to an a land attack and a small majority (54 percent) opposed to an air attack, conditional on the claim in the leading information.[92] In a USA Today/Gallup poll on November 2-4, 2007 with leading information in the question "What do you think the United States should do to get Iran to shut down its nuclear program: take military action against Iran, or rely mainly on economic and diplomatic efforts?", a large majority (73 percent) preferred economic/diplomatic efforts, with 18 percent favouring military action. In the following poll question, an absolute majority (55 percent) directly opposed military action against Iran even if "U.S. economic and diplomatic efforts do not work."[93] Support for an attack Main article: Support for war against Iran A majority (56 percent) in a poll conducted in the USA during September 22-25, 2006 was in favour of a joint US-European attack on Iran. [94] Conditional support for an attack In a TNS survey conducted in March 2007 among 17,443 people in 27 European Union member states, a majority of 52% agreed with the statement "We must stop countries like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, even if that means taking military action". A majority agreed with the statement in 18 member states, while a majority were against in 9 member states.[95] According to a Zogby Poll in the United States in late October 2007, 52% of respondents said they would support a US strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon and 53% said they believed it was likely that the US would attack Iran before the next presidential election in 2008.[96]

Individuals Scott Ritter, a former U.S. military intelligence officer and then a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, who is an active opponent to the Iraq War, has made several strong public statements opposing war against Iran, such as: "The alleged Iranian threat espoused by Bush is based on fear, and arises from a combination of ignorance and ideological inflexibility." and referred to what he called "numerous unconfirmed reports that the United States has already begun covert military operations inside Iran, including overflights by drones and recruitment and training of MEK, Kurdish and Azeri guerrillas."[97] On August 6, 2007, the 62nd anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, several Nobel Prize winners, Shirin Ebadi (Nobel Peace Prize 2003), Mairead Corrigan-Maguire and Betty Williams (joint Nobel Peace Prize 1976), Harold Pinter (Nobel Prize for Literature 2005) and Jody Williams (Nobel Peace Prize 1997), along with several anti-war groups, including The Israeli Committee for a Middle East Free from Atomic, Biological and Chemical Weapons, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, CASMII, Code Pink and many others, warned about what they believed was the imminent risk of a "war of an unprecedented scale, this time against Iran", especially expressing concern that an attack on Iran using nuclear weapons had "not been ruled out". They quoted Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein's July 1955 statement ending "The question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military conflict of which the issue must be disastrous to all species?" They listed specific steps which they judged would reduce the risk of nuclear war in the Middle East, including a call for "the dispute about Iran's nuclear programme, to be resolved through peaceful means" and a call for Israel, "as the only Middle Eastern state suspected of possession of nuclear weapons", to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[7] Journalist Stephen Kinzer, author of All the Shah's Men, a history of the CIA-sponsored coup d'état that toppled the Iranian

39

government in 1953, has spoken out widely and frequently against what he considers the folly of a U.S. attack on Iran, which he says would destroy all of the pro-American sentiment that has developed among the Iranian populace under the repressive Islamic regime.

Groups and organisations Grassroots and non-governmental organizations The organisation Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) was officially founded on December 1, 2005 in London and claimed its first success to be the inclusion of opposition to an attack on Iran as part of the aims declared by the International Peace Conference in London on December 10, 2005.[98]. Two UK organisations opposed to an attack on Iran, Action Iran[99], and Iran Solidarity[100] joined together with CASMII UK on November 6, 2006 to form a new organisation in the UK called Campaign Iran, which remains part of the international CASMII.[101] In March 2005, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, British MP George Galloway, former UN Assistant Secretary-General Dennis Halliday, former First Lady of Greece Margarita Papandreou, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton and others launched an international grassroots campaign called Stop War on Iran. (http://www.StopWarOnIran.org) In November 2006, several peace organisations in the San Francisco Bay Area in the USA, in particular American Friends Service Committee, Bay Area United Against the War, Bay Area Labor Committee for Peace and Justice, Berkeley Gray Panthers, Courage To Resist, Crabgrass, Declaration of Peace SF Bay Area, Ecumenical Peace Institute/Calc, Grandmothers for Peace, South Bay Mobilization, and The World Can't Wait--Drive Out The Bush Regime!, organised themselves together as the "Don't Attack Iran Coalition" and called for various actions including direct contact between US leaders and/or members of US Congress and Iranian leaders and members of parliament.[102] In June 2007, on the 20th anniversary of the June 28, 1987 chemical weapons attack on the Iranian town of Sardasht, two Iranian NGOs, the Society for Chemical Weapons Victims Support (SCWVS) and the Organisation for Defence of Victims of Violence (ODVV), signed a joint petition with Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran opposing both sanctions and a military attack against Iran,[103] as well as asking the Iranian government to "pay more attention to human rights and social and political freedoms, so as to create the grounds for a stronger and greater unity of the people of Iran in the face of foreign pressures and threats."[104] In November 2007, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, a non partisan arms control advocacy group in Washington, D.C., launched a campaign aimed at gaining support for a diplomatic, not military, solution to growing tension in U.S.-Iran relations, which including blog and newspaper ads in efforts to gain 1 million signatures urging Congress to promote diplomacy.[105] In December 2007, the founding conference of Hands Off the People of Iran (HOPI) was held in London [106]. HOPI opposes military action against Iran whilst criticising the current Iranian regime as "reactionary"[107]. HOPI is supported by a number of prominent figures on the left in Britain and around the world, including Tony Benn, John McDonnell, Tommy Sheridan, Peter Tatchell, Naomi Klein, Ken Loach, Michael Mansfield QC, John Pilger and Noam Chomsky, among others [108].

Groups of elected politicians United States On November 2, 2007, Jim Webb and 29 other United States senators sent a letter to President George W. Bush stating that "no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran", that "the Senate vote on September 26, 2007 on an amendment to the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act ... should in no way be interpreted as a predicate for the use of military force in Iran" and "that offensive military action should not be taken against Iran without the express consent of Congress."[109] United Kingdom Founded in London in 2006 the Westminster Committee on Iran aims to increase dialogue and understanding between Tehran and British parliamentarians with a view to avoiding military intervention against Iran. The Committee holds regular meetings and roundtable discussions both inside and outside of Parliament. The Committee advocates for balanced and objective reporting on Iran and genuine international diplomacy in all dealings with Tehran.

International governmental organisations on-Aligned Movement On September 16, 2006, representatives of the 118 states of the Non-Aligned Movement made a statement, at the summit level, supporting Iran's civilian nuclear program and opposing military attacks against nuclear facilities, stating "The ministers reaffirmed the inviolability of peaceful nuclear activities and that any attack or threat of attack against peaceful nuclear facilities, operational or under construction, poses a great danger to human beings and the environment, and constitutes a grave violation of international law, principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and regulations of the IAEA. They recognized the need for a comprehensive multilaterally negotiated instrument, prohibiting attacks, or threat of attacks on nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful uses of nuclear energy."[9] Arab League Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, stated in June 2007 that the states of the Arab League are "unanimous in their opposition to military attack on Iran".[10] International Atomic Energy Agency On Thursday June 14, 2007, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, speaking at a meeting of the IAEA, said that war against Iran "would be catastrophic, it would be an act of madness, and it would not solve the issue."[6] During the preceding several weeks, ElBaradei had several times expressed his opposition to a military attack on Iran by the United States or Israel. He made these statements as part of what he saw as his role as Director General of the IAEA, stating "I have no brief other than to make sure we do not go into another war, or that we go crazy into killing each other."[110]

40

Legal actions International In late July 2008, human rights lawyer Francis Boyle recommended that the Iranian government should sue the United States and Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in order to get an Order of Provisional Measures of Protection (the equivalent of a temporary restraining order in national or local law), against military action against Iran by these two states. Boyle previously aided Bosnia in filing a similar lawsuit at the ICJ against Serbia on 19 March 1993, and obtained this on 8 April 1993. Boyle points out that he also helped file a lawsuit of this type against the United States in early 1992, and claims that this helped to provide a diplomatic solution to threats of a United States military attack on Libya in relation to the Lockerbie dispute.[111]

Direct action Direct action by citizens in opposition to military action against Iran is known to have started by March 2006. It included both street protests and interventions at speeches by national politicians. Street protests During global anti-war protests on March 18, 2006, in addition to protests against the Iraq War, many of the protests were directed against the perceived threat to attack Iran.[112]. On September 23, 2006, one of the main slogans and themes of speakers at a demonstration of about 50,000 people criticising British prime minister Tony Blair at the Labour Party Annual Conference in Manchester was the call "Don't attack Iran".[113] Antiwar demonstrations by tens of thousands of citizens in London and some other cities in the United Kingdom on February 24, 2007 included opposition to a military attack against Iran, including protestors carrying posters with the statements "Don't attack Iran" and "Hands off Iran".[114][115] During antiwar demonstrations in the United States on October 27, 2007, demonstrators in some cities, including Minneapolis, protested against military action against Iran.[116] Protests at public speeches by national politicians On September 21, 2007 at a speech by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner in Washington, D.C., protestors from Code Pink displayed banners with the slogan "Bush + Kouchner = Warmongers!", one of them tried to climb onto the stage, and they shouted, "No war with Iran! No war with Iran!"[8] The protestors were removed from the room by security forces, but returned after Kouchner requested that they be allowed to return. He stated, "I'm not in favor of war with Iran, I want to prevent the war - so they were right!" On September 24, 2007, during the event at Columbia University with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Columbia University President Lee Bollinger many students protested outside. One student carried a sign proclaiming "No war on Iran".[117] The event was highly controversial. Bollinger's introduction before Ahmadinejad's speech and the subsequent response by Ahmadinejad were considered controversial by some journalists.[118] Some thought that the event would lead to war with Iran.[119].

Artistic interventions Fiction as a campaign tool to warn against war with Iran The political novel, The Writing on the Wall, an anti-war novel and roman à clef based on a possible John McCain presidency in 2008, warns against war with Iran by portraying a worst case scenario of its outcomes. In it, author Hannes Artens portrays a global depression as a result of the oil price shooting past $140 per barrel and depicts the falsity of thinking that limited aerial strikes on Iran will end the problem. The story shows them eventually leading to a ground invasion and a military draft in the United States. The book ends with the Iran war escalating into a conflagration seizing the entire Middle East and ultimately culminates in a nuclear showdown between Pakistan and India after an Islamist coup in Pakistan. Artens wants his book to be understood as an anti war campaign tool, and various anti war organizations such as CODEPINK, Global Exchange and the Campus Antiwar Network have co-sponsored his author’s tour.[120]

Internet actions On April 12, 2006, the political group MoveOn, which organises and informs an online community estimated at 3 million people, called on its supporters to lobby the United States Congress to prevent US president George W. Bush from attacking Iran with nuclear weapons.[121] In February 2007, ex-supreme NATO Commander, US General and 2004 presidential candidate Wesley Clark founded the website StopIranWar.com, which advocates against an attack on Iran.[122] Reactions to U Security Council Resolution 1737 by anti-war groups In reaction to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737, the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran issued a statement titled "A Terrible Day for International Diplomacy"[123] dated December 24, 2006. In the statement CASMII expresses grave concern over the UN resolution. It characterizes the unanimous verdict as having been engineered by the US stating "As the Observer reported last Sunday, the US is giving up to 270% more foreign aid to Security Council members as incentive for them to support US positions." The statement further argues that the resolution could be abused and taken as a justification for war, just like the 2002 resolution--also unanimously passed--was used as an eventual justification for the US/UK invasion of Iraq. The statement also "notes" that "there may actually be no way for Iran to comply with the UN demands," saying "Just as the repeated American demands for more and more intrusive inspections, for opening up of Saddam’s palaces and interviewing Iraqi scientists did not satisfy America’s suspicions; neither will Iran’s 'compliance' with these demands be ever sufficient to 'prove' the non-existence of a WMD program." See also

41

• • • • • • • • • •

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 United States-Iran relations Government-organized demonstration in Iran Anti-Iranian sentiments Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran Hands Off the People of Iran War of aggression Axis of evil Support for war against Iran 1953 Iranian coup d'état

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

^ a b Seymour M. Hersh (January 24, 2005). "Annals of National Security: The Coming Wars". The New Yorker. ^ a b The Iran plans, Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker Mag., April 8, 2006 ^ a b c Sleepwalking To Disaster In Iran, April 1, 2005, Scott Ritter ^ a b Fool Me Twice, March 27, 2006, Joseph Cirincione, Foreign Policy ^ a b Hirsch, Jorge (November 1, 2005). "The Real Reason for Nuking Iran: Why a nuclear attack is on the neocon agenda". antiwar.com. ^ a b Heinrich, Mark; Karin Strohecker (June 14, 2007). "IAEA urges Iran compromise to avert conflict". Reuters. Retrieved on 2007-06-21. ^ a b c "For a Middle East free of all Weapons of Mass Destruction". Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (2007-08-06). Retrieved on 2007-11-03. ^ a b Knowlton, Brian (September 21, 2007). "Kouchner, French foreign minister, draws antiwar protesters in Washington", International Herald Tribune. Retrieved on 1 November 2007. ^ a b Non-Aligned Movement (May 30, 2006). "NAM Coordinating Bureau's statement on Iran's nuclear issue". globalsecurity.org. Retrieved on 2006-10-23. ^ a b "Arab states against military action on Iran". iranmania.com (June 18, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-06-21. ^ Chomsky, Noam; Michael Shank (February 20, 2007). "Chomsky on Iran, Iraq, and the Rest of the World". Z Communications. Retrieved on 2007-02-27. ^ The United States, Israel, and the Possible Attack on Iran, Stephen Zunes, May 2, 2006, ZNet ^ Deep Background, August 1, 2005, Philip Giraldi, The American Conservative ^ A 'Legal' US Nuclear Attack Against Iran, Jorge Hirsch, November 12, 2005 ^ America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss ,Jorge Hirsch, February 20, 2006 ^ Nuclear War Against Iran, Michel Chossudovsky, January 3, 2006 ^ Klare, Michael T.. "Bush's Future Iran War Speech: Three Charges in the Case for War", Nation Institute. Retrieved on 9 April 2007. ^ Michael Smith|SAS raiders enter Iran to kill gunrunners|The Times|October 21, 2007| http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2691726.ece | Retrieved 21/10/07 ^ Admiral William Fox Fallon - US Central Command - Fallon's Military Strategies - Esquire ^ Admiral William Fallon quits over Iran policy - Times Online ^ Cheney to make Middle East tour - USATODAY.com ^ Bloomberg.com: Africa ^ http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&langpair=ar|en&u=http://www.okaz.com.sa/okaz/osf/20080322/Con20080322 182151.htm ^ Press TV - The Kingdom 'braces for nuclear war' ^ Israel plans drills in face of nuke threat - UPI.com ^ PM declares 'emergency' in drill | Israel | Jerusalem Post ^ http://www.army.mil/-news/2008/04/25/8773-israels-war-drill-offers-lessons-for-guard/ ^ 'We'll destroy the Iranians if they attack us' | The Iranian Threat | Jerusalem Post ^ Arrow's radar system successfully intercepts missile simulating Shihab - Haaretz - Israel News ^ Conyers Tells Bush Iran Attack = Impeachment; Ask Your Representative to Co-Sign | AfterDowningStreet.org ^ Olmert to U.S.: Impose naval blockade on Iran - Haaretz - Israel News ^ http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/hc362_ih.xml ^ Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) ^ http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9377 ^ http://capwiz.com/justforeignpolicy/issues/alert/?alertid=11518951 ^ Carah Ong, "H.Con.Res. 362: Pushing for a Naval Blockade against Iran?" ^ NIAC - National Iranian American Council - Update: Is a New Congressional Resolution Declaring War with Iran? ^ Congress's 'Virtual Iran War Resolution' - by Ron Paul ^ 'Unavoidable' attack on Iran looms, says Israeli minister | World news | guardian.co.uk ^ [1][dead link] ^ alJazeera Magazine ^ Press TV - Israel launches 'Iran Command' for war

42

43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81.

^ NY Times Advertisement ^ AFP: Israel trains for possible strike on Iran: reports ^ Shadow of war looms as Israel flexes its muscle | World news | The Observer ^ FT.com / World - Olmert weighs cost of any attack ^ [2][dead link] ^ AFP: 'Ball of fire' if Iran attacked: IAEA chief ^ Bahrain wants early warning of any move on Iran | Reuters ^ Report: Olmert met with Osirak attack planner | Israel | Jerusalem Post ^ alJazeera Magazine ^ Iran ready to strike at Israel’s nuclear heart - Times Online ^ Can the Arrow thwart Iran's Shihab 3? | Israel | Jerusalem Post ^ Arrow successfully simulates intercept of mock Shihab missile - Haaretz - Israel News ^ Israel successfully tests missile interceptor: report ^ U.S. military chief visits Israel for high level defense update - International Herald Tribune ^ Iran to ready thousands of graves for enemy soldiers - Yahoo! News ^ Proceedings Story - U.S. Naval Institute ^ AFP: Military strike on Iran would be 'catastrophic:' Russian ministry ^ Press TV - Chavez to US: Stop your Iran threats ^ [3][dead link] ^ Strike and we'll strike you back, warns Tehran - Middle East, World - The Independent ^ a b Strait front line in attack on Iran ^ a b My Way News - Iran test-fires missiles in Persian Gulf ^ tehran times : Maliki: Iraq no launch pad for Iran strike ^ Military action 'would destabilise Iraq' - Middle East, World - The Independent ^ Tehran Warns West Against Attack - NYTimes.com ^ Defiant Iran angers US with missile test ^ Pentagon plumbing Iran's missile tests for clues ^ Reports: Iran test-fires more missiles - CNN.com ^ OPEC warns against military conflict with Iran - International Herald Tribune ^ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25651924/ ^ Avionews ^ Bataan Completes 'Operation Brimstone' ^ Iwo Jima Marks First for US, Brazil ^ Forecasters afloat support multinational training exercise ^ Reuters AlertNet - Iran to get new Russian air defences by '09 -Israel ^ Jahn, George (2008-07-24). "Iran May End Cooperation With Nuclear Investigation". Retrieved on 9 August 2008. ^ Iran ends cooperation on nuke probe - Iran - MSNBC.com ^ Jahn, George (2008-07-25). "Iran to increase cooperation with IAEA". Retrieved on 9 August 2008. ^ "Call on AP to retract false reporting on Iran", Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (2008-0728). Retrieved on 9 August 2008. 82. ^ http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jpost.com%2Fservlet%2FSatellite%3Fpagename%3DJPost %252FJPArticle%252FShowFull%26cid%3D1215331116435 83. ^ Strike on Iran still possible, U.S. tells Israel - Los Angeles Times 84. ^ Press TV - Nader: Axis of evil talk means Iran war 85. ^ Press TV - Paul: US would back Israeli strike on Iran 86. ^ Iran tests 'new weapon' for use at sea 87. ^ Iran Issues New Warnings After Defying a Deadline - NYTimes.com 88. ^ Govt finalizing war emergency plan » Kuwait Times Website 89. ^ '2 US aircraft carriers headed for Gulf' | The Iranian Threat | Jerusalem Post 90. ^ The Associated Press: Israel considers military option for Iran nukes 91. ^ Reuters (September 28, 2006). "Americans favor diplomacy on Iran: Reuters poll". Yahoo. Retrieved on 2007-02-26. 92. ^ a b "Iran (Polls listed chronologically. Data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older.)". Polling Report, Inc.. Retrieved on 2007-02-27. 93. ^ a b "Iran (Polls listed chronologically. Data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older.)". Polling Report, Inc.. Retrieved on 2007-11-19. 94. ^ "Reuters/Zogby Poll (survey was conducted September 22-25, 2006)". Reuters/Zogby. Retrieved on 2007-02-26. 95. ^ Open Europe (April 4, 2007). European poll findings on globalisation and foreign policy: Majority of UK and EU citizens would back military action against Iran. Press release. http://www.openeurope.org.uk/mediacentre/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=36. Retrieved on 2007-04-05. 96. ^ "Zogby Poll: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran"| Zogby International|29/10/07|http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1379|Retrieved 29/10/07 97. ^ Ritter, Scott (November 3, 2006). "The Case for Engagement", The Nation. Retrieved on 5 November 2006. 98. ^ "Declaration of International Peace Conference, London, 2005". Stop the War Coalition (December 10, 2005). Retrieved on 2006-10-23. 99. ^ Roudabeh Shafie of Action Iran Speaks in Manchester (2006) 100. ^ "Iran Solidarity". End of Empire. Retrieved on 2006-11-07.

43

101. ^ "UK peace groups consolidate under "Campaign Iran"", Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (November 7, 2006). Retrieved on 7 November 2006. 102. ^ "Don't Attack Iran" (in English), Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (November 11, 2006). Retrieved on 11 November 2006. 103. ^ "Iranian NGOs express opposition to sanctions, military intervention and foreign interference in Iran", Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (2007-06-28). Retrieved on 1 July 2007. 104. ^ "Iranian NGO’s against sanctions & military intervention against Iran". Organization for Defending Victims of Violence. Retrieved on 2007-07-01. 105. ^ http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/iran/articles/iran_newspaper_campaign/ Campaign Against War in Iran 106. ^ King, Stuart (10 December 2007). "Hands Off People of Iran: launch conference". Permanent Revolution. Retrieved on 25 January 2009. 107. ^ "Founding statement". Hands Off the People of Iran (8 December 2007). Retrieved on 25 January 2009. 108. ^ ">"Supporters". Hands Off the People of Iran. Retrieved on 25 January 2009. 109. ^ Webb, Jim (2007-11-02). "(letter to President George W. Bush)" (pdf). United States Senate. Retrieved on 2007-11-06. 110. ^ Saeidi, Shirin (June 17, 2007). "Muffled Voices: ElBaradei’s Unheard Assessments". Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. Retrieved on 2007-06-21. 111. ^ Gelken, Chris (2008-07-22). "US lawyer seeks to sue US over Iran threats", Press TV. Retrieved on 9 August 2008. 112. ^ "Worldwide Anti-War Protests - March 2006". Indymedia (22 March 2006). Retrieved on 2006-10-23. 113. ^ Massoumi, Nariman (September 24, 2006). "Action Iran and CASMII march together against war". Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. Retrieved on 2006-10-24. 114. ^ "Photos from the 24th February London Anti-War Demo". Indymedia (2007-02-24). Retrieved on 2007-11-02. 115. ^ "Tens of Thousands Say 'NO to Trident, NO to War'". Indymedia (2007-02-24). Retrieved on 2007-11-02. 116. ^ Kayakbiker, Bert (28 October 2007). "Anti-war Rally in Minneapolis: Don't Bomb Iran edition". Indymedia. Retrieved on 2007-11-01. 117. ^ Tough welcome at Columbia for Iran's Ahmadinejad - USATODAY.com 118. ^ Bollinger went too far in pre-empting Ahmadinejad 119. ^ The article requested can not be found! Please refresh your browser or go back. (C4,20080209,,802090318,AR) 120. ^ The Jordan Rich Show, 03-07-08 121. ^ Solomon, Norman (April 18, 2006). "How Long Will MoveOn.org Fail to Oppose Bombing Iran?". Z Communications. Retrieved on 2006-10-24. 122. ^ "StopIranWar.com" at the Huffington Post 123. ^ "A Terrible Day for International Diplomacy", ZNet. Retrieved on 24 December 2006. External links

Iran portal

• • •

Stop War on Iran Campaign, Stop War on Iran Campaign Confronting Iran: Critical Perspectives on the Current Crisis, its Origins, and Implications, Project on Defense Alternatives The Oil Factor: Behind The War on Terror at Google Video

Stop the War Coalition protests in London on 24 February 2007.

44

Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) is a group of people, especially academics, students and professionals of both Iranian and non-Iranian backgrounds whose aim is to advocate against war and sanctions, especially as they pertain to current United States-Iran relations. The group opposes "sanctions, foreign state interference and military intervention in Iran" by the United States. The United Kingdom (UK) branch of CASMII joined with two other groups with similar aims, Action Iran and Iran Solidarity, forming a group with the name Campaign Iran, which is now considered to be the UK component of CASMII. History and aims CASMII' itself was officially founded on December 1, 2005 in London by Professor Abbas Edalat, and describes itself as independent in the sense that "CASMII is independent of all political groups and governments, in particular the Iranian government, and adheres to no particular religion or ideology. Our core values include respect for human rights and a democratic state, in particular freedom of expression, freedom of press, an independent judiciary, equal rights for women, ethnic and religious minorities in Iran."[1] A third group, Iran Solidarity, was a United Kingdom based news and education online publishing group which claimed that "Iran and its people have the right to freedom from the bombs and guns of the U.S. administration and it's[sic] allies" and said that it aimed to present facts which are "unrepresented in the mainstream media".[2] On November 6, 2006, the United Kingdom (UK) branch of CASMII joined together with Action Iran and Iran Solidarity, forming a new organisation in the UK called Campaign Iran, which remains part of CASMII international.[3] Actions The group's campaign methods include participation in media, holding public meetings, lobbying members of parliaments, international campaigning and cooperation with all groups sharing similar aims. In November 2006, the group participated in a multistate "Tour for a Just Foreign Policy" which was a series of speaking engagements as well as photographic displays throughout the Northeastern USA.[4] Action Iran On February 6, 2006, Roudabeh Shafie representing Action Iran participated in a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament demonstration outside of the headquarters of the BBC, claiming that the BBC presented biased reporting regarding Iran by not reporting alleged violations by nuclear weapons states of Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[5] On March 18, 2006, Action Iran members including Roudabeh Shafie participated in a major anti-war demonstration in London. On June 10, 2006, Elaheh Rostami Povey represented Action Iran at the Stop the War Coalition's "Fifth Annual Stop The War Conference" [6]. On September 6, 2006, an Action Iran spokesperson took party in a rally in Manchester promoting a later rally called "Time To Go" advocating the resignation of British prime minister Tony Blair[7] and later in the month, Action Iran together with CASMII organised a public rally with Hans von Sponeck, the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq after Denis Halliday resigned from that post, [8] Reaction to U Security Council Resolution 1737 In reaction to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737, CASMII issued a statement titled "A Terrible Day for International Diplomacy"[9] dated December 24, 2006. In the statement CASMII expresses grave concern over the UN resolution. It characterizes the unanimous verdict as having been engineered by the US stating "As the Observer reported last Sunday, the US is giving up to 270% more foreign aid to Security Council members as incentive for them to support US positions." The statement further argues that the resolution could be abused and taken as a justification for war, just like the 2002 resolution -also unanimously passed- was used as an eventual justification for the US/UK invasion of Iraq. The statement also "notes" that "there may actually be no way for Iran to comply with the UN demands," saying "Just as the repeated American demands for more and more intrusive inspections, for opening up of Saddam’s palaces and interviewing Iraqi scientists did not satisfy America’s suspicions; neither will Iran’s 'compliance' with these demands be ever sufficient to 'prove' the non-existence of a WMD program." See also Opposition to war against Iran Sanctions against Iran Anti-Iranianism The UN Security Council and the Iraq war United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 Hands Off the People of Iran References 1. ^ "About CASMII". Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. Retrieved on 2006-10-23. 2. ^ "About". End of Empire. Retrieved on 2006-11-07.

• • • • • •

45

3.

^ "UK peace groups consolidate under "Campaign Iran"", Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (2006-11-07). Retrieved on 7 November 2006. 4. ^ "CASMII President joins Antiwar Tour of Northeastern US", Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. Retrieved on 3 November 2006. 5. ^ "CND protests at BBC's "biased" Iran coverage". peacenews.info (March 2006). Retrieved on 2007-01-22. 6. ^ "Fifth Annual Stop The War Conference". Stop the War Coalition. Retrieved on 2007-01-22. 7. ^ Edwards, Chris. "Spokesperson from Action Iran Helps Mobilise for Time to Go Demonstration (2006)". Internet Archive. Retrieved on 2007-01-22. 8. ^ . Mehri Honarbin-Holliday spoke on behalf of Action Iran both at ULU and Trafalgar Square"Hans Von Sponeck warns of US plans of aggression". Action Iran (2006-09-20). Retrieved on 2007-01-22. 9. ^ "A Terrible Day for International Diplomacy", ZNet. Retrieved on 24 December 2006. External links • http://www.campaigniran.org/ • http://www.stopwaroniran.org/

Hands Off the People of Iran From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hands Off the People of Iran (HOPI) is an anti war campaign in the UK. In addition to fighting against Western imperialist intervention in Iran, Hopi also builds up solidarity links with radical Iranian secular forces. Hopi operates under the slogans 'No to imperialist war! No to the theocratic regime!'[1] Formation The initiative for Hands Off the People of Iran came from a number of Iranian exile organisations in 2005[2]. On March 16 2006, Workers Left Unity - Iran wrote an open letter to the British anti war movement, calling for genuine solidarity with the Iranian people.[3] By 2007 Hopi was fully established, consisting predominantly of Iranian exiles who campaign for regime change in Iran but are against external military intervention, believing occupation to be the worst condition under which liberation can be achieved[4].Hopi's founding conference was held in December 2007. At the Founding Conference, a National Steering Committee was established consisting of seventeen members from a range of different political organisations and political traditions. These include members of the Green Party, Labour Representation Committee, Jewish Socialist Group, Permanent Revolution, Communist Party of Great Britain, Workers Left Unity - Iran, Revolutionary Workers of Iran, Anarchist Federation (pc) and Women’s Campaign Against All Misogynist Laws in Iran. Founding statement Hopi's founding statement, passed at its first conference, reads: 'We recognise that there is an urgent need to establish a principled solidarity campaign with the people of Iran. 'The contradictions between the interests of the neo-conservatives in power in the USA and the defenders of the rule of capital in the Islamic Republic has entered a dangerous new phase. 'US imperialism and its allies are intent on regime change from above and are seriously considering options to impose this - sanctions, diplomatic pressure, limited strikes or perhaps bombing the country back to the stone age. 'The main enemy is imperialism. The Iranian regime does not represent a progressive or consistent anti-imperialist force. 'In Iran, the theocracy is using the international outcry against its alleged nuclear weapons programme to divert attention away from the country's endemic crisis, deflect popular anger onto foreign enemies and thus prolong its reactionary rule. The pretext of external threats has been cynically used to justify increased internal repression. The regime's security apparatus has been unleashed on its political opponents, workers, women, youth and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people. The rising tide of daily working class anti-capitalist struggles has been met with arrests, the ratification of new anti-labour laws and sweeping privatisations. Under the new Iranian government, military-fascist organisations are gaining political and military strength, posing an ominous threat to the working class and democratic opposition. 'Paradoxically, the US/UK invasion of Iraq has actually increased the regional influence of Iran's rulers - it led to the election of the pro-Iranian Shia government currently in power in Baghdad. This means that any support from the anti-war movement for the reactionaries who currently govern Iran and repress its people is in effect indirect support for the occupation government in Iraq. 'The task of the anti war movement in Britain and HOPI is threefold. One to fight against any imperialist attack on Iran and support the Iranian peoples right to defend themselves by any means necessary. Secondly not to flinch from publicising the reactionary nature of the Tehran regime and its attacks on the workers and democratic movement. Thirdly to build links with all progressive forces fighting the regime – workers, women, trade unionists, socialists. 'We recognise that effective resistance to this war can only mean the militant defence of the struggles of the working class in Iran and of the rising social movements in that country. We want regime change - both in Iran and in the imperialist countries. But we know that change must come from below - from the struggles of the working class and social movements - if it is to lead to genuine liberation. 'We call on all anti-capitalist forces, progressive political groups and social organisations to join activists of the Iranian left to both oppose imperialism's plans and to organise practical solidarity with the growing movement against war and repression in Iran headed by the working class, women, students, youth and LGBT people.' Expulsion from Stop the War Coalition Shortly before Stop the War Coalition's 2007 AGM, Hopi, alongside another organisation Communist Students, was denied affiliation to the Coalition. This directly contradicted Stop the War's stated aims: 'If you are a member of an organisation that is opposed to Bush and Blair's on-going "war on terror" and agree with our aims and objectives, we urge you to ask your organisation to consider affiliating to the Stop the War Coalition' and 'The Coalition is open to the affiliation of any organisation that accepts those objectives [building a mass movement against the wars]'[5]. Andrew Murray from Stop the War

46

claimed that Hopi was 'entirely hostile' to the Coalition[6]. This claim has never been substantiated. Yassamine Mather, an Iranian exile who helped to found Hopi, was quoted in a sympathetic article in The Independent as saying the decision to exclude the group was political: "It's ridiculous to say we have set ourselves up as an alternative... Stop the War Coalition covers many countries. You have all sorts of groups who campaign on all sorts of issues within Stop the War, so why not us?"[7] Controversy with ITF/ITUC A few UK leftists condemned Hopi's refusal to give unconditional political support to an international day of action[8], March 6 2008, calling for the freedom of Mansour Osanloo and Mahmoud Salehi.[9] Hopi responded that it could not unconditionally support the ITF/ITUC day of action because those organisations are heavily compromised in their refusal to undertake a position against an imperialist attack on Iran- it did, however, mobilise for this day and issue a leaflet, 'What sort of solidarity do workers in Iran need?'[10] Supporters Prominent affiliates of Hopi include the Green Party of England and Wales and the Young Greens of England and Wales; the Public and Commercial Services Union, the UK's 300,000 strong civil service union; ASLEF, the train drivers' union; the Labour Representation Committee and the Socialist Youth Network; Workers Left Unity - Iran; the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee) and Communist Students; Permanent Revolution; the commune; the Jewish Socialists' Group; Campaign for a Marxist Party; Scottish Socialist Party and Organization of Revolutionary Workers of Iran (Rahe Kargar). Prominent supporters of Hopi include Tony Benn, John McDonnell MP, Diane Abbott MP, Harry Cohen MP, Ken Loach, Naomi Klein, Mark Steel, Bill Bailey, Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Michael Mansfield QC and Mick Shaw, President of the Fire Brigades' Union. [11] External links Hopi's website featuring news on the campaign References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

^ Hopi founding statement [1] ^ Who we are [2] ^ Open letter to the anti war movement [3] ^ Anti war activists do battle over intervention in Iran [4] ^ About Stop the War [5] ^ Controversy at Stop the War Coalition AGM [6] ^ Anti war activists do battle over intervention in Iran [7] ^ Day of Action [8] ^ Blogging wars [9] ^ What sort of solidarity do workers in Iran need? [10] ^ Hopi supporters [11]

47

Operation Merlin From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Merlin is an alleged United States covert operation under the Clinton Administration to provide Iran with a flawed design for building a nuclear weapon in order to delay the Iranian nuclear weapons program. In his book State of War, author and #ew York Times intelligence correspondent James Risen claims that the CIA chose a defected Russian nuclear scientist to provide deliberately flawed nuclear warhead blueprints to Iranian officials in February 2000. Operation Merlin backfired when the nervous Russian scientist noticed the flaws and pointed them out to the Iranians, hoping to enhance his credibility and to protect himself against retaliation by the Iranians, while still advancing what he thought was the CIA plan to use him as a double agent inside Iran. Instead, the book alleges, Operation Merlin may have accelerated Iran's nuclear program by providing useful information, once the flaws were identified, and the plans compared with other sources, such as those presumed to have been provided to the Iranians by A. Q. Khan. Sources • James Risen, State of War : The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, Free Press, January 2006, ISBN 07432-7066-5 • ""US blunder aided Iran's atomic aims, book claims"". Guardian Unlimited. 2006-01-05. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1678134,00.html. • ""George Bush insists that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. So why, six years ago, did the CIA give the Iranians blueprints to build a bomb?"". Guardian Unlimited. 2006-01-05. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0%2c12271%2c1678219%2c00.html?gusrc=rss:.

Global uclear Energy Partnership (GEP) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Global uclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) began as a U.S. proposal, announced by United States Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman on February 6, 2006, to form an international partnership to promote the use of nuclear power and close the nuclear fuel cycle in a way that reduces nuclear waste and the risk of nuclear proliferation.[1] This proposal would divide the world into “fuel supplier nations,” which supply enriched uranium fuel and take back spent fuel, and “user nations,” which operate nuclear power plants.[2] GNEP has since evolved into an international partnership with 21 partner countries, 17 observer countries and three international observer countries.[3] GNEP operates by consensus among its partners based on an agreed GNEP Statement of Principles.[4] GNEP has proven controversial in the United States and internationally. The U.S. Congress has provided far less funding for GNEP than President Bush requested. U.S. arms control organizations have criticized the proposal to resume reprocessing as costly and increasing proliferation risks. Some countries and analysts have criticized the GNEP proposal for discriminating between countries as nuclear fuel cycle “haves” and “have-nots.”

GEP in the United States The GNEP proposal began as part of the Advanced Energy Initiative announced by President Bush in his 2006 State of the Union address. [5] In announcing the GNEP Proposal, the U.S. Department of Energy said: The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership has four main goals. First, reduce America’s dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels and encourage economic growth. Second, recycle nuclear fuel using new proliferation-resistant technologies to recover more energy and reduce waste. Third, encourage prosperity growth and clean development around the world. And fourth, utilize the latest technologies to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation worldwide. Through GNEP, the United States will work with other nations possessing advanced nuclear technologies to develop new proliferation-resistant recycling technologies in order to produce more energy, reduce waste and minimize proliferation concerns. Additionally, [the] partner nations will develop a fuel services program to provide nuclear fuel to developing nations allowing them to enjoy the benefits of abundant sources of clean, safe nuclear energy in a cost effective manner in exchange for their commitment to forgo enrichment and reprocessing activities, also alleviating proliferation concerns. As a research and development program, GNEP is an outgrowth of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative [6][7]

GEP International Partnerships The United States has established a number of cooperative arrangements to pursue technical cooperation on this proposal. On February 16, 2006 the United States, France and Japan signed an "arrangement" to research and develop sodium-cooled fast reactors in support of the GNEP.[8] The United States has established “action plans” for collaboration with Russia, Japan and China.[9] On September 16, 2007, 16 countries officially became GNEP Partners by signing the GNEP Statement of Principles.[10] These countries were: • Australia • Bulgaria • China

48

France Ghana Hungary Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Lithuania Poland Romania Russia Slovenia Ukraine United States Since then, nine additional countries have joined: • Armenia • Canada • Estonia • Italy • Republic of Korea • Morocco • Oman • Senegal • United Kingdom[11][12][13] Seventeen countries have been invited to join GNEP as partners but have not been willing to sign the Statement of Principles and have participated as observers. These include South Africa, although South African Minerals and Energy Minister Buyelwa Sonjica stated that "Exporting uranium only to get it back refined, instead of enriching it in South Africa, would be 'in conflict with our national policy.'"[14] 25 additional countries have been invited to join GNEP at the October 1, 2008 GNEP Ministerial in Paris, France.[15]

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

Criticism In 2007 a large number of U.S. nuclear arms control organizations sent a joint letter to Congress requesting that GNEP funding be terminated on the grounds that it undermined U.S. nuclear proliferation policy, would cost over $100 billion, and did not solve the nuclear waste problem.[16] In 2008 Congress allocated less than half of the requested funds, supporting GNEP research but not technology demonstration projects. The Congressional Budget Office assessed that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel would cost considerably more than disposal in a long-term repository.[17] Some states do not approve of the GNEP philosophy that partitions the world between a few fuel-cycle states and a larger number of receiver states, reflecting the distinctions in the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty.[18] They are concerned that their nuclear fuel assurance could in the future be subject to external political pressure.[19] They also believe it creates an unfortunate incentive on states to develop enrichment or reprocessing technology now, to position themselves to become one of the future fuel-cycle states.[20] Steve Kidd, Head of Strategy & Research at the World Nuclear Association, has explained: An alternative view of GNEP may see it as somewhat discriminatory and potentially anti-competitive. By restricting parts of the fuel cycle to particular countries, albeit with fair rights of access to nuclear materials, there is a risk of maintaining or even reinforcing the existing NPT arrangements that have always upset certain nations, notably India and Pakistan. Similarly, by maintaining a market stranglehold on, for example, enrichment facilities in the existing countries, it can be argued that the market will be uncompetitive and lead to excessive profits being achieved by those who are so favoured.[21] Another criticism is that GNEP seeks to deploy proliferation-prone reprocessing technology for commercial reasons, and to bypass the continued delays with the Yucca Mountain waste repository project, while erroneously claiming to enhance global nuclear security.[22] See also Energy portal Nuclear power Integral Fast Reactor United States-Japan Joint Nuclear Energy Action Plan Franco-British Nuclear Forum Section 123 Agreement External links • Department of Energy's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership page • GNEP international partnership official web site • Departrment of Energy announcement

• • • • •

49

US launches Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Nuclear Engineering International, 8 February 2006 GNEP: the right way forward?, Nuclear Engineering International, 1 June 2006 Nuclear Energy Plan Would Use Spent Fuel, Peter Baker and Dafna Linzer, Washington Post, January 26, 2006 Reprocessing Revisited:The International Dimensions of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Edwin Lyman and Frank N. von Hippel, Arms Control Today, April 2008 • The future of GNEP, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Aug 2008 References 1. ^ Department of Energy Announces New Nuclear Initiative 2. ^ GNEP Element: Establish Reliable Fuel Services 3. ^ Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 4. ^ GNEP Statement of Principles 5. ^ State of the Union: The Advanced Energy Initiative 6. ^ Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. 7. ^ What is the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership? 8. ^ Generation IV International Forum Signs Agreement to Collaborate on Sodium Cooled Fast Reactors, U.S. Department of Energy, February 17, 2006, http://www.energy.gov/news/3218.htm, retrieved on 23 April 2008 9. ^ International Collaboration 10. ^ G#EP Statement of Principles, U.S. Department of Energy, September 16, 2007, http://www.gnep.energy.gov/pdfs/GNEP_SOP.pdf, retrieved on 23 April 2008 11. ^ Membership of G#EP has tripled, World Nuclear News, 17 September 2007, http://www.world-nuclearnews.org/nuclearPolicies/Membership_of_GNEP_has_tripled_170907.shtml, retrieved on 19 April 2008 12. ^ Global #uclear Energy Partnership Triples in Size to 16 Members, U.S. Department of Energy, September 16, 2007, http://www.energy.gov/print/5497.htm, retrieved on 23 April 2008 13. ^ [1] 14. ^ SAfrica out of G#EP to keep right to enrich uranium: minister, AFP, September 18, 2007, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVN6X3NLfzljt66R_ThfRyFl6R2Q, retrieved on 25 October 2007 15. ^ Welcome to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 16. ^ Letter to Senators Byron L. Dorgan and Pete V. Domenici (Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Senate Appropriations Committee), October 31, 2007, http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_security/Community-letterGNEP-Congress_Final.pdf, retrieved on 19 April 2008 17. ^ Richard Weitz (March 2008), Global #uclear Energy Partnership: Progress, Problems, and Prospects, WMD Insights, http://www.wmdinsights.com/I23/I23_G2_GlobalNuclearEnergy.htm, retrieved on 1 April 2008 18. ^ Heads of State, Non-Aligned Countries (2-3 September 1998), Durban Final Document, Non-Aligned Movement, p. para. 120, http://www.nam.gov.za/xiisummit/, retrieved on 29 June 2008 19. ^ Sean Lucas (November 2004), The Bush Proposals: A Global Strategy for Combating the Spread of #uclear Weapons Technology or a Sanctioned #uclear Cartel?, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_58a.html, retrieved on 29 June 2008 20. ^ Harold D. Bengelsdorf (December 2006), Proposals to Strengthen the #uclear #onproliferation Regime, Office of Science & Technology, http://www.ostina.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1677, retrieved on 25 October 2007 21. ^ Steve Kidd (1 June 2006), G#EP: the right way forward?, Nuclear Engineering International, http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2036516, retrieved on 23 August 2008 22. ^ Steve Kidd (14 September 2007), Evolving international pacts for tomorrow, Nuclear Engineering International, http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2047064, retrieved on 25 October 2007

• • • •

50

uclear program of Iran From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about Iran's nuclear power program. For information about allegations of Iran developing nuclear weapons, see Iran and weapons of mass destruction. The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program.[1] The support, encouragement and participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran's nuclear program continued until the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran.[2] After the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the Iranian government temporarily disbanded elements of the program, and then revived it with less Western assistance than during the prerevolution era. Iran's nuclear program has included several research sites, a uranium mine, a nuclear reactor, and uranium processing facilities that include a uranium enrichment plant. Iran's first nuclear power plant, Bushehr I, is expected to be operational in 2009.[3] There are no current plans to complete the Bushehr II reactor, although the construction of 19 nuclear power plants is envisaged.[4] Iran has announced that it is working on a new 360 MWe nuclear power plant to be located in Darkhoyen. Iran has also indicated it that it will seek more medium-sized nuclear power plants and uranium mines for the future.[5]

Overview Iran's nuclear programme Gawdat Bahgat, Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, asserts that Iran's nuclear program is formed by three forces: one, perception of security threats from Pakistan, Iraq, Israel, and the United States; two, domestic economic and political dynamics; and three, national pride.[6] Bahgat further outlines four key influences on Iran's relations with the international community and how that impacts Iran's position on its nuclear program: Iranian officials have little confidence in the international community because of its behavior during the 1980s Iran–Iraq War. During that war the larger and more populous Iran had the upper hand, but to close the geographic and demographic gap, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iranian troops and civilians. These chemical weapons killed or injured thousands of Iranians and played a major role in turning the war in favor of Iraq. The international community was notably indifferent, doing little to condemn Iraq or to protect Iran. Shahram Chubin, Director of Studies at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, asserts that in response to this, “Iran has learned from its war with Iraq that, for deterrence to operate, the threatening state must be confronted with the certainty of an equivalent response. The threat of inkind retaliation (or worse) deterred Iraq’s use of chemical weapons in Desert Storm; it appears that the absence of such a retaliatory capability facilitated its decision to use chemical weapons against Iran."[7] In 1985, US officials reportedly expressed concern that Iran may have developed an arsenal of chemical weapons to use in retaliation against Iraq.[8] However, Iran's foreign minister stated in 1986 that while Iran had developed the capacity to use chemical weapons, it would not do so, and Khomeini prohibited the use of chemical weapons as contrary to Islamic principles.[9] In 1996, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency worried that Iran might have had as much as 2,000 tons of chemical agent during the war;[10][11] however, by 2007 the Defense Intelligence Agency would only say that the Iranian chemical industry "could be used to support a chemical agent mobilization capability."[12] Iran would have been entitled to engage in retaliatory strikes with chemicals weapons under then-existing international law. Iran did not have a chemical weapons capability prior to the war and did not use chemical weapons during the war.[13] Iran has stated that chemical weapons have no place in its defense doctrine.[14] Contrary to Gawdat Bahgat's analysis, the Iranian authorities deny seeking a nuclear weapons capacity as a deterrent since Iran's level of technological progress cannot match that of existing nuclear weapons states, and the acquisition of nuclear weapons would only spark an arms race in the Mideast. According to Ambassador Javad Zarif: It is true that Iran has neighbors with abundant nuclear weapons, but this does not mean that Iran must follow suit. In fact, the predominant view among Iranian decision-makers is that development, acquisition or possession of nuclear weapons would only undermine Iranian security. Viable security for Iran can be attained only through inclusion and regional and global engagement.[15][16] Iran's President Ahmadinejad, during an interview with NBC anchor Brian Willians in July 2008, also dismissed the utility of nuclear weapons as a source of security and stated: Again, did nuclear arms help the Soviet Union from falling and disintegrating? For that matter, did a nuclear bomb help the U.S. to prevail inside Iraq or Afghanistan, for that matter? Nuclear bombs belong to the 20th century. We are living in a new century...Nuclear energy must not be equaled to a nuclear bomb. This is a disservice to the society of man.[17] Currently, thirteen states possess operational enrichment or reprocessing facilities, which are necessary to make nuclear fuel.[18] Several other countries have announced an interest in developing indigenous enrichment programs.[19] To alleviate concerns that its civilian nuclear program may be diverted to non-peaceful uses, Iran has offered to place additional restrictions on its nuclear program beyond its legal obligations. These offers included, for example, ratifying the Additional Protocol to allow more stringent inspections by the IAEA, operating the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz as a multinational fuel center with the participation of foreign representatives, renouncing plutonium reprocessing and immediately fabricating all enriched uranium into reactor fuel rods.[20] Iran's offer to open its uranium enrichment program to foreign private and public participation corresponds to suggestions of an IAEA expert committee which was formed to investigate the methods to reduce the risk that sensitive fuel cycle activities could contribute to national nuclear weapons capabilities.[21] It has also been endorsed by American scholars and experts.[22][23] Iran has likewise been offered "a long-term comprehensive arrangement which would allow for the development of relations and cooperation with Iran based on mutual respect and the establishment of international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program", but which required a cessation of enrichment by Iran.[24]

51

History 1950s and 60s The foundations for Iran's nuclear program were laid after a 1953, CIA-supported coup deposed democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and brought Shah (King) Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power.[25] A civil nuclear co-operation program was established under the U.S. Atoms for Peace program. In 1967, the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was established, run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The TNRC was equipped with a U.S.-supplied, 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor, which became operational in 1967 and was fueled by highly enriched uranium.[26] Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970. With the establishment of Iran's atomic agency and the NPT in place, the Shah approved plans to construct, with U.S. help, up to 23 nuclear power stations by the year 2000.

1970s In March 1974, the Shah envisioned a time when the world's oil supply would run out, and declared, "Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn... We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23 000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants."[27] Bushehr would be the first plant, and would supply energy to the inland city of Shiraz. In 1975, the Bonn firm Kraftwerk Union AG, a joint venture of Siemens AG and AEG Telefunken, signed a contract worth $4 to $6 billion to build the pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Construction of the two 1,196 MWe nuclear generating units was subcontracted to ThyssenKrupp, and was to have been completed in 1981. "President Gerald Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete 'nuclear fuel cycle'."[28] At the time, Richard Cheney was the White House Chief of Staff, and Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense. The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals." The Shah had also signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with South Africa under which Iranian oil money financed the development of South African fuel enrichment technology using a novel "jet nozzle" process, in return for assured supplies of South African (and Namibian) enriched uranium.[29] Iran, a U.S. ally then, had deep pockets and close ties to Washington. U.S. and European companies scrambled to do business there.[30] Gawdat Bahgat, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies states that "Despite assertions that Iran’s nuclear program under the Shah was only for peaceful purposes, some sources claim that the Shah intended to build a nuclear weapons capability. In the mid-1970s, the Shah was quoted as saying that Iran would have nuclear weapons 'without a doubt and sooner than one would think.' The Center for Non-proliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies claims that the Western intelligence community 'had long suspected that the Shah’s nuclear scientists conducted research into military applications.'...despite these speculations on the Shah’s intentions, it is important to point out that in 1974, when the AEOI was established, the Shah called for making the entire Middle East a nuclear weapons-free zone (MENWFZ)."[6] Then-United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in 2005, 'I don't think the issue of proliferation came up'.[28] However a 1974 CIA proliferation assessment had stated "If [the Shah] is alive in the mid-1980s ... and if other countries [particularly India] have proceeded with weapons development we have no doubt Iran will follow suit."[31] As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran signed in 1968, their program would have been under International Atomic Energy Agency inspection.

Post-1979 Revolution After the 1979 Revolution, Iran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of its plans to restart its nuclear program using indigenously-made nuclear fuel, and in 1983 the IAEA even planned to provide assistance to Iran under its Technical Assistance Program to produce enriched uranium. An IAEA report stated clearly that its aim was to “contribute to the formation of local expertise and manpower needed to sustain an ambitious program in the field of nuclear power reactor technology and fuel cycle technology”. However, the United States persuaded the IAEA to terminate the project.[32] Another result of the 1979 Revolution was France's refusal to give any enriched uranium to Iran after 1979. Iran also didn't get back its investment from Eurodif. The joint stock company Eurodif was formed in 1973 by France, Belgium, Spain and Sweden. In 1975 Sweden’s 10% share in Eurodif went to Iran as a result of an arrangement between France and Iran. The French government subsidiary company Cogéma and the Iranian Government established the Sofidif (Société franco–iranienne pour l’enrichissement de l’uranium par diffusion gazeuse) enterprise with 60% and 40% shares, respectively. In turn, Sofidif acquired a 25% share in EURODIF, which gave Iran its 10% share of Eurodif. Reza Shah Pahlavi lent 1 billion dollars (and another 180 million dollars in 1977) for the construction of the Eurodif factory, to have the right of buying 10% of the production of the site. The U.S. was also paid to deliver new fuel and upgrade its power in accordance with a contract signed before the revolution. The U.S. delivered neither the fuel nor returned the billions of dollars payment it had received. Germany was paid in full, totaling billions of dollars, for the two nuclear facilities in Bushehr, but after three decades, Germany has also refused to export any equipment or refund the money.[33] Iran's government suspended its payments and tried refunding the loan by making pressure on France by handling militant groups, including the Hezbollah who took French citizens hostage in the 1980s. In 1982, president François Mitterrand refused to give any uranium to Iran, which also claimed the $1 billion debt. In 1986, Eurodif manager Georges Besse was assassinated; the act was allegedly claimed by left-wing militants from Action Directe. However, they denied any responsibility during their trial.[34] In their investigation La République atomique, FranceIran le pacte nucléaire, David Carr-Brown and Dominique Lorentz pointed out toward the Iranian intelligence services' responsibility. More importantly, they also showed how the French hostage scandal was connected with the Iranian blackmail. Finally an agreement was found in 1991: France refunded more than 1.6 billion dollars. Iran remained shareholder of Eurodif via

52

Sofidif, a Franco-Iranian consortium shareholder to 25% of Eurodif. However, Iran abstained itself from asking for the produced uranium.[35][36] Kraftwerk Union, the joint venture of Siemens AG and AEG Telefunken who had signed a contract with Iran in 1975, fully withdrew from the Bushehr nuclear project in July 1979, after work stopped in January 1979, with one reactor 50% complete, and the other reactor 85% complete. They said they based their action on Iran's non-payment of $450 million in overdue payments. The company had received $2.5 billion of the total contract. Their cancellation came after certainty that the Iranian government would unilaterally terminate the contract themselves, following the revolution, which paralyzed Iran's economy and led to a crisis in Iran's relations with the West. The French company Framatome, a subsidiary of Areva, also withdrew itself. In 1984, Kraftwerk Union did a preliminary assessment to see if it could resume work on the project, but declined to do so while the Iran–Iraq War continued. In April of that year, the U.S. State Department said, "We believe it would take at least two to three years to complete construction of the reactors at Bushehr." The spokesperson also said that the light water power reactors at Bushehr "are not particularly well-suited for a weapons program." The spokesman went on to say, "In addition, we have no evidence of Iranian construction of other facilities that would be necessary to separate plutonium from spent reactor fuel." The Bushehr reactors were then damaged by multiple Iraqi air strikes between March 24, 1984 to 1988 and work on the nuclear program came to a standstill. In 1990, Iran began to look outwards towards new partners for its nuclear program; however, due to a radically different political climate and punitive U.S. economic sanctions, few candidates existed. According to a report by the Argentine justice, Iran signed three agreements with Argentina in 1987-88. Argentina has had a National Atomic Energy Commission since 1950, and completed its first nuclear reactor, Atucha I in 1974 and Embalse in 1984, a year after the return to democracy. The first Iranian-Argentine agreement involved help in converting a nuclear reactor in Tehran so that it could use 20%-enriched uranium (ie, low-grade uranium that cannot be used for weapons production) and indicates that it included the shipment of the 20%-enriched uranium to Iran. The second and third agreements were for technical assistance, including components, for the building of pilot plants for uranium-dioxide conversion and fuel fabrication. Under US pressure, assistance was reduced, but not completely terminated, and negotiations with the aim of re-establishing the three agreements took pace from early 1992 to 1994.[37]

1990s From the beginning of 1990s, Russian Federation formed a joint research organization with Iran called Persepolis which provided Iran with Russian nuclear experts, and technical information stolen from the West by GRU and SVR, according to GRU defector Stanislav Lunev.[38] He said that five Russian institutions, including the Russian Federal Space Agency helped Tehran to improve its missiles. The exchange of technical information with Iran was personally approved by the SVR director Trubnikov.[38] In 1992, following media allegations about undeclared nuclear activities in Iran, Iran invited IAEA inspectors to the country and permitted those inspectors to visit all the sites and facilities they asked to see. Director General Blix reported that all activities observed were consistent with the peaceful use of atomic energy.[39][40] The IAEA visits included undeclared facilities and Iran's nascent uranium mining project at Saghand. In the same year, Argentine officials disclosed that their country had canceled a sale to Iran of civilian nuclear equipment worth $18 million, under US pressure.[41] In 1995, Iran signed a contract with Russia to resume work on the partially-complete Bushehr plant,[42] installing into the existing Bushehr I building a 915MWe VVER-1000 pressurized water reactor, with completion expected in 2007. There are no current plans to complete the Bushehr II reactor. In 1996, the U.S. convinced the People's Republic of China to pull out of a contract to construct a uranium conversion plant. However, the Chinese provided blueprints for the facility to the Iranians, who advised the IAEA that they would continue work on the program, and IAEA Director Mohammad El Baradei even visited the construction site.[43]

2000 - August 2006 On August 14, 2002, Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for an Iranian dissident group National Council of Resistance of Iran, revealed the existence of two nuclear sites under-construction: a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz (part of which is underground), and a heavy water facility in Arak. It's possible that intelligence agencies already knew about these facilities but the reports had been classified.[44] The IAEA immediately sought access to these facilities and further information and co-operation from Iran regarding its nuclear program.[45] According to arrangements in force at the time for implementation of Iran's safeguards agreement with the IAEA,[46] Iran was not required to allow IAEA inspections of a new nuclear facility until six months before nuclear material is introduced into that facility. At the time, Iran was not even required to inform the IAEA of the existence of the facility. This 'six months' clause was standard for implementation of all IAEA safeguards agreements until 1992, when the IAEA Board of Governors decided that facilities should be reported during the planning phase, even before construction began. Iran was the last country to accept that decision, and only did so February 26, 2003, after the IAEA investigation began.[47] France, Germany and the United Kingdom (the "EU-3") undertook a diplomatic initiative with Iran to resolve questions about its nuclear program. On October 21, 2003, in Tehran, the Iranian government and EU-3 Foreign Ministers issued a statement[48] in which Iran agreed to co-operate with the IAEA, to sign and implement an Additional Protocol as a voluntary, confidence-building measure, and to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities during the course of the negotiations. The EU-3 in return explicitly agreed to recognise Iran's nuclear rights and to discuss ways Iran could provide "satisfactory assurances" regarding its nuclear power program, after which Iran would gain easier access to modern technology. Iran signed an Additional Protocol on December 18, 2003, and agreed to act as if the protocol were in force, making the required reports to the IAEA and allowing the required access by IAEA inspectors, pending Iran's ratification of the Additional Protocol. The IAEA reported November 10, 2003,[49] that "it is clear that Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material and its processing and use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored." Iran was obligated to inform the IAEA of its importation of uranium from China and subsequent use of that material in uranium conversion and enrichment activities. It was also obligated to report to the IAEA experiments with the separation of plutonium. A comprehensive list of Iran's specific "breaches" of its IAEA safeguards agreement, which the IAEA described as part of

53

a "pattern of concealment," can be found in the November 15, 2004 report of the IAEA on Iran's nuclear program.[50] Iran attributes its failure to report certain acquisitions and activities on US obstructionism, which reportedly included pressuring the IAEA to cease providing technical assistance to Iran's uranium conversion program in 1983.[51][52] On the question of whether Iran had a hidden nuclear weapons program, the IAEA reported in November 2003 that it found "no evidence" that the previously undeclared activities were related to a nuclear weapons program, but also that it was unable to conclude that Iran's nuclear program was exclusively peaceful. The IAEA remains unable to draw such a conclusion since it normally does so only in countries that have an Additional Protocol in force. Iran did initially accept calls by the IAEA Board of Governors to implement the Additional Protocol, but refused to ratify and later ceased all cooperation beyond that required in its safeguards agreement after the Board decided to report its safeguards non-compliance to the UN Security Council in February 2006. In its Safeguards Statement for 2007, the IAEA found no indication of undeclared nuclear material or activities in 47 of 82 states that had both NPT safeguards agreements and Additional Protocols in force.[53] In August 2007, Iran and the IAEA entered into an agreement on the modalities for resolving remaining outstanding issues,[54] but have not made progress in resolving the question of "alleged studies" of weaponization by Iran.[55]The IAEA has not detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies and says it regrets it is unable to provide Iran with copies of the documentation concerning the alleged studies, but says the documentation is comprehensive and detailed so that it needs to be taken seriously. Iran says the allegations are based on “forged” documents and “fabricated” data, and that it has not received copies of the documentation to enable it to prove that they were forged and fabricated.[56] In June 2004, construction was commenced on IR-40, a 40MW heavy water reactor. The IAEA Board of Governors deferred a formal decision on Iran's nuclear case for two years after 2003, until September 24, 2005,[57] in order to encourage Iran to co-operate with the EU-3 diplomatic initiative. The Board deferred the formal report to the UN Security Council, required by Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute,[58] for another five months, until February 27, 2006.[59] The IAEA Board of Governors eventually opted to vote on the resolution rather than adopting it by consensus, making it a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions.[60][61] Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, on November 14, 2004, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator announced a voluntary and temporary suspension of its uranium enrichment program (enrichment is not a violation of the NPT) and the voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol, after pressure from the United Kingdom, France, and Germany acting on behalf of the European Union (EU) (known in this context as the EU-3). The measure was said at the time to be a voluntary, confidence-building measure, to continue for some reasonable period of time (six months being mentioned as a reference) as negotiations with the EU-3 continued. On November 24, Iran sought to amend the terms of its agreement with the EU to exclude a handful of the equipment from this deal for research work. This request was dropped four days later. According to Seyyed Hossein Mousavian, one of the Iranian representatives to the Paris Agreement negotiations, the Iranians made it clear to their European counterparts that Iran would not consider a permanent end to uranium enrichment: Before the Paris [Agreement] text was signed, Dr Rohani...stressed that they should be committed neither to speak nor even think of a cessation any more. The ambassadors delivered his message to their foreign ministers prior to the signing of the Paris agreed text... The Iranians made it clear to their European counterparts that if the latter sought a complete termination of Iran's nuclear fuel-cycle activities, there would be no negotiations. The Europeans answered that they were not seeking such a termination, only an assurance on the non-diversion of Iran's nuclear programme to military ends.[62] In early August 2005, Iran removed seals on its uranium enrichment equipment in Isfahan,[63] which UK officials termed a "breach of the Paris Agreement"[64] though a case can be made that the EU violated the terms of the Paris Agreement by demanding that Iran abandon nuclear enrichment.[65] Several days later, the EU-3 offered Iran a package in return for permanent cessation of enrichment. Reportedly, it included benefits in the political, trade and nuclear fields, as well as long-term supplies of nuclear materials and assurances of non-aggression by the EU (but not the US),[64]. Mohammad Saeedi, the deputy head of Iran's atomic energy organization rejected the offer, terming it "very insulting and humiliating"[64] and other independent analysts characterized the EU offer as an "empty box". Iran's announcement that it would resume enrichment preceded the election of Iranian President Ahmadinejad by several months. The delay in restarting the program was to allow the IAEA to re-install monitoring equipment. The actual resumption of the program coincided with the election of President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, and the appointment of Ali Larijani as the chief Iranian nuclear negotiator [4]. In August 2005, with the assistance of Pakistan[66] a group of US government experts and international scientists concluded that traces of bomb-grade uranium found in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and were not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program in Iran.[67] In September 2005, IAEA Director General Mohammad ElBaradei reported that “most” highly-enriched uranium traces found in Iran by agency inspectors came from imported centrifuge components, validating Iran's claim that the traces were due to contamination. Sources in Vienna and the State Department reportedly stated that, for all practical purposes, the HEU issue has been resolved. On February 4 2006, the 35 member Board of Governors of the IAEA voted 27-3 (with five abstentions: Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa) to report Iran to the UN Security Council. The measure was sponsored by the United Kingdom, France and Germany, and it was backed by the United States. Two permanent council members, Russia and China, agreed to referral only on condition that the council take no action before March. The three members who voted against referral were Venezuela, Syria and Cuba.[68][69] In response, on February 6, 2006, Iran suspended its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and all other voluntary and non-legally binding cooperation with the IAEA beyond what is required by its safeguards agreement.[70] In late February, 2006, IAEA Director Mohammad El-Baradei raised the suggestion of a deal, whereby Iran would give up industrial-scale enrichment and instead limit its program to a small-scale pilot facility, and agree to import its nuclear fuel from Russia. The Iranians indicated that while they would not be willing to give up their right to enrichment in principle, they were willing to consider the compromise solution. However in March 2006, the Bush Administration made it clear that they would not accept any enrichment at all in Iran. On April 11, 2006, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium. President Ahmadinejad made the announcement in a televised address from the northeastern city of Mashhad, where he said "I am officially announcing that Iran joined the group of those countries which have nuclear technology." The uranium was enriched to 3.5% using over a hundred centrifuges. At this level, it could be used in a nuclear reactor if enough of it was made. On April 13, 2006, after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said (on April 12, 2006) the Security Council must consider "strong steps" to induce Tehran to change course in its nuclear ambition; President Ahmadinejad vowed that Iran won't back away from uranium enrichment and that the world must treat Iran as a nuclear power, saying "Our answer to those who are angry about Iran achieving the full nuclear fuel cycle is just one phrase. We say: Be angry at us and die of this anger," because "We won't hold talks with anyone about the right of the Iranian nation to enrich uranium."[citation needed] On April 14, 2006, The Institute for

54

Science and International Security (ISIS) published a series of analyzed satellite images of Iran's nuclear facilities at Natanz and Esfahan.[71] Featured in these images is a new tunnel entrance near the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) at Esfahan and continued construction at the Natanz uranium enrichment site. In addition, a series of images dating back to 2002 shows the underground enrichment buildings and its subsequent covering by soil, concrete, and other materials. Both facilities were already subject to IAEA inspections and safeguards. Iran responded to the demand to stop enrichment of uranium August 24, 2006, offering to return to the negotiation table but refusing to end enrichment.[72] Qolam Ali Hadad-adel, speaker of Iran's parliament, said on August 30, 2006, that Iran had the right to "peaceful application of nuclear technology and all other officials agree with this decision," according to the semi-official Iranian Students News Agency. "Iran opened the door to negotiations for Europe and hopes that the answer which was given to the nuclear package would bring them to the table.""[72]

August 31, 2006 and later United States •

• •

•

President George W. Bush insisted on August 31, 2006 that "there must be consequences" for Iran's defiance of demands that it stop enriching uranium. He said "the world now faces a grave threat from the radical regime in Iran. The Iranian regime arms, funds, and advises Hezbollah."[73] The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency issued a report saying Iran has not suspended its uranium enrichment activities, a United Nations official said. The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency opens the way for U.N. Security Council sanctions against Tehran. Facing a Security Council deadline to stop its uranium enrichment activities, Iran has left little doubt it will defy the West and continue its nuclear program.[72] A congressional report released on August 23, 2006 made many allegations that have been strongly disputed by the IAEA calling it "erroneous" and "misleading".""[74] John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said on August 31, 2006 that he expected action to impose sanctions to begin immediately after the deadline passes, with meetings of high-level officials in the coming days, followed by negotiations on the language of the sanctions resolution. Bolton said that when the deadline passes "a little flag will go up." "In terms of what happens afterward, at that point, if they have not suspended all uranium enrichment activities, they will not be in compliance with the resolution," he said. "And at that point, the steps that the foreign ministers have agreed upon previously ... we would begin to talk about how to implement those steps." The five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany, previously offered Iran a package of incentives aimed at getting the country to restart negotiations, but Iran refused to halt its nuclear activities first. Incentives included offers to improve Iran's access to the international economy through participation in groups such as the World Trade Organization and to modernize its telecommunications industry. The incentives also mentioned the possibility of lifting restrictions on U.S. and European manufacturers wanting to export civil aircraft to Iran. And a proposed long-term agreement accompanying the incentives offered a "fresh start in negotiations."[72] The United States has repeatedly refused to rule out using nuclear weapons in an attack on Iran. The US Nuclear Posture Review made public in 2002 specifically envisioned the use of nuclear weapons on a first strike basis, even against nonnuclear armed states.[75] Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has reported that, according to military officials, the Bush administration has been planning the use of nuclear weapons against "underground Iranian nuclear facilities".[76] When specifically questioned about the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran, President Bush claimed that "All options were on the table". According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, "the president of the United States directly threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to read his reply in any other way."[77] Nevertheless, the Iranian authorities consistently insist that they are not seeking nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the United States, and instead emphasize the creation of a nuclear-arms free zone in the Middle East.[78] The policy of using nuclear weapons on a first-strike basis against non-nuclear opponents is a violation of the US Negative Security Assurance pledge not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear members of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) such as Iran. Threats of the use of nuclear weapons against another country constitute a violation of Security Council Resolution 984 of 11 April 1995 and the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons.

Iran •

•

Interviews and surveys show that the majority of Iranians in all groups favor their country's nuclear program, including a full fuel cycle program, but most also believe that nuclear weapons are contrary to Islam.[79][80][81] Polls in 2008 showed that the vast majority of Iranians want their country to develop nuclear energy, and 90 percent of Iranians believe it is important (including 81% very important) for Iran "to have a full fuel cycle nuclear program."[82] Though Iranians are not Arab, Arab publics in six countries also believe that Iran has the right to its nuclear program and should not be pressured to stop that program.[83] The Iranians assert that their enrichment program as a whole was not hidden nor secret, though they were forced to resort to some clandestine activity due to US obstructionism[84] Iran began its nuclear research as early as 1975, when France cooperated with Iran to set up the Esfahan Nuclear Technology Center (ENTC) to provide training for personnel to develop certain nuclear fuel cycle capabilities.[85][verification needed][86] Iran efforts at mining and converting uranium, which along with enrichment are part of the nuclear fuel cycle, were announced on national radio. Iran's contracts with other nations to obtain enrichment-related technology were also known to the IAEA - but the contracts were thwarted by US pressure. In 2003, the IAEA reported that Iran had failed to meet its obligations to report some of its enrichment activities, which Iran says began

55

•

•

•

•

•

•

in 1985, to the IAEA as required by its safeguards agreement. The IAEA further reported that Iran had undertaken to submit the required information for agency verification and "to implement a policy of co-operation and full transparency" as corrective actions.[49] The Iranian government has repeatedly made compromise offers to place strict limits on its nuclear program beyond what the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Additional Protocol legally require of Iran, in order to ensure that the program cannot be secretly diverted to the manufacture of weapons.[87] These offers include operating Iran's nuclear program as an international consortium, with the full participation of foreign governments. This offer by the Iranians matched a proposed solution put forth by an IAEA expert committee that was investigating the risk that civilian nuclear technologies could be used to make bombs.[21] Iran has also offered to renounce plutonium extraction technology, thus ensuring that its heavy water reactor at Arak cannot be used to make bombs either.[20] More recently, the Iranians have reportedly also offered to operate uranium centrifuges that automatically self-destruct if they are used to enrich uranium beyond what is required for civilian purposes.[88] However, despite offers of nuclear cooperation by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, Iran has refused to suspend its enrichment program as the Council has demanded.[89] Iran’s representative asserted that dealing with the issue in the Security Council was unwarranted and void of any legal basis or practical utility because its peaceful nuclear program posed no threat to international peace and security, and, that it ran counter to the views of the majority of United Nations Member States, which the Council was obliged to represent. "They should know that the Iranian nation will not yield to pressure and will not let its rights be trampled on," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a crowd August 31, 2006 in a televised speech in the northwestern Iranian city of Orumiyeh. In front of his strongest supporters in one of his provincial power bases, the Iranian leader attacked what he called "intimidation" by the United Nations, which he said was led by the United States. Ahmadinejad criticised a White House rebuff of his offer for a televised debate with President Bush. "They say they support dialog and the free flow of information," he said. "But when debate was proposed, they avoided and opposed it." Ahmadinejad said that sanctions "cannot dissuade Iranians from their decision to make progress," according to Iran's state-run IRNA news agency. "On the contrary, many of our successes, including access to the nuclear fuel cycle and producing of heavy water, have been achieved under sanctions." Iran insists enrichment activities are intended for peaceful purposes, but much of the West, including the United States, allege that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, or a nuclear weapons "capability". The August 31, 2006 deadline called for Iran to comply with U.. Resolution 1696 and end its nuclear activities or face the possibility of economic sanctions. The United States believes the council will agree to implement sanctions when high-level ministers reconvene in midSeptember, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said. "We're sure going to work toward that [sanctions] with a great deal of energy and determination because this cannot go unanswered," Burns said. "The Iranians are obviously proceeding with their nuclear research; they are doing things that the International Atomic Energy Agency does not want them to do, the Security Council doesn't want them to do. There has to be an international answer, and we believe there will be one."[72] Iran asserts that there is no legal basis for Iran's referral to the United Nations Security Council since the IAEA has not proven that previously undeclared activities had a relationship to a weapons program, and that all nuclear material in Iran (including material that may not have been declared) had been accounted for and had not been diverted to military purposes. Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute[90] requires a report to the UN Security Council for any safeguards noncompliance.[91] The IAEA Board of Governors, in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions,[60] decided that "Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement" as reported by the IAEA in November 2003 constituted "non-compliance" under the terms of Article XII.C of IAEA Statute.[57] Iran also minimizes the significance of the IAEA's inability to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program, arguing the IAEA has only drawn such conclusions in thirty-two states that have ratified and implemented the Additional Protocol. The IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran,[92] but not the absence of undeclared activities. The IAEA Board of Governors[93][94] and the UN Security Council[95][96] have called on Iran to fully implement the Additional Protocol,[97], Iran ceased implementation of the Additional Protocol and all other cooperation with the IAEA beyond that required under its safeguards agreement after the IAEA Board of Governors decided to report its safeguards non-compliance to the UN Security Council in February 2006.[70] Iran argued that such additional cooperation was voluntary and not legally binding. The UN Security Council then passed Resolution 1737, invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter, obligating Iran to implement the Additional Protocol. Iran has maintained that the Security Council's engagement in "the issue of the peaceful nuclear activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran" are unlawful and malicious.[98] The IAEA reported on August 30, 2006 that while it "is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran", it "remains unable to verify certain aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear program" and that Iran's adherence to the recently agreed "action plan" was "essential."[99] Iran also argues that the UN Security Council resolutions demanding a suspension of enrichment constitute a violation of Article IV of the NonProliferation Treaty which recognizes the inalienable right of signatory nations to nuclear technology "for peaceful purposes." The November 2007 United States National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judged with "high confidence" that Iran halted an active nuclear weapons program in fall 2003[100] Iran agreed to implement the Additional Protocol under the terms of the October 2003 Tehran agreement and its successor, the November 2004 Paris agreement, and did so for 2 years before withdrawing from the Paris agreement in early 2006 following the breakdown of negotiations with the EU-3. Since then, Iran has offered not only to ratify the Additional Protocol, but to implement transparency measures on its nuclear program that exceed the Additional Protocol, as long as its right to operate an enrichment program is recognized. The UN Security Council, however, insists that Iran must suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities.

56

• •

On April 9, 2007, Iran announced that it has begun enriching uranium with 3 000 centrifuges, presumably at Natanz enrichment site. "With great honor, I declare that as of today our dear country has joined the nuclear club of nations and can produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale", said Ahmadinejad.[101] On April 22, 2007, Iranians foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini announced that his country rules out enrichment suspension ahead of talks with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana on April 25, 2007.[102]

International Atomic Energy Agency •

•

The IAEA has condemned the US over a 2006 staff report written by the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Intelligence on Iran's nuclear program. The leaked report, which was never meant to be released to the public, was called erroneous and misleading in a letter sent to US Congressman Peter Hoekstra. Allegations in the report on why an IAEA inspector was dismissed were branded as outrageous and dishonest. One unnamed western diplomat called it déjà vu of the false reports made by the US administration to justify the invasion of Iraq.[103] IAEA officials complained in 2007 that most U.S. intelligence shared with it to date about Iran's nuclear program proved to be inaccurate, and that none had led to significant discoveries inside Iran through that time.[104]

•

On 10 May 2007, Agence France-Presse, quoting un-named diplomats, reported that Iran had blocked IAEA inspectors when they sought access to the Iran's enrichment facility. Both Iran and the IAEA vehemently denied the report. On 11 March 2007, Reuters quoted International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman Marc Vidricaire, "We have not been denied access at any time, including in the past few weeks. Normally we do not comment on such reports but this time we felt we had to clarify the matter...If we had a problem like that we would have to report to the [35-nation IAEA governing] board ... That has not happened because this alleged event did not take place."[105]

•

On July 30, 2007, inspectors from the IAEA spent five hours at the Arak complex, the first such visit since April. Visits to other plants in Iran were expected during the following days. It has been suggested that access may have been granted in an attempt to head off further sanctions.[106]

•

In late October 2007, according to the International Herald Tribune, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, stated that he had seen "no evidence" of Iran developing nuclear weapons. The IHT quoted ElBaradei as saying "We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization. That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks... . But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No." The IHT report went on to say that "ElBaradei said he was worried about the growing rhetoric from the U.S., which he noted focused on Iran's alleged intentions to build a nuclear weapon rather than evidence the country was actively doing so. If there is actual evidence, ElBaradei said he would welcome seeing it."[107]

United ations sanctions On 31 July 2006 the United Nations Security Council demanded Iran to suspend all enrichment and reprocessing related activities.[108] In December they imposed a series of sanctions on Iran for its non-compliance with the earlier Security Council resolution deciding that Iran suspend enrichment-related activities without delay.[109] These sanctions were primarily targeted against the transfer of nuclear and ballistic missile technologies[110] and, in response to concerns of China and Russia, were lighter than that sought by the United States.[111] This followed a report from the IAEA that Iran had permitted inspections under its safeguards agreement but had not suspended its enrichment-related activities.[112] As had still refused to suspend enrichment as requested by the United Nations Security Council, the target of the sanctions were widened in March 2007.[113] The sanctions were further extended in March 2008 to cover additional financial institutions, restrict travel of additional persons, and bar exports of nuclear- and missilerelated dual-use goods to Iran.[114] The implementation of the sanctions is monitored by a Security Council Committee.[115]

uclear power as a political issue Iran's nuclear program and the PT Main article: #uclear #on-Proliferation Treaty Iran's nuclear program started in 1950s and continued into the 1970s with the support, encouragement and participation of the United States and Western European governments.[2] The Iranian nuclear program has been controversial. Although the development of a civilian nuclear power program is explicitly allowed under the terms of the NPT, there have been allegations that Iran has been illicitly pursuing a nuclear weapons program, in violation of the NPT. (See Iran and weapons of mass destruction) The Iranian public, nearly all political candidates, and the current government are unified on this point: Iran should be developing its peaceful nuclear industry.[116][117] In addition, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa saying that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam.[118] Some of Iran's officials from the pre-revolutionary regime have also expressed their support for the view that Iran has a legitimate need for nuclear energy. Ardeshir Zahedi for example, who signed the NPT on behalf of Iran during the Pahlavi dynasty as Iran's then-foreign minister, in an interview in May 2006, characterized the program as an "inalienable right of Iran".[119] The IAEA reports on Iran have consistently stated that there is no evidence that Iran diverted nuclear material for weapons use. As Michael Spies of the Lawyer's Committee on Nuclear Policy has stated:[120] "The conclusion that no diversion has occurred

57

certifies that the state in question is in compliance with its undertaking, under its safeguards agreement and Article III of the NPT, to not divert material to non-peaceful purposes. In the case of Iran, the IAEA was able to conclude, in its November 2004 report, that all declared nuclear materials had been accounted for and therefore none had been diverted to military purposes. The IAEA reached this same conclusion in September 2005." Testimony presented to the Foreign Select Committee of the British Parliament supported this claim:[121] "The enforcement of Article III of the NPT obligations is carried out through the IAEA's monitoring and verification that is designed to ensure that declared nuclear facilities are operated according to safeguard agreement with Iran, which Iran signed with the IAEA in 1974. In the past four years that Iran's nuclear programme has been under close investigation by the IAEA, the Director General of the IAEA, as early as November 2003 reported to the IAEA Board of Governors that "to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities ... were related to a nuclear weapons programme." ... Although Iran has been found in non-compliance with some aspects of its IAEA safeguards obligations, Iran has not been in breach of its obligations under the terms of the NPT." A U.S. State Department report dated August 30, 2005 titled "Adherence to and Compliance With Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments wrote:[122] "Iran’s past failure to declare the import of UF6, failure to provide design information to the IAEA on the existing centrifuge facility prior to the introduction of nuclear material, and its conduct of undeclared laser isotope separation, uranium conversion experiments, and plutonium separation work ... also make clear that Iran has violated Article III of the NPT and its IAEA safeguards agreement." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said the "Iranian nation has never ignored provisions of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but, they themselves have both deviated from NPT and used weapons of mass destruction."[123] The U.S. State Department report further claimed that "Iran is pursuing an effort to manufacture nuclear weapons, and has sought and received assistance in this effort in violation of Article II of the NPT":[122] The November 2007 United States National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) alleged that Tehran halted a nuclear weapons program in fall 2003, but that Iran "at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapon".[100] Iran's foreign minister has described attempts to stop it from gaining nuclear capabilities as "nuclear apartheid" and "scientific apartheid". In a November 2005 guest column in Le Monde, Manouchehr Mottaki said that the West's demands Iran "surrender its inalienable right to fully master nuclear technology" were "nuclear apartheid".[124][125] In subsequent statements in February 2006 he insisted that "Iran rejects all forms of scientific and nuclear apartheid by any world power", and asserted that this "scientific and nuclear apartheid" was "an immoral and discriminatory treatment of signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty",[126] and that Iran has "the right to a peaceful use of nuclear energy and we cannot accept nuclear apartheid".[127] His words were later echoed in a June 2006 speech by Iran's deputy chief nuclear negotiator Javad Vaeedi, in which he claimed that "developing countries are moving towards destroying technological apartheid".[128] A similar statement was made by the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), Hassan Rowhani.[129] Then Chairman of IAEA Standing Advisory Group on Safeguards Implementation[130] (and Director of the Australian Nonproliferation and Safeguards Organization) John Carlson noted in considering the case of Iran that Formally IAEA Board of Governors (BOG) decisions concern compliance with safeguards agreements, rather than the NPT as such, but in practical terms noncompliance with a safeguards agreement constitutes non-compliance with the NPT.[131] The IAEA Board of Governors eventually concluded, in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions,[132] that Iran's past safeguards "breaches" and "failures" constituted "non-compliance" with its Safeguards Agreement[133][57] even though the IAEA had concluded that there was no diversion of fissile material to military use. In the decision, the IAEA Board of Governors also concluded that the concerns raised fell within the competence of the UN Security Council.[57] The August 2007 agreement with the IAEA An IAEA report to the Board of Governors on August 30, 2007 states that Iran’s Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz is operating "well below the expected quantity for a facility of this design," and that 12 of the intended 18 centrifuge cascades at the plant are operating. The report states that the IAEA has "been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use," and that longstanding issues regarding plutonium experiments and HEU contamination on spent fuel containers were considered "resolved." However, the report adds that "the Agency remains unable to verify certain aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear program. It should be noted that since early 2006, the Agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing, including pursuant to the [unratified] Additional Protocol, for example information relevant to ongoing advanced centrifuge research." The report also outlines a work plan agreed by Iran and the IAEA on August 21, 2007. The work plan reflects agreement on "modalities for resolving the remaining safeguards implementation issues, including the long outstanding issues." According to the plan, these modalities "cover all remaining issues and the Agency confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities." The IAEA report describes the work plan is "a significant step forward," but adds "the Agency considers it essential that Iran adheres to the time line defined therein and implements all the necessary safeguards and transparency measures, including the measures provided for in the Additional Protocol."[134] Although the work plan does not include a commitment by Iran to implement the Additional Protocol as a permanent legal obligation, IAEA safeguards head Olli Heinonen observed that measures in the work plan "for resolving our outstanding issues go beyond the requirements of the Additional Protocol."[135] According to Reuters, the report is likely to blunt Washington’s push for more severe sanctions against Iran. If Washington pushes for tougher sanctions, "our process will face a setback at a minimum, if not a halt,” said a senior U.N. official familiar with IAEA program on Iran, reflecting IAEA concerns that U.S.-led efforts to escalate penalties could only corner nationalistic Iran and goad it to freeze out inspectors.[136] In late October 2007, the Reuters news agency reported that, according to senior UN official, Olli Heinonen, Iranian cooperation with the IAEA was "good", although there was much that remained to be done.[137] The ovember 2007 IAEA Report The November 15, 2007 IAEA report found that on 9 outstanding issues including experiments on the P-2 centrifuge and work with uranium metals, "Iran's statements are consistent with ... information available to the agency," but it warned that its knowledge of Tehran's present atomic work was shrinking due to Iran's refusal to continue voluntarily implementing the Additional Protocol, as it had done in the past under the October 2003 Tehran agreement and the November 2004 Paris agreement. The only remaining issues were traces of HEU found at one location, and allegations by US intelligence agencies based on a laptop computer allegedly stolen from Iran which reportedly contained nuclear weapons-related designs. The IAEA report

58

also stated that Tehran continues to produce LEU. Iran has declared it has a right to peaceful nuclear technology under the NPT, despite Security Council demands that it cease its nuclear enrichment.[138] On November 18, 2007, President Ahmadinejad announced that he intends to consult with other Arab nations on a plan, under the auspices of the Gulf Cooperation Council, to enrich uranium in a neutral third country, such as Switzerland.[139] The February 2008 IAEA Report On February 11, 2008 news reports stated that the IAEA report on Iran's compliance with the August 2007 work plan would be delayed over internal disagreements over the report's expected conclusions that the major issues had been resolved.[140] French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner stated that he would meet with IAEA Director Mohammed ElBaradei to convince him to "listen to the West" and remind him that the IAEA is merely in charge of the "technical side" rather than the "political side" of the issue.[141] A senior IAEA official denied the reports of internal disagreements and accused Western powers of using the same "hype" tactics employed against Iraq before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion to justify imposing further sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.[142] The IAEA issued its report on the implementation of safeguards in Iran on February 22, 2008.[143] With respect to the report, IAEA Director Mohammad ElBaradei stated that "We have managed to clarify all the remaining outstanding issues, including the most important issue, which is the scope and nature of Iran´s enrichment programme" with the exception of a single issue, "and that is the alleged weaponization studies that supposedly Iran has conducted in the past."[144] According to the report, the IAEA shared intelligence with Iran recently provided by the US regarding "alleged studies" on a nuclear weaponization program. The information was allegedly obtained from a laptop computer smuggled out of Iran and provided to the US in mid-2004.[145] The laptop was reportedly received from a "longtime contact" in Iran who obtained it from someone else now believed to be dead.[146] A senior European diplomat warned "I can fabricate that data," and argued that the documents look "beautiful, but is open to doubt".[146] The United States has relied on the laptop to prove that Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons.[146] In November 2007, the United States National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) believed that Iran halted an alleged active nuclear weapons program in fall 2003.[100] Iran has dismissed the laptop information as a fabrication, and other diplomats have dismissed the information as relatively insignificant and coming too late.[147] The February 2008 IAEA report states that the Agency has "not detected the use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, nor does it have credible information in this regard."[143] The May 2008 IAEA Report On May 26, 2008, the IAEA issued another regular report on the implementation of safeguards in Iran.[148] According to the report, the IAEA has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, and Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and accountancy reports, as required by its safeguards agreement. Iran had installed several new centrifuges, including more advanced models, and environmental samples showed the centrifuges "continued to operate as declared", making low-enriched uranium. The report also noted that other elements of Iran's nuclear program continued to be subject to IAEA monitoring and safeguards as well, including the construction of the heavy water facility in Arak, the construction and use of hot cells associated with the Tehran Research Reactor, the uranium conversion efforts, and the Russian nuclear fuel delivered for the Bushehr reactor. The report stated that the IAEA had requested, as a voluntary "transparency measure", to be allowed access to centrifuge manufacturing sites, but that Iran had refused the request. The IAEA report stated that Iran had also submitted replies to questions regarding "possible military dimensions" to its nuclear program, which include "alleged studies" on a so-called Green Salt Project, high-explosive testing and missile re-entry vehicles. According to the report, Iran's answers were still under review by the IAEA at the time the report was published. However, as part of its earlier "overall assessment" of the allegations, Iran had responded that the documents making the allegations were forged, not authentic, or referred to conventional applications. The report stated that Iran may have more information on the alleged studies, which "remain a matter of serious concern", but that the IAEA itself had not detected evidence of actual design or manufacture by Iran of nuclear weapons or components. The IAEA also stated that it was not itself in possession of certain documents containing the allegations against Iran, and so was not able to share the documents with Iran. The September 2008 IAEA Report According to the September 15, 2008 IAEA report on the implementation of safeguards in Iran,[149] Iran continued to provide the IAEA with access to declared nuclear material and activities, which continued to be operated under safeguards and with no evidence of any diversion of nuclear material for non-peaceful uses. Nevertheless, the report reiterated that the IAEA would not be able to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program unless Iran adopted "transparency measures" which exceeded its safeguards agreement with the IAEA, since the IAEA does not verify the absence of undeclared nuclear activities in any country unless the Additional Protocol is in force. According to the report, Iran had increased the number of operating centrifuges at its Fuel Enrichment Plant in Isfahan, and continued to enrich uranium. Contrary to some media reports which claimed that Iran had diverted uranium hexafluoride (UF6) for a renewed nuclear weapons program,[150] the IAEA emphasized that all of the uranium hexafluoride was under IAEA safeguards. This was re-iterated by IAEA spokesman Melissa Fleming, who characterized the report of missing nuclear material in Iran as being "fictitious".[151] Iran was also asked to clarify information about foreign assistance it may have received in connection with a high explosive charge suitable for an implosion type nuclear device. Iran stated that there had been no such activities in Iran.[149] The IAEA also reported that it had held a series of meetings with Iranian officials to resolve the oustanding issues including the "alleged studies" into nuclear weaponization which were listed in the May 2008 IAEA report. During the course of these meetings, the Iranians filed a series of written responses including a 117-page presentation which confirmed the partial veracity of some of the allegations, but which asserted that the allegations as a whole were based on “forged” documents and “fabricated” data, and that Iran had not actually received the documentation substantiating the allegations. According to the Aug 2007 "Modalities Agreement" between Iran and the IAEA, Iran had agreed to review and assess the "alleged studies" claims, as good faith gesture, "upon receiving all related documents".[152] Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh, accused the United States of preventing the IAEA from delivering the documents about the alleged studies to Iran as required by the Modalities Agreement, and stated that Iran had done its best to respond to the allegations but would not accept "any request beyond our legal obligation and particularly beyond the Work Plan, which we have already implemented."[153] While once again expressing "regret" that the IAEA was not able to provide Iran with copies of the documentation concerning the alleged

59

studies, the report also urged Iran to provide the IAEA with "substantive information to support its statements and provide access to relevant documentation and individuals" regarding the alleged studies, as a "matter of transparency".[149] The IAEA submitted a number of proposals to Iran to help resolve the allegations and expressed a willingness to discuss modalities that could enable Iran to demonstrate credibly that the activities referred to in the documentation were not nuclear-related, as Iran asserted, while protecting sensitive information related to its conventional military activities. The report does not indicate whether Iran accepted or rejected these proposals.[149] The report also reiterated that IAEA inspectors had found "no evidence on the actual design or manufacture by Iran of nuclear material components of a nuclear weapon or of certain other key components, such as initiators, or on related nuclear physics studies ... Nor has the Agency detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies" but insisted that the IAEA would not be able to formally verify the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program unless Iran had agreed to adopt the requested "transparency measures".[149]

Views on Iran's uclear Power Program The Iranian viewpoint In taking a stance that the Shah expressed decades ago, Iranians feel its valuable oil should be used for highvalue products, not simple electricity generation. "Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn... We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants," the Shah had previously said.[154] Iran also faces financial constraints, and claims that developing the excess capacity in its oil industry would cost it $40 billion, let alone pay for the power plants.[citation needed] Roger Stern from Johns Hopkins University partially concurred with this view, projecting that due to "energy subsidies, hostility to foreign investment and inefficiencies of its [Iranian] state-planned economy", Iranian oil exports would vanish by 2014–2015, although he notes that this outcome has "no relation to 'peak oil.'"[5] Earlier, the Gerald Ford Administration had arrived at a similar assessment,[155] and independent studies conducted by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the British Parliament and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences previously confirmed that Iran has a valid economic basis for its nuclear energy program. The Iranians believe that concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation are pretextual, and any suspension of enrichment is simply intended to ultimately deprive Iran of the right to have an independent nuclear technology: [W]e had a suspension for two years and on and off negotiations for three... Accusing Iran of having “the intention” of acquiring nuclear weapons has, since the early 1980s, been a tool used to deprive Iran of any nuclear technology, even a light water reactor or fuel for the American-built research reactor....the United States and EU3 never even took the trouble of studying various Iranian proposals: they were – from the very beginning – bent on abusing this Council and the threat of referral and sanctions as an instrument of pressure to compel Iran to abandon the exercise of its NPT guaranteed right to peaceful nuclear technology...[156] Dr. William O. Beeman, Brown University's Middle East Studies program professor, who spent years in Iran, says that the Iranian nuclear issue is a unified point of their political discussion: "The Iranian side of the discourse is that they want to be known and seen as a modern, developing state with a modern, developing industrial base. The history of relations between Iran and the West for the last hundred years has included Iran's developing various kinds of industrial and technological advances to prove to themselves—and to attempt to prove to the world—that they are, in fact, that kind of country." After the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Iran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of its plans to restart its nuclear program using indigenously-made nuclear fuel, and in 1983 the IAEA even planned to provide assistance to Iran under its Technical Assistance Program to produce enriched uranium. An IAEA report stated clearly that its aim was to “contribute to the formation of local expertise and manpower needed to sustain an ambitious program in the field of nuclear power reactor technology and fuel cycle technology”. However, the IAEA was forced to terminate the program under U.S. pressure. Iran also believes it has a legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,[157] a right which in 2005 the U.S. and the EU-3 began to assert had been forfeited by a clandestine nuclear program that came to light in 2002. In fact, Iran's enrichment program was openly discussed on national radio, and IAEA inspectors had even visited Iran's uranium mines as early as 1992, a decade before the public exposure of the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. Iranian politicians compare its treatment as a signatory to the NPT with three nuclear-armed nations that have not signed the NPT: Israel, India, and Pakistan. Each of these nations developed an indigenous nuclear weapons capability: Israel by 1968, India by 1974, and Pakistan by 1990. The Iranian authorities assert that they cannot simply trust the United States or Europe to provide Iran with nuclear energy fuel, and point to a long series of agreements, contracts and treaty obligations which were not fulfilled.[158] Developing nations say they don’t want to give up their rights to uranium enrichment and don’t trust the United States or other nuclear countries to be consistent suppliers of the nuclear material they would need to run their power plants.[159] Determination to continue the nuclear program and retaliate against any Western attack is strong in Iran. Hassan Abbasi, director of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps think tank, Doctrinal Analysis Center for Security without Borders (Markaz-e barresiha-ye doktrinyal-e amniyat bedun marz,) has announced that "approximately 40,000 Iranian esteshhadiyun (martyrdom-seekers)" are ready to carry out suicide operations against "twenty-nine identified Western targets," should the U.S. military hit Iranian nuclear installations.[160][verification needed] Middle Eastern views The #ew York Times newspaper reports Iran's nuclear program has spurred interest in establishing nuclear power programs by a number of neighboring countries, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt. According to the report, "roughly a dozen states in the region have recently turned to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna for help in starting" nuclear programs.[161] The article also described neighbouring states as very hostile to any nuclear weapons program Iran might embark on, stating "many diplomats and analysts say that the Sunni Arab governments are so anxious about Iran’s nuclear progress that they would even, grudgingly, support a United States military strike against Iran." However, both Egypt and Saudi Arabia have had nuclear programs that predate the controversy over Iran's nuclear program. Egypt was also found to have hidden nuclear activities

60

from the IAEA. The interest in nuclear power shown by the Mideast nations is also shared by many nations, and corresponds to an increased worldwide interest in nuclear power. Israeli views See also: #uclear weapons and Israel Israel, which is widely believed to possess 100 to 200 nuclear weapons,[162] publicly characterizes Iran's nuclear program as an "existential threat" to that nation, and Israeli leaders assert that all options are kept open in dealing with Tehran.[163][164] However, some Israeli officials have privately rejected such a characterization of Iran's program.[165][166] According to The Economist, "most of those Israeli experts willing to talk rate the chances of an Iranian nuclear attack as low. Despite Mr Ahmadinejad, most consider Iran to be a rational state actor susceptible to deterrence."[167] Israel does not believe the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate conclusion that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003, insisting that it has additional evidence of an active and continued Iranian nuclear weapons program.[168][169] Israel has also rejected the IAEA's November 2007 and February 2008 reports on Iran, and Israeli officials have called for the resignation of IAEA Director General ElBaradei, accusing him of being "pro-Iranian."[170][171] In early June 2008, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz expressed frustration with the perceived ineffectiveness of sanctions aimed at discouraging Iran from uranium enrichment. Israel believes the enrichment may be used to aid an alleged nuclear weapons program. Mofaz said that the United Nations Security Council and the international community have "a duty and responsibility to clarify to Iran, through drastic measures, that the repercussions of their continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will be devastating." In the same interview, Mofaz also made more direct threats to Iran's nuclear facilities, saying "if Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it."[172] Iranian spokesman Gholam Hoseyn Elham has dismissed Israeli attacks on its nuclear facilities as "impossible".[173] "The Israeli regime has been emboldened due to carelessness and silence of the Security Council," the Iranians further said in a response letter to the United Nations.[174] These statements came only days after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert asked for stronger sanctions, saying that "the longterm cost of a nuclear Iran greatly outweighs the short-term benefits of doing business with Iran."[175] Israeli officials were reportedly concerned about the Bush administration's decision on July 16, 2008 to send a high-ranking diplomat to attend negotiation sessions between EU representatives and Iran's chief nuclear negotiator in Geneva. Israel sources reportedly obtained assurances from the Bush administration that there would be no compromise on the demand that Iran end uranium enrichment.[176] The Israelis have also sought to "alert the American intelligence community to Iran's nuclear ability," in preparation for the new NIE, reportedly due in November 2008. [177] In September 2008, Yossi Baidatz, the head of the research division of Israeli military intelligence was quoted to say that Iran was "not likely" to obtain nuclear capabilities by 2010.[178] US and European viewpoint Main article: Iran and weapons of mass destruction In March 2005, the New York Times reported that a bipartisan Congressional inquiry concluded that the United States had inadequate intelligence to reach any conclusions on the state of Iran's nuclear program.[179] Much of the debate about the 'Iranian nuclear threat' is therefore driven not so much by any hard evidence about a weapons program but by concern that Iran's mastery of civilian technology would provide the means to rapidly develop a weapons capability should Iran wish to do so in the future.[121] President Bush has claimed that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons could trigger "World War III", while Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns has warned Iran may be seeking a nuclear weapons capability.[180] Skeptics of Iran's intentions cite Iran's concealment of many nuclear activities for nearly two decades in violation of its NPT safeguards obligations. According to The Economist magazine, "even before the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Iran was negotiating in bad faith. During this period, European officials believe, it continued to work in secret on nuclear research, having promised to suspend uranium enrichment."[181] Note that Iran only promised to suspend enrichment on a temporary basis, which it verifiably did according to the IAEA, but did not make promise to suspend all nuclear research. The Iranians also attribute the concealment of portions of their nuclear program to the fact that the US repeatedly hampered their overt attempts at acquiring the necessary technology for their program. Independent studies conducted in the National Academy of Science in the US and Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the British Parliament have since confirmed that Iran has a valid economic basis for its nuclear energy program, and the British parliamentary report specifically stated that "the gas flared off by Iran is not recoverable for energy use" and that "other energy-rich countries such as Russia use nuclear power to generate electricity and we do not believe that the United States or any other country has the right to dictate to Iran how it meets its increasing demand for electricity"[182] While recognizing Iran's interest in nuclear power, skeptics have questioned the rationale for Iran's enrichment program. They point out that the P5 plus Germany have offered substantial benefits to Iran, including "legally binding" fuel supply guarantees, and therefore that Iran is fully capable of having nuclear power without needing to enrich its own uranium.[183] The deal offered by the P5 would leave Iran reliant on external sources of fuel, but the same is true for most countries with nuclear power programs.[184][185] Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Iran has the right to peacefully process uranium for fuel, and that Iran "will not retreat one iota in the face of oppressing powers".[186] An op-ed published in January 2008 in The Economist was critical of the American intelligence community for emboldening the enemy and sowing defeatism among friends. The op-ed opined that "learning to enrich uranium—a hugely costly venture—still makes questionable economic sense for Iran, since it lacks sufficient natural uranium to keep them going and [they] would have to import the stuff."[187] and that with the money spent on its nuclear program, Iran could have built "ten conventional plants of the same capacity, fired solely by the natural gas that Iran currently flares off into the sky".[188][189] In November 2007, President Bush appeared to have modified his position, acknowledging that Iran has a sovereign right to civilian nuclear technology.[190] On July 31, 2006, the United States convinced European powers, China, and Russia to pass UN Security Council Resolution 1696. The resolution demanded that Iran stop "all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities." (Reprocessing involves removing highly radioactive plutonium from nuclear waste products, a procedure that can lead to production of bomb-grade fuel.) A month later, an IAEA report indicated that "there are no indications of ongoing reprocessing activities in Iran."[191] ElBaradei criticized Iran, however, for failing to provide additional "transparency measures" beyond its legal obligations: "Iran has not addressed the long outstanding verification issues or provided the necessary transparency to remove uncertainties associated with some of its activities...," wrote ElBaradei. An IAEA official told the New York Times that "the qualitative and quantitative development of Iran's enrichment program continues to be fairly limited." The Bush Administration asserts that Iran's failure to uphold the Security Council resolution meant that the UN should impose more sanctions. On March 24, 2007, the UN Security Council voted to impose another round of sanctions, prohibiting the sale of Iranian weapons to other countries

61

and freezing the overseas assets of more Iranian individuals and organizations. The United States failed to get any backing for military attacks on Iran to enforce the sanctions. The March resolution even restated the UN position that the Middle East region should be nuclear free.[192] U.S. officials told the New York Times that the new sanctions went beyond the nuclear issue. "The new language was written to rein in what they [U.S. officials] see as Tehran's ambitions to become the dominant military power in the Persian Gulf and across the Middle East."[193] France's foreign minister Bernard Kouchner warned that the international community had to be prepared for the possibility of war in the event that Iran obtains atomic weapons. "We will not accept that such a bomb is made," Kouchner said. "We must prepare ourselves for the worst," he said. He did not elaborate on what kind of preparations that could entail. "We have decided, while negotiations are under way ... to prepare for eventual sanctions outside the United Nations, which would be European sanctions," he said. Kouchner was not specific about what penalties Europe might impose, other than to say they could be "economic sanctions regarding financial movements." "Our German friends proposed this. We discussed it a few days ago," he said. "The international community's demand is simple: They must stop enriching uranium," Kouchner said. "Our Iranian friends want to create, they say, civilian nuclear energy. They have the right to that, but all that they are doing proves the contrary. That is why we are worried," he said.[194] Tensions have been raised by media reports of an Israeli air incursion over northeastern Syria on September 6. One U.S. official said the attack hit weapons heading for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, an ally of Syria and Iran, but there also has been speculation the Israelis hit a nascent nuclear facility or were studying routes for a possible future strike on Iran. Others suspect Israel was performing an intelligence operation for the U.S.[195] With Iran adding to the talk of military options, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns called in September 2007 for U.N. Security Council members and U.S. allies to help push for a third round of sanctions against Iran over the nuclear program.[196] In 2006 the Germans suggested that Iran would be able to operate their enrichment program, subject to IAEA inspections. The German Minister of Defense Franz Josef Jung stated that a ban on Iranian enrichment work was unrealistic, that "One cannot forbid Iran from doing what other countries in the world are doing in accordance with international law" and that IAEA oversight of any Iranian enrichment activities would provide the necessary assurances to the international community that Iran could not secretly divert the program of weapons use.[197] Later, the Europeans reportedly also considered a compromise proposal where Iran would be allowed to continue spinning its centrifuges but would not feed any processed uranium hexafluoride (UF6) into the machines during the course of negotiations.[198] The Iranians had also indicated that they were willing to consider suspending large-scale enrichment for up to 2 years, but was not prepared to freeze enrichment entirely[199] The compromise ideas were reportedly shot down by the US, and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control reportedly told ElBaradei: "We cannot have a single centrifuge spinning in Iran. Iran is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and our allies, and we will not tolerate it. We want you to give us an understanding that you will not say anything publicly that will undermine us."[200] In June 2007, IAEA director Mohammad ElBaradei suggested that Iran should be allowed limited uranium enrichment under strict supervision of the IAEA.[201] His remarks were formally criticised by Nicholas Burns, the US Under-Secretary of State, who said: "We are not going to agree to accept limited enrichment"[202] In February 2008, Pierre Vimont, the French Ambassador to the United States, urged that the United States adopt a more flexible approach to Iran by accepting its regional role and recognizing that the nuclear issue has broad popular support among Iranians.[203]

2007 Iran ational Intelligence Estimate In December 2007 the United States National Intelligence Estimate (representing the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies) judged with "high confidence” that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, with "moderate confidence" that the program remains frozen, and with "moderate-to-high confidence" that Iran is "keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons." The new estimate says that the enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons” at some future date. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said he hoped the administration would “appropriately adjust its rhetoric and policy”.[204][205] The conclusion that Iran had a nuclear weapons program in 2003 was reportedly mainly based on the contents of a laptop computer that was allegedly stolen from Iran and provided to US intelligence agencies by dissidents.[206] The Russians dismissed this conclusion, stating that they had not seen evidence that Iran had ever pursued a nuclear weapons program.[207] The 2007 NIE report, allegedly based on new evidence, differed from the previous 2005 NIE conclusion which asserted that Iran had an active and on-going nuclear weapons program in 2005. According to a senior administration official, in a January 2008 conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Israeli and other foreign officials asked President Bush to explain the 2007 NIE. Bush "told the Israelis that he can't control what the intelligence community says, but that (the NIE's) conclusions don't reflect his own views".[208] After Bush seemed to distance himself from the report, the White House later said Bush endorses the "full scope" of the US intelligence findings on Iran.[209] Mohammed ElBaradei, the Director of the IAEA, noted in particular that the NIE'c conclusions corresponded with the IAEA's consistent statements that it had "no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."[210]

G8 Since 2003, when the IAEA began investigating Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear activities, the G8 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) has repeatedly voiced its concerns over Iran’s nuclear program. At the 2003 G8 summit in France, G8 leaders said: “We will not ignore the proliferation implications of Iran's advanced nuclear program.”[211] The 2004 G8 Action Plan on Nonproliferation “deplore[d] Iran's delays, deficiencies in cooperation, and inadequate disclosures, as detailed in IAEA Director General reports.”[212] In 2005 G8 leaders concluded that “It is essential that Iran provide the international community with objective guarantees that its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes in order to build international confidence.” In 2006, after Iran was found in non-compliance with its safeguards agreement and reported to the UN Security Council, the G8 toughened its position: “Iran not having shown willingness to engage in serious discussion of those proposals and

62

having failed to take the steps needed to allow negotiations to begin, specifically the suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities, as required by the IAEA and supported in the United Nations Security Council Presidential Statement, we supported the decision of those countries' Ministers to return the issue of Iran to the United Nations Security Council.”[213] The following year, G8 leaders “deplore[d] the fact that Iran [had] so far failed to meet its obligations under UNSC Resolutions 1696, 1737 and 1747,” and threatened “further measures, should Iran refuse to comply with its obligations,” but held out the prospect that “[i]nternational confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program would permit a completely new chapter to be opened in our relations with Iran not only in the nuclear but also more broadly in the political, economic and technological fields.”[214] At the most recent 2008 G8 summit in Japan in 2008, G8 leaders said:[215] We express our serious concern at the proliferation risks posed by Iran’s nuclear programme and Iran’s continued failure to meet its international obligations. We urge Iran to fully comply with UNSCRs 1696, 1737, 1747 and 1803 without further delay, and in particular to suspend all enrichment-related activities. We also urge Iran to fully cooperate with the IAEA, including by providing clarification of the issues contained in the latest report of the IAEA Director General. We firmly support and cooperate with the efforts by China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States supported by the High Representative of the EU to resolve the issue innovatively through negotiation, and urge Iran to respond positively to their offer delivered on 14 June 2008. We also commend the efforts by other G8 members, particularly the high-level dialogue by Japan, towards a peaceful and diplomatic resolution of the issue. We welcome the work of the Financial Action Task Force to assist states in implementing their financial obligations under the relevant UNSCRs.

Other views Indian viewpoint India's rapidly developing ties with the United States and historically close ties with Iran have created difficulties for India's foreign policymakers.[216] India, a nuclear power which is not party to the NPT, has expressed its concern over the possibility of another nuclear weapon-armed state in its neighborhood with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stating that he was against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.[217] India voted in the IAEA Board of Governors to report Iran to UN Security Council in 2005 for non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement.[218] Despite some domestic opposition, the Indian government later voted to report Iran to the UN Security Council in 2006.[219] Leftist parties in India have criticized the government for bowing to US pressure on the issue.[218] India quickly downplayed the incident and restated its commitment to develop closer ties with Iran.[220] India urged international diplomacy to solve the Iranian nuclear row[221] but added that it could not "turn a blind eye to nuclear proliferation in its neighborhood."[222] Despite heavy U.S. criticism, India has continued negotiations on the multi-billion dollar natural gas pipeline from Iran to India through Pakistan. India is keen to secure energy supplies to fuel its rapidly growing economy and the gas pipeline may address to India's energy security concerns. The United States has expressed concern that the pipeline project would undermine international efforts to isolate Iran.[223] In-context of the Indo-US nuclear deal India is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). According to US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, it was India's vote against Iran which helped clear the way for the US-India nuclear cooperation deal [224][225] Critics say the US-India nuclear cooperation deal itself undermines the Non-Proliferation Treaty at a time when Iran was accused of violating the treaty.[226] Critics argue that by promising nuclear cooperation with India, the Bush administration has reversed a legal ban on such cooperation which was in place since the passage of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, and violated US obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty which prohibits sharing nuclear technology with non-signatories such as India.[227][228][229][230] The Harvard International Review concedes in an editorial that the Indo-US nuclear deal "undermines the world’s present set of nuclear rules" but argues that the Iranian nuclear program remains an "unacceptable risk" regardless of the NPT. It reasoned that "regardless of what the NPT says, and regardless of what Iran says about the NPT, an Iranian nuclear program is still an unacceptable risk."[231] Developing countries and the on-Aligned Movement In May 2006, the Final Document of the Ministerial Meeting of the NonAligned Movement "noted with concern" that undue restrictions on exports to developing countries of nuclear material and technology persists, and they emphasised that proliferation concerns are best addressed through non-discriminatory agreements.[232]

•

On September 16, 2006, in Havana, Cuba, all of the 118 Non-Aligned Movement member countries, at the summit level, declared their support of Iran's civilian nuclear program in their final written statement.[233] The Non-Aligned Movement represents a majority of the 192 countries comprising the entire United Nations.

•

Several nations, including Argentina and Brazil, have recently developed the nuclear enrichment capabilities that Iran is developing, and more may seek the technology in order to have an independent, secure source of fuel for their nuclear energy programs as nuclear energy becomes more popular in the future. See International Reaction.

On July 30, 2008 the Non-Aligned Movement welcomed the continuing cooperation of Iran with the IAEA and reaffirmed Iran's right to the peaceful uses of nuclear technology. The movement further called for the establishment of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East and called for a comprehensive multilaterally negotiated instrument which prohibits threats of attacks on nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful uses of nuclear energy.[234] Other Countries In February 2007, lawmakers from 56 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, addressing Iran's nuclear program at a meeting in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia, urged "full respect for equal and inalienable rights for all nations to explore modern technologies including nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."[235] Officials in several countries have voiced support for Iran in the on-going standoff with the US over its nuclear program. These include Iraq [236] Algeria[237] and Indonesia.[238] Turkey

63

has expressed support for Iran's right to a nuclear program for peaceful energy production,[239] and along with Egypt has urged for a peaceful solution to the standoff.[240] President Putin of Russia, while urging more transparency from Iran, has said that there is no objective evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.[241] Support for tough measures against Iran's nuclear program has fallen in 13 out of 21 Arab countries according to a new BBC World Service Poll.[242] According to a 2008 global poll of Arab public opinion, the Arab public does not appear to see Iran as a major threat and does not support international pressure to force Iran to curtail the program.[243]

Restricting Enrichment Technology Over the past few years a number of proposals have been made regarding the establishment of multinational fuel cycle centers.[244] The idea of a multilateral approach to the fuel cycle is not new and goes back as far as 1946.[245] The Bush Administration on-Proliferation Initiative In February 2004, President Bush proposed several new measures "to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction", including the imposition of new restrictions on the spread of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology to additional countries, on the grounds that such sensitive fuel cycle technology can be used to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons.[246][247] Under President Bush's proposal, nuclear technology suppliers would refuse to provide such technologies to any country that did not already possess full-scale, operating enrichment or reprocessing facilities. He also proposed that suppliers ensure reliable access to nuclear fuel for countries that renounce enrichment or reprocessing, as an incentive for countries not to acquire such technologies.[246][248] The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership has similar aims, to offer reliable nuclear fuel services as a viable alternative to the acquisition of sensitive fuel cycle technologies.[249] Iran has been offered "legally binding nuclear fuel supply guarantees" if it agrees to suspend enrichment related and reprocessing activities until "international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme is restored."[250] Some argue that President Bush's ENR proposal conflicts with the key bargain of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) that promised states forswearing nuclear weapons “the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”[247] Since then, Bush administration's has modified this proposal in order to accommodate the interests of Canada, which wants to build uranium enrichment plants to export enriched uranium fuel for nuclear-power plants, albeit possibly only under a "black box" arrangement that does not transfer technical knowhow.[251][252] Iranian reaction Iran argues that such restrictions on the acquisition of enrichment technology would constitute a breach of the NonProliferation Treaty, the IAEA Statute and the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, which require non-discriminatory sharing of nuclear technology.[253][254] Iran's foreign minister has described attempts to stop it from gaining nuclear capabilities as "nuclear apartheid" and "scientific apartheid". In a November 2005 guest column in Le Monde, Manouchehr Mottaki said that the West's demands for Iran to "surrender its inalienable right to fully master nuclear technology" constituted "nuclear apartheid".[124][125] In subsequent statements in February 2006 he insisted that "Iran rejects all forms of scientific and nuclear apartheid by any world power", and asserted that such "scientific and nuclear apartheid" amounted to "an immoral and discriminatory treatment of signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty",[126] and that Iran has "the right to a peaceful use of nuclear energy and we cannot accept nuclear apartheid".[127] His words were later echoed in a June 2006 speech by Iran's deputy chief nuclear negotiator Javad Vaeedi, in which he claimed that "developing countries are moving towards destroying technological apartheid".[128] Iran has offered to accept international participation in its nuclear program, and to operate its enrichment facilities as a consortium with foreign governments, as long as the program is conducted on Iranian soil. This idea has been endorsed by Western and American experts.[255] This proposal was rejected by the Western countries.[256] International Reaction It has been suggested that the U.S. proposal has led some countries to develop enrichment capabilities, in part based on the perception that all countries will soon be divided into uranium enrichment "haves" (suppliers) and "have-nots" (customers) under various proposals to establish multinational nuclear fuel centers and fuel-supply arrangements.[257] Some have suggested that fears that such proposals are "thinly veiled attempts to revoke their 'inalienable right' to peaceful nuclear technology . . . may even be spurring more countries to pursue nuclear enrichment technology, in hopes that they can achieve significant capability before any new international agreement solidifies and locks them out of the club."[258] Others argue that "proposals to create national or international monopolies on the nuclear fuel cycle are very unlikely to be acceptable," especially if punitive sanctions or the threat of military intervention are used to enforce restrictions on access to fuel cycle technologies.[259] According to one report, "Developing nations say they don’t want to give up their rights to uranium enrichment and don’t trust the United States or other nuclear countries to be consistent suppliers of the nuclear material they would need to run their power plants."[260] According to a 2004 analysis by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, "Many NPT state parties, particularly those from the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), have already stated their opposition to President Bush’s proposals to restrict enrichment. In their view, precluding states from developing enrichment and reprocessing capabilities contradicts an important tenet of the NPT-that is, the deal made by the nuclear weapon states (NWS) to the non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS). Article IV of the NPT states that NNWS have the inalienable right to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, a right intended to provide an incentive for NNWS to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Bush proposals, however, introduce another element into the nonproliferation regime by segmenting countries into those that can engage in enrichment and reprocessing and those that cannot. Since most states with fuel cycle capabilities are from the developed world, it is clear that the target group of the proposal is the developing world."[261] Similar past proposals to restrict enrichment have caused deep divisions between NPT signatory states, as developing countries have consistently rejected efforts to place additional limits on the fuel cycle. The Final Document of the United Nations General Assembly resolution S-10/2 which was adopted at the 27th plenary meeting of the tenth special session on 30 June 1978 stated in paragraph 69: "Each country's choices and decisions in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear energy should be respected without jeopardizing its policies or international cooperation agreements and arrangements for peaceful uses of nuclear energy and its fuel-cycle policies".[262]

64

This position was reiterated in the 1980 NPT Review and Extension Conference [263] and has been consistently reiterated in every Review Conference since then, including the 1995 Review Conference[264] and in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.[265] The Final Document of the 10th Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly in 2002 also reiterated that non-proliferation measures should not be used to jeopardize the inalienable rights of all States to have access to and be free to acquire technology, equipment and materials for peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and that each country's choices regarding nuclear fuel cycle policies should be respected.[266] uclear facilities in Iran Main article: #uclear facilities in Iran

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Anarak Arak Ardakan Bonab Bushehr Chalus Darkovin Isfahan Karaj Lashkar Abad Lavizan Natanz Parchin Saghand Tehran Yazd

See also

Iran portal

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Timeline of nuclear program of Iran Energy in Iran Economy of Iran Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Operation Merlin Petrodollar warfare Ali Larijani, Iran's former nuclear negotiator Iran and weapons of mass destruction Military of Iran Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel Iran-Pakistan relations United States-Iran relations Diplomatic tensions between Iran and the United States List of states with nuclear weapons Oghab 2

References 1. 2. 3.

^ "Part I: An Atomic Threat Made in America". 2008. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013007E.shtml. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. ^ a b "Iran Affairs: Blasts from the Past: Western Support for Iran's Nuclear program". 2008. http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2006/05/blasts_from_the.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. ^ "Iranian specialists ready to launch Bushehr nuclear power plant". ITAR-TASS. 2008-10-14. http://www.itartass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13171634. Retrieved on 17 October 2008

65

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

^ "Iran Plans 19 Nuclear Power Plants". FOX News. December 24, 2007. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318198,00.html. Retrieved on 24 February 2008 ^ "Iran sees Bushehr plant at full capacity in one year". AFP. December 18, 2007. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iCbR-4ck0a5j2K7hOmNsaHH-OPmg. Retrieved on 24 February 2008 ^ a b "Nuclear proliferation: The Islamic Republic of Iran", Gawdat Bahgat, Iranian Studies Journal, vol. 39(3), September 2006 ^ Chubin, Shahram. "Does Iran want nuclear weapons?" Survival, Volume 37, Issue 1 Spring 1995, pp. 86-104. ^ U.S. FEARS IRAN MAY USE CHEMICAL ARMS New York Times April 25, 1985 ^ http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol08/81/81ali.pdf ^ Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, May 1996 ^ IRANIAN NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS: IMPLICATIONS AND RESPONSE ^ James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies: Study Finds U.S. Intelligence Community Confidence in Iran's Chemical Weapons Capability Has Diminished Steadily Since 2003 ^ Dr. Jean Paul Sanders: "Iranian Use of Chemical Weapons: A Critical Analysis of Past Allegations" ^ IR#A: "Jalili: Chemical weapons have no place in Iran's defense doctrine" ^ [http://www.un.int/iran/pressaffairs/pressreleases/1997/articles/1.html An Unnecessary Crisis: Setting the Record Straight about Iran's Nuclear Program] by Amb. Zarif, Published in New York Times ( November 18, 2005) ^ "file:///C|/Users/MJZ/Desktop/Doc2.htm" (PDF). http://www.zarif.net/Articles/Columbia%20JIA.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. ^ "Transcript: ‘Response ... will be a positive one’ - Nightly News with Brian Williams - MSNBC.com". Msnbc.msn.com. July 28, 2008. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25887437/page/4/. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. ^ "Integrated Nuclear Fuel Cycle Information Systems (iNFCIS)". 2008. http://www-nfcis.iaea.org. Retrieved on 2008-0224. ^ Lining up to enrich uranium by Charles D. Ferguson and William C. Potter, International Herald Tribune, Sept. 12, 2006 a b ^ "We in Iran don't need this quarrel International Herald Tribune". 2008. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/05/opinion/edzarif.php. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. a b ^ "Publications: Magazines and Newsletters". 2008. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull462/nuclear_fcycle.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. ^ "Iran Crisis". Mit.edu. http://mit.edu/stgs/irancrisis.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. ^ "A Solution for the US–Iran Nuclear Standoff - The New York Review of Books". Nybooks.com. Volume 55, Number 4 · March 20, 2008. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21112. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. ^ [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm "Security council demands iran suspend uranium enrichment by 31 august, or face possible economic, diplomatic sanctions"]. 2008. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. ^ "The spectre of Operation Ajax". Article. Guardian Unlimited. 2003. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1021997,00.html. Retrieved on 2007-04-02. ^ "Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel Acceptance". U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration. http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/na-20/frrsnf.shtml. ^ "Iran Profile Nuclear Chronology 1957-1985". Nuclear Threat Initiative. http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/1825_1826.html. Retrieved on 2006-05-18. ^ a b Dafna Linzer (March 27, 2005). "Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html. ^ The Third World's Critical Mass, by Kai Bird and David Berick, Nation February 26, 1977 ^ . Farhang Jahanpour (November 6, 2006). "Chronology of Iran's Nuclear Program (1957-present)". Oxford Research GroupDr. http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/work/middle_east/iranchronology.php. ^ (PDF)Prospects for Further Proliferation of #uclear Weapons, Special National Intelligence Estimate, CIA, 23 August 1974, SNIE 4-1-74, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB240/snie.pdf, retrieved on 20 January 2008 ^ Mark Hibbs (August 2003). "US in 1983 stopped IAEA from helping Iran make UF6". Platt's Nuclear Fuel. http://www.geocities.com/thelasian/nucleafuel_iran.html. ^ Gordon Prather (December 27, 2005). "ElBaradei Isn't Perfect". Antiwar.com. http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8308. ^ (French) "Jean-Louis Bruguière, un juge d’exception". Voltaire Network. April 29, 2004. http://www.voltairenet.org/article13591.html ^ (French) Dominique Lorentz (November 11, 2001). "La république atomique". Le Monde. http://www.politiqueglobale.org/article.php3?id_article=1967. ^ "Iskandar Safa and the French Hostage Scandal". Middle East Intelligence Bulletin. February 2002. http://www.meib.org/articles/0202_l2.htm ^ "Asia Times Online:: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs". 2008. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HK15Ak03.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. ^ a b Stanislav Lunev. Through the Eyes of the Enemy: The Autobiography of Stanislav Lunev, Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1998. ISBN 0-89526-390-4, pages 19-22. ^ "Atomic Team Reports on Iran Probe; No Weapons Research Found by Inspectors - The Washington Post - HighBeam Research". 2008. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-990775.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. ^ Jon Wolfsthal, "Iran Hosts IAEA Mission; Syria Signs Safeguard Pact", Arms Control Today, vol. 22 (March 1992), p. 28. ^ "U.S. Halted Nuclear Bid By Iran; China, Argentina Agreed to Cancel Technology Transfers - The Washington Post HighBeam Research". 2008. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1035214.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-24.

66

42. ^ "Iran's Nuclear Program. Part I: Its History". 2008. http://www.payvand.com/news/03/oct/1015.html. Retrieved on 200802-24. 43. ^ Mark Hibbs, “Iran Told IAEA It Will Build Chinese UF6 Plant at Isfahan,” Nuclear Fuel, 16 December 1996 44. ^ "ArmsControlWonk: Exiles and Iran Intel". Armscontrolwonk.com. http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/517/exiles-andiran-intel. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 45. ^ "alJazeera Magazine". 2008. http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=1002. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 46. ^ http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc214.pdf 47. ^ http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-40.pdf 48. ^ "News Center: In Focus: IAEA and Iran". 2008. http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/statement_iran21102003.shtml. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 49. ^ a b (PDF)Implementation of the #PT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, IAEA, 10 November 2003, GOV/2003/75, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-75.pdf, retrieved on 25 October 2007 50. ^ "GOV/2004/83 Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in Iran" (PDF). http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2004/gov2004-83.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 51. ^ Cyrus Safdari (November 2005). "Iran needs nuclear energy, not weapons". Le Monde diplomatique. http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:Wv7d_FdiMH0J:mondediplo.com/2005/11/02iran. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 52. ^ Mark Hibbs (August 2003). "US in 1983 stopped IAEA from helping Iran make UF6". Platt's Nuclear Fuel. http://www.geocities.com/thelasian/nucleafuel_iran.html. 53. ^ IAEA Safeguards Statement for 2007 54. ^ INFCIRC/711 Understandings of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA on the Modalities of Resolution of the Outstanding Issues, August 27, 2009 55. ^ GOV/2008/59 Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Report by the Director General, November 19, 2008 56. ^ Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007) and 1803 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran (September 15, 2008) 57. ^ a b c d (PDF)Implementation of the #PT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, IAEA, 24 September 2005, GOV/2005/77, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf, retrieved on 25 October 2007 58. ^ "About IAEA: IAEA Statute". 2008. http://www.iaea.org/About/statute_text.html#A1.12. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 59. ^ http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-14.pdf 60. ^ a b ASIL Insight - Iran’s Resumption of its Nuclear Program: Addendum 61. ^ "IAEA Board of Governors reports Iran's nuclear dossier to UNSC without consensus". 2008. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2006/iran-060204-irna07.htm. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 62. ^ [http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/06mousavian.pdf Iran and the West: The Path to Nuclear Deadlock Seyyed Hossein Mousavian. Global Dialogue, Winter/Spring 2006.] Posted on the Commonwealth Institute website (.pdf file) 63. ^ Ian Traynor. "EU warns Iran: no talks if nuclear freeze ends | World news | The Guardian". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,,1541352,00.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 64. ^ a b c Rosalind Ryan and agencies. "Iran resumes uranium enrichment | Environment | guardian.co.uk". guardian.co.uk. http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1545023,00.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 65. ^ [1][dead link] 66. ^ Pakistan Is Aiding in Iran Inquiry, By Douglas Frantz, Los Angeles Times May 26, 2005 67. ^ "No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program; Uranium Traced to Pakistani Equipment" Washington Post, Tuesday, August 23, 2005 68. ^ "Iran reported to Security Council". BBC News. 2006-02-04. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4680294.stm. Retrieved on 4 February 2006 69. ^ International Atomic Energy Agency (2006-04-02) (PDF). Resolution GOV/2006/14 of the Board of Governors: Implementation of the #PT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Press release. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-14.pdf. 70. ^ a b GOV/2006/15 Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, February 27, 2006 71. ^ Brannan, Paul (2006). "ISIS Imagery Brief: New Activities at the Esfahan and Natanz Nuclear Sites in Iran" (PDF). Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS). http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/newactivities.pdf. Retrieved on 2006-05-01. 72. ^ a b c d e Bush: Iran's defiance will bring 'consequences', August 31, 2006, CNN 73. ^ President Bush's speech of 8/31/2006 74. ^ US Iran report branded dishonest, September 9, 2006, BBC 75. ^ "washingtonpost.com: U.S. Nuclear Arms Stance Modified by Policy Study". 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5080-2002Mar22?language=printer. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 76. ^ "CNN.com - Hersh: U.S. mulls nuclear option for Iran - April 10, 2006". 2008. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/hersh.access/index.html. Retrieved on 24 February 2008 77. ^ Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September/October 2006.U.S. Nuclear Threats: Then and Now (second mirror) 78. ^ "We Do Not Have a Nuclear Weapons Program - UN Security Council - Global Policy Forum". 2008. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iran/2006/0406ambassador.htm. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 79. ^ Karl Vick (January 23, 2006). "In Iran, Power Written in Stone". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/01/22/AR2006012200808.html 80. ^ World Public Opinion: Iranians Oppose Producing Nuclear Weapons, Saying It Is Contrary to Islam

67

81. 82. 83. 84. 85.

^ BBC Poll: 94% of Iranians: We have right to develop nuclear plan ^ Iranian Public Opinion on Governance, Nuclear Weapons and Relations with the United States, August 27, 2008 ^ 2008 Annual Arab Public Opinion Poll - see "Key Findings" ^ [“NPT blamed for secrecy”, Nuclear Engineering International, 29 February 2004.] ^ "Energy Citations Database (ECD) Document #7095626". 2008. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7095626. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 86. ^ "Esfahan / Isfahan - Iran Special Weapons Facilities". 2008. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/esfahan.htm. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 87. ^ "Arms Control Association: Fact Sheets: Iranian, P5+1 Proposals to Resolve Iranian Nuclear Issue". 2008. http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Iran_Nuclear_Proposals.asp. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 88. ^ "Iran's message is softly spoken, yet clear: It will enrich uranium - Middle East, World - Independent.co.uk". 2008. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2798521.ece. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 89. ^ "UN press release". 2006. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2006/sc8792.doc.htm. 90. ^ "About IAEA: IAEA Statute". 2008. http://www.iaea.org/About/statute_text.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 91. ^ See section 2.2 (pp. 13-14) of the IAEA Safeguards Glossary 92. ^ IAEA Chief Concludes Visit to Iran 93. ^ IAEA-GOV/2006/14 Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Resolution adopted February 4, 2006 94. ^ GOV/2006/15 Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, February 27, 2006 95. ^ UN Security Council Resolution 1696 96. ^ UN Security Council Resolution 1737 97. ^ Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) in the Islamic Republic of Iran 98. ^ IAEA INFCIRC/724: Communication dated 26 March 2008 received from the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Agency 99. ^ Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran 100. ^ a b c Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities (National Intelligence Estimate) 101. ^ "Iran Asserts Expansion Of Nuclear Operation - washingtonpost.com". 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/04/09/AR2007040900290.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 102. ^ "Iran rules out enrichment suspension ahead of EU talks Forbes.com". 2008. http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/04/22/afx3638613.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 103. ^ "US Iran report branded dishonest". 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5346524.stm. Retrieved on 24 February 2008 104. ^ "Most U.S. tips fingering Iran false – envoys / No intelligence given U.N. since '02 led to big discoveries". 2007. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/25/MNGGKOAR681.DTL&feed=rss.news. Retrieved on 200802-24. 105. ^ "Khaleej Times Online IAEA denies Iran blocked nuclear site visit". 2008. http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2007/May/theworld_May343.xml§ion=the world. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 106. ^ U.N. inspectors revisit Iran's Arak heavy-water site, Reuters, published 2007-07-30, Retrieved 2007-07-31 107. ^ "UN nuclear watchdog chief expresses concern about anti-Iran rhetoric from US". International Herald Tribune. October 28, 2007. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/28/america/NA-GEN-US-Iran.php. Retrieved on 2007-10-29. 108. ^ United Nations Security Council Resolution 1696 S-RES-1696(2006) page 2 in 2006 (retrieved 2007-09-14) 109. ^ United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737 S-RES-1737(2006) on 23 December 2006 (retrieved 2007-09-14) 110. ^ United Nations Security Council Document 815 S-2006-815 on 13 October 2006 (retrieved 2007-09-14) 111. ^ "UN passes Iran nuclear sanctions". BBC #ews (BBC). 2006-12-13. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6205295.stm. Retrieved on 23 December 2006 112. ^ Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolution 1737 (2006) in the Islamic Republic of Iran 113. ^ United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 S-RES-1747(2007) page 2 on 24 March 2007 (retrieved 2007-09-14) 114. ^ Security Council Tightens Restrictions on Iran’s Proliferation-Sensitive Nuclear Activities, Increases Vigilance Over Iranian Banks, Has States Inspect Cargo 115. ^ "Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1737(2006)". United Nations. http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1737/index.shtml. Retrieved on 2007-09-14. 116. ^ "Nukes a matter of pride in Iran". 2008. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050529/news_1n29iran.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 117. ^ "IRAN: Nuclear Negotiations - Council on Foreign Relations". 2008. http://www.cfr.org/publication/7730/iran.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 118. ^ "Iran Daily". 2008. http://www.iran-daily.com/1383/2143/html/national.htm. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 119. ^ "‫ته‬WWW‫رژي ھس‬WWW‫ ان‬:‫اه‬WWW‫ه ش‬WWW‫ر خارج‬WWW‫توزي‬WW‫ران اس‬WW‫ق اي‬WW‫"اي ح‬. 2008. http://www.baztab.ir/news/38520.php. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 120. ^ "Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy". 2008. http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/iran/undeclared.htm. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. a b 121. ^ "Uncorrected Evidence m10". 2008. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/memo/496/ucm1002.htm. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 122. ^ a b Compliance Report "Adherence to and Compliance With Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments". 2008. http://www.state.gov/t/vci/rls/rpt/51977.htm#chapter6 Compliance Report. Retrieved on 2008-02-24.

68

123. ^ "News Headlines". 2008. http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1385/06/09/index-e.htm. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 124. ^ a b "alJazeera Magazine". 2008. http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10254. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 125. ^ a b "Iran blasts 'nuclear apartheid': World: News: News24". 2008. http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-101462_1843335,00.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. a b 126. ^ "FM lashes out at big powers' nuclear apartheid". 2008. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2006/iran-060215-irna02.htm. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 127. ^ a b Iran's Mottaki quoted: won't suspend research Iran Press News, February 27, 2006. 128. ^ a b "Iran's diplomat condemns technological apartheid - Irna". 2008. http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line17/0606232976095647.htm. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 129. ^ "Iranians Opposed To Technological Apartheid In Nuclear Issue: Rowhani. IranAtom.Ru - Voice of Nuclear Iran". Iranatom.ru. http://www.iranatom.ru/news/english/version1/1/a649.htm. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 130. ^ SAGSI: Its Role and Contribution to Safeguards Development 131. ^ SAFEGUARDS IN A BROADER POLICY PERSPECTIVE: VERIFYING TREATY COMPLIANCE "400 Bad Request". 2008. http://www.asno.dfat.gov.au/publications/2005_santa_fe_policy.pdf SAFEGUARDS IN A BROADER POLICY PERSPECTIVE: VERIFYING TREATY COMPLIANCE. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 132. ^ "ASIL Insights:Iran’s Resumption of its Nuclear Program: Addendum". 2008. http://www.asil.org/insights/2005/09/insights050929.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 133. ^ Agreement Between Iran and the IAEA for the Application of Safeguards in Connection with the NPT 134. ^ IAEA: August 30, 2007 Iran Safeguards Implementation Report 135. ^ "Quote from Olli Heinonen, Head of IAEA Safeguards.". 2008. http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/workplan_heinonen.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 136. ^ "Iran Says IAEA Atom Report Shows US Charges Wrong - CommonDreams.org". 2008. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/30/3499/. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 137. ^ Reuters Canada Mon October 29, 2007 "IAEA sees "good" Iran cooperation ahead of talks Retrieved 29/10/07 138. ^ Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) in the Islamic Republic of Iran, 15 November 2007 139. ^ "President Ahmadinejad: Iran to consult about uranium enrichment in neutral third country". 2007-11-18. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/18/africa/ME-GEN-Saudi-Iran-Nuclear.php. Retrieved on 2007-11-18. 140. ^ "Good progress on Iran, but 'not sufficient': IAEA Yahoo! News UK". 2008. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080211/tpl-iran-nuclear-politics-iaea-b04fc5e.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 141. ^ "French Minister to IAEA Chief: Listen to the West - February 13, 2008 - The New York Sun". 2008. http://www.nysun.com/article/71234. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 142. ^ "IAEA denies internal row over Iran, condemns hype". 2008. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1283850220080212. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 143. ^ a b Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant Security Council resolutions in Iran (02/22/08) 144. ^ "Latest Iran Safeguards Report Circulated to IAEA Board". 2008. http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2008/iranreport0208.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 145. ^ "Bloomberg.com: Germany". 2008. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aU.yaRBh1LXk&refer=germany. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 146. ^ a b c "Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims - New York Times". 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/international/middleeast/13nukes.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=s login. Retrieved on 24 February 2008 147. ^ "Company News Story". 2008. http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20080221\ACQDJON200802211806DOWJONESDJONLIN E001142.htm&selected=9999&selecteddisplaysymbol=9999&StoryTargetFrame=_top&mkt=WORLD&chk=unchecked&l ang=&link=&headlinereturnpage=http://www.international.na. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 148. ^ http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-15.pdf 149. ^ a b c d e ISIS: Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007) and 1803 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran 15 Sept 2008 150. ^ Telegraph: Iran renews nuclear weapons development 151. ^ PressTV: "IAEA: No nuclear material missing in Iran" Sun, 14 Sep 2008 152. ^ [http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2007/infcirc711.pdf Understandings of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA on the Modalities of Resolution of the Outstanding Issues]INFCIRC/711, 27 August 2007 153. ^ PressTV Interview: "Ten more years of IAEA reports will say the same about Iran" Tue, 16 Sep 2008 154. ^ "World Politics Review". 2008. http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=524. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 155. ^ "Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy (washingtonpost.com)". 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 156. ^ http://www.un.int/iran/statements/securitycouncil/articles/Dr.%20Zarif%20Statement%20befor%20the%20Security%20Co uncil.%20Dec.%2023.2006.pdf 157. ^ "Security Council Imposes Sanctions on Iran for failure to halt Uranium Enrichment, Unanimously adopting Resolution 1737 (2006)". 2006-12-23. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8928.doc.htm. 158. ^ "Fars News Agency :: Full Text of Speech Delivered by Iran's Envoy to IAEA". English.farsnews.com. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8512160500. Retrieved on 2008-10-26.

69

159. ^ http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.iranian/browse_thread/thread/343f50f6538c33b4/824152560a6bded0?lnk=st& q=%22A+New+Global+Nuclear+Order%22&rnum=2&hl=en#824152560a6bded0 160. ^ Shargh, February 20, 2006. 161. ^ "Eye on Iran, Rivals Pursuing Nuclear Power", WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER, #ew York Times, April 15, 2007 162. ^ Arms Control Association - Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance 163. ^ Olmert says "all options" open against Iran, Reuters Mon January 14, 2008 164. ^ Iran Poses Dangerous Threat, Peres Tells ADL - ADL Press Release, May 9, 2005 165. ^ Livni behind closed doors: Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel, By Gidi Weitz and Na'ama Lanski, Haaretz October 25, 2007 166. ^ Israel cannot be destroyed, says former Mossad chief, YnetNews, October 18, 2007 167. ^ Bombs away, The Economist, July 17, 2007 168. ^ [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/world/middleeast/05webreact.html?ref=world Israel Unconvinced Iran Has Dropped Nuclear Program, By STEVEN ERLANGER and GRAHAM BOWLEY New York Times, December 5, 2007] 169. ^ PM: Israel to expose Iran's nuclear arms program, By HERB KEINON, Jerusalem Post December 9, 2007 170. ^ Israel: IAEA's report 'unacceptable' - Jerusalem Post November 16, 2007 171. ^ Israeli minister says sack ElBaradei over Iran, Reuters Sun March 9, 2008 172. ^ "BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israeli minister threatens Iran". News.bbc.co.uk. 6 June 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7440472.stm. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 173. ^ BBC: Iran dismisses 'attack by Israel' 174. ^ Report: Iran protests threats from Israeli official 175. ^ "BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israeli warning over nuclear Iran". News.bbc.co.uk. 4 June 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7434845.stm. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 176. ^ "Report: U.S. to station diplomats in Iran for first time since 1979 - Haaretz - Israel News". Haaretz.com. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1002762.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 177. ^ "Israel seeks input on U.S. Iran report Haaretz Israel News". Haaretz.com. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1005338.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 178. ^ "Official: Iran "not likely" to have nuclear capabilities by 2010 - People's Daily Online". English.people.com.cn. http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90854/6499971.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 179. ^ "Data Is Lacking On Iran's Arms, U.S. Panel Says New York Times". 2008. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07EEDE163CF93AA35750C0A9639C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewante d=print. Retrieved on 24 February 2008 180. ^ "McClatchy Washington Bureau". 2008. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/21067.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 181. ^ "Europe: Playing soft or hard cop; Charlemagne" The Economist. January 21, 2006. Vol.378, Iss. 8461; pg. 42 182. ^ "House of Commons Foreign Affairs Third Report". 2008. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmfaff/80/8006.htm. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 183. ^ Text of Latest Diplomatic Offer to Iran 184. ^ IAEA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Information System 185. ^ NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS INFORMATION 186. ^ BBC: Iran vows no nuclear concessions 187. ^ Iran's nuclear programme: As the enrichment machines spin on, The Economist. London: February 2, 2008. Vol. 386, Iss. 8565; pg. 30 188. ^ [2] 189. ^ [3] 190. ^ "ABC News: TRANSCRIPT: Gibson Interviews Bush". 2008. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=3891196. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 191. ^ International Atomic Energy Agency (August 2006): Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran 192. ^ United Nations Security Council: Resolution 1803 (2008) 193. ^ Reese Erlich, "U.S. Tells Iran: Become a Nuclear Power," excerpted from "The Iran Agenda: The Real Story of U.S. Policy and The Middle East Crisis," (PoliPointPress, 2007). Used with permission. 194. ^ Associated Press (September 16, 2007). "European leaders considering Iran sanctions, French foreign minister says". International Herald Tribune. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/17/europe/EU-GEN-France-Iran-Nuclear.php 195. ^ Yaakov Lappin (09.17.07). "Rice's 'thank you' visit". Ynetnews. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L3450421,00.html 196. ^ Ali Akbar Dareini (September 19, 2007). "Iran: Retaliation for any Israeli attack". Associated Press. http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2007-09-19-74273516_x.htm. Retrieved on 22 January 2008 197. ^ "Iran Focus-Germany can accept nuclear enrichment in Iran - Nuclear - News". 2008. http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7755. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 198. ^ "Europeans weigh compromise offer for Iran-diplomats". 2008. http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL10161072. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 199. ^ "USATODAY.com Iran offers to suspend large-scale uranium enrichment". 2008. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-07-iran_x.htm. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 200. ^ The Iran Plans by Seymour M. Hersh, New Yorker, April 17, 2006 201. ^ "Iran should continue limited enrichment, atomic watchdog says - International Herald Tribune". 2008. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/22/africa/nuke.php. Retrieved on 2008-02-24.

70

202. ^ "US protest at Iran remark by nuclear watchdog". 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/24/wiaea24.xml. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 203. ^ "POLITICS: Accept Iran's Regional Role, Says French Envoy". 2008. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41064. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 204. ^ "U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work New York Times". 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin. Retrieved on 24 February 2008 205. ^ Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities (National Intelligence Estimate) 206. ^ "How Did a 2005 Estimate Go Awry? New York Times". 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washington/04policy.html. Retrieved on 24 February 2008 207. ^ "Interfax > Politics". 2008. http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11923940. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 208. ^ "Bothersome Intel on Iran". Newsweek.com. 2008. http://www.newsweek.com/id/91673. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 209. ^ "Middle East Online". 2008. http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=23931. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 210. ^ Statement by IAEA Director General on New U.S. Intelligence Estimate on Iran IAEA Press Release 2007/22, December 4 2007 211. ^ [ http://www.g8.fr/evian/english/navigation/2003_g8_summit/summit_documents/non_proliferation_of_weapons_of_mass_ destruction_-_a_g8_declaration.html Non Proliferation Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction: A G8 Declaration] 212. ^ [ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040609-28.html G-8 Action Plan on Nonproliferation] 213. ^ [ http://en.g8russia.ru/docs/25.html Chair's Summary St.Petersburg, 17 July 2006] 214. ^ Heiligendamm Statement on Non-Proliferation 215. ^ G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit Leaders Declaration,
Hokkaido Toyako, 8 July 2008 216. ^ Praful Bidwai (February 10, 2007). "India-Iran Ties Jeopardized by US Threats - by Praful Bidwai". Antiwar.com. http://www.antiwar.com/bidwai/?articleid=10501. Retrieved on 26 October 2008 217. ^ "Daily Times Site Edition [Printer Friendly Version]". Dailytimes.com.pk. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2005\09\17\story_17-9-2005_pg4_14. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 218. ^ a b "India defends Iran nuclear vote, denies bowing to US pressure - Forbes.com". Forbes.com. http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/09/26/afx2243008.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 219. ^ "Khaleej Times Online - India wants closer ties with Iran, despite nuclear vote". Khaleejtimes.com. http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2006/February/subcontinent_February717.xml& section=subcontinent&col=. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 220. ^ "The Hindu : International / India & World : India clears the air with Iran". Hindu.com. http://www.hindu.com/2005/10/28/stories/2005102809351200.htm. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 221. ^ Somini Sengupta (Published: March 6, 2006). "India Urges Diplomacy on Iran Nuclear Issue - New York Times". Nytimes.com. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/06/international/asia/06cnd-india.html?pagewanted=all. Retrieved on 26 October 2008 222. ^ "India concerned by escalating rhetoric on Iran nuclear program - Forbes.com". Forbes.com. http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2006/02/17/afx2534681.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 223. ^ Subhash Vohra. "U.S. Concerns Over India-Iran Gas Pipeline". Voanews.com. http://www.voanews.com/english/NewsAnalysis/2008-06-13-voa27.cfm. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 224. ^ "Indiadaily.com - India's IAEA vote helped gain support for nuclear deal, says US official". Indiadaily.com. http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/5067.asp. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 225. ^ "India dumps old friend Iran for US nuclear carrot". Expressindia.com. http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=55386. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 226. ^ "A Nonproliferation Disaster - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace". Carnegieendowment.org. http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=20292. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 227. ^ Fred Kaplan. "Bush's Indian fantasy. - By Fred Kaplan - Slate Magazine". Slate.com. http://www.slate.com/id/2137105/. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 228. ^ "The India Nuclear Deal: The Top Rule-maker Bends the Rules - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace". Carnegieendowment.org. http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19506. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 229. ^ "Seventeen myths about the Indian nuclear deal". Wisconsinproject.org. http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/india/Seventeen_Myths.htm. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 230. ^ "Nuclear Deal With India: Sacrificing The Npt On An Altar Of Expediency". Nci.org. http://www.nci.org/06nci/12/nucindia-deal.htm. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 231. ^ "Harvard International Review: Implications of the US-India Nuclear Deal". Harvardir.org. http://www.harvardir.org/articles/1363/. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 232. ^ "NAM/MM/COB/SOM/4" (PDF). http://www.un.int/belarus/diversity/MMCOB(FinalDocument).pdf. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 233. ^ "Iran Wins Backing From Nonaligned Bloc". Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty. 2006. http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/9/13C06751-5872-4EC2-8AAC-A1E738B11C29.html. Retrieved on 2006-09-29. 234. ^ XV Ministerial Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement (July 2008): Statement on the Islamic Republic of Iran's Nuclear Issue 235. ^ "OIC supports Iran's quest to go nuclear | AFP | Find Articles at BNET". Findarticles.com. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200702/ai_n18655076. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 236. ^ 'Every country has right' to nuclear technology, Zebari says - CNN May 26, 2006 237. ^ Algeria Supports Iran's Pursuit of Nuclear Power, APS Says - Bloomberg, Aug 12 2008

71

238. ^ Indonesia backs Iran's claim of peaceful nuclear program, Agence France-Presse, May 10 2006 239. ^ Turkey supports Iran's nuclear program for peaceful means, Associated Press, November 15, 2005 240. ^ Egypt, Turkey call for peaceful solution to Iranian nuclear dispute - Xinhua People's Daily, January 16, 2008 241. ^ - Putin: no proof Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons - Guardian, Wednesday October 10 2007 242. ^ Declining Support for Tough Measures against Iran's Nuclear Program: Global Poll March 11, 2008 243. ^ 2008 Arab Public Opinion Survey, Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development, University of Maryland. 244. ^ IAEA: 12 Proposals On The Table 245. ^ "The Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Is It Time for a Multilateral Approach? | Arms Control Association". Armscontrol.org. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_12/Rauf#sidebar. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 246. ^ a b President Announces New Measures to Counter the Threat of WMD 247. ^ a b Bush Outlines Proposals to Stem Proliferation, Arms Control Association, March 2004 248. ^ http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/FuelCycle/neff.pdf 249. ^ Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 250. ^ INFCIRC/730 251. ^ Canada Eyes the Enrichment Club, Wall Street Journal Environmental Capital Blog March 7, 2008 252. ^ U.S. Joins Others Seeking Nuclear Export Criteria 253. ^ "Microsoft Word 0535068e.doc" (PDF). http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclearweapons/issues/proliferation/iran/2005-review-conference-peaceful-uses-nuclear.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 254. ^ "Preparatory Committee for the 2000 Review" (PDF). http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom08/papers/WP6.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-10-26. 255. ^ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21112 256. ^ Iran’s Proposal to End Nuclear Standoff Is Rejected by the West, New York Times October 4, 2006 257. ^ "Lining up to enrich uranium International Herald Tribune". 2008. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/12/opinion/edferguson.php. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 258. ^ Nuclear Fuel Supply Proposals Aimed at Weakness in Nonproliferation Regime, World Politics Watch on Dec. 21, 2006. 259. ^ Monopolizing the Nuclear Fuel Supply, Laka Foundation March 2007 260. ^ "A New Global Nuclear Order". 2008. http://www.geocities.com/thelasian/. Retrieved on 2008-02-24. 261. ^ The Bush Proposals: A Global Strategy for Combating the Spread of Nuclear Weapons Technology or a Sanctioned Nuclear Cartel? Center for Nonproliferation Studies, November 2004 262. ^ Resolutions and Decisions Adopted by the General Assembly during its Tenth Special Session, 23 May-30 June 1978, General Assembly Official Records, Supplement No. 4 (A/S-10/4) New York, 1978 263. ^ The Evolution of NPT Review Conference Final Documents, 1975-2000, Carlton Stoiber, The Nonproliferation Review, Fall-Winter 2003 p. 126-166 264. ^ [http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull373/priest.html Measure for measure: The NPT and the road ahead - IAEA Bulletin, Volume 37, No. 3] 265. ^ NPT/CONF.2000/28: Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty of the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons 24 April - 19 May 2000, New York 266. ^ Resolution adopted on the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Tenth Special Session Of The United Nationsl General Assembly, S-10/2 External links

• • • • • • • • • •

Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (IAEA) In Focus: IAEA and Iran BBC's Iran Nuclear Issue Timeline Israel carries out large-scale rehearsal over Greece of possible air strike against Iran Confronting Iran: Critical perspectives on the current crisis, its origins, and implications Project for Defense Alternatives. The Iran Nuclear Standoff: Legal Issues, Daniel Joyner, JURIST, March 1, 2006. The Legality of the UN Security Council demands on Iran Cyrus Safdari, IranAffairs.com August 6, 2007 Video-Interviews with Ali Asghar Soltanieh (Amb. Iran) during the NPT PrepCom 2008 Iran's Natanz Nuclear Facility Revealed Gareth Porter, Documents linking Iran to nuclear weapons push may have been fabricated, TheRawStory, November 10, 2008, [6].

72

Iranian newspaper clip from 1968 reads: "A quarter of Iran's Nuclear Energy scientists are women." The photograph shows some female Iranian PhDs posing in front of Tehran's research reactor. Advertisement from the 1970s by American nuclear-energy companies, using Iran's nuclear program as a marketing ploy.

Seen here in this ISNA footage is Gholam Reza Aghazadeh and AEOI officials with a sample of Yellowcake during a public announcement on the April 11, 2006, in Mashad that Iran had managed to successfully complete the fuel cycle by itself. EU three.

President Ahmadinejad at Natanz in April 2008

73

Timeline of nuclear program of Iran From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1956–1974 1957: The United States and Iran sign a civil nuclear co-operation agreement as part of the U.S. Atoms for Peace program.[1] August 9, 1963: Iran signs the Partial nuclear test ban treaty (PTBT) and ratifies it on December 23, 1963.[2] 1967: The Tehran Nuclear Research Centre is built and run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). September 1967: The United States supplies 5.545 kg of enriched uranium, of which 5.165 kg contain fissile isotopes for fuel in a research reactor. The United States also supplies 112 kg of plutonium, of which 104 kg are fissile isotopes, for use as start-up sources for research reactor.[1] July 1968: Iran signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and ratifies it. It goes into effect on March 5, 1970. 1970s: Under the rule of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, plans are made to construct up to 20 nuclear power stations across the country with U.S. support and backing. Numerous contracts are signed with various Western firms, and the German firm Kraftwerk Union (a subsidiary of Siemens AG) begins construction on the Bushehr power plant in 1974. 1974: Iranian oil production peaks at 6.1 million barrels per day.[3] 1974: the Atomic Energy Act of Iran was promulgated. The Act covers the activities for which the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran was established at that period. These activities included using atomic energy and radiation in industry, agriculture and service industries, setting up atomic power stations and desalination factories, producing source materials needed in atomic industries. This creates the scientific and technical infrastructure required for carrying out the said projects, as well as co-ordinating and supervising all matters pertaining to atomic energy in the country.[4]

1975–1996 1975: Massachusetts Institute of Technology signs a contract with the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran to provide training for Iranian nuclear engineers. 1979: Iran's Islamic revolution puts a freeze on the existing nuclear program and the Bushehr contract with Siemens AG is terminated as the German firm leaves. 1982: Iranian officials announced that they planned to build a reactor powered by their own uranium at the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Centre. 1983: International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors inspect Iranian nuclear facilities, and report on a proposed co-operation agreement to help Iran manufacture enriched uranium fuel as part of Iran's "ambitious program in the field of nuclear power reactor technology and fuel cycle technology." The assistance program is later terminated under U.S. pressure. 1984: Iranian radio announced that negotiations with Niger on the purchase of uranium were nearing conclusion. 1985: Iranian radio programs openly discuss the significance of the discovery of uranium deposits in Iran with the director of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation. 1989: the Radiation Protection Act of Iran was ratified in public session of April 9 1989 by the Parliament and was approved by the Council of Law-Guardians on April 19, 1989.[4] 1990: Iran begins negotiations with the Soviet Union regarding the re-construction of the Bushehr power plant. 1992: Iran signs an agreement with China for the building of two 950-watt reactors in Darkhovin (Western Iran). To date, construction has not yet begun. 1993: China provides Iran with an HT-6B Tokamak fusion reactor that is installed at the Plasma Physics Research Centre of Azad University.[1] January 1995: Iran signs an $800 million contract with the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy (MinAtom) to complete reactors at Bushehr under IAEA safeguards.[5] 1996: China and Iran inform the IAEA of plans to construct a nuclear enrichment facility in Iran, but China withdraws from the contract under U.S. pressure. Iran advises the IAEA that it plans to pursue the construction anyway.

2002–2004 January 29, 2002: U.S. president George W. Bush speaks of an "Axis of evil" gathering Iran, Iraq and North Korea during his State of the Union Address. August 2002: A spokesman for the MEK terrorist group holds a press conference to "expose" two nuclear facilities in Natanz and Arak that they claim to have discovered. However, the sites were already known to U.S. intelligence. Furthermore, under the terms of Iran's then-existing safeguards agreement with the IAEA, Iran was under no obligation to disclose the facilities while they were still under construction and not yet within the 180-day time limit specified by the safeguards agreement. December 2002: The United States accuses Iran of attempting to make nuclear weapons. Spring 2003: Iran makes an offer of negotiation with the United States that covers nuclear matters and Iran's support for Palestinian groups "resisting Israeli occupation". The offer is spurned by the Bush administration, which instead criticizes the Swiss ambassador who forwarded the offer.

74

June 16, 2003: Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, declares that "Iran failed to report certain nuclear materials and activities" and requests "co-operative actions" from the country. However, at no point does the International Atomic Energy Agency declare Iran in breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. [6] October 21, 2003: As a confidence-building measure, Iran and the EU-3 agree to negotiations under the terms of the Paris Agreement, pursuant to which Iran agrees to temporarily suspend enrichment and permit more stringent set of nuclear inspections in accordance with the Additional Protocol, and the EU-3 explicitly recognizes Iran's right to civilian nuclear programs in accordance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The EU-3 violate this pledge in August 2005 by submitting a demand that Iran abandon enrichment nonetheless. October 31, 2003: The IAEA declares that Iran has submitted a "comprehensive" declaration of its nuclear program.[6] November 11, 2003: The IAEA declares that there is no evidence that Iran is attempting to build an atomic bomb. [6] November 13, 2003: The Bush administration claims that the IAEA report is "impossible to believe". The UN stands behind the facts provided in the report. [6] December 18, 2003: As agreed in the Paris Agreement, Iran voluntarily signs and implements the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty[7] Though the Protocol was not binding on Iran until ratified, Iran voluntarily agrees to permit expanded and more intensive IAEA inspections pursuant to the Protocol, which fail to turn up a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Iran ends the voluntarily implementation of Additional Protocol after two years of inspections, as a protest to continued EU-3 demands that Iran abandon all enrichment. June 2004: Kamal Kharrazi, Iran's foreign minister, responding to demands that Iran halt its nuclear program, says: "We won't accept any new obligations. Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognised by the international community as a member of the nuclear club. This is an irreversible path." [2] June 14 2004: Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, accuses Iran of "less than satisfactory" co-operation during the IAEA investigation of its nuclear program. ElBaradei demands "accelerated and proactive cooperation" from Iran which exceed the terms of Iran's legal obligations. July 27, 2004: Iran removes seals placed upon uranium centrifuges by the International Atomic Energy Agency and resumes construction of the centrifuges at Natanz. (AP) On June 29, 2004, IAEA Director General Mohammad El-Baradei announced that the Bushehr reactor was "not of international concern" since it was a bilateral Russian-Iranian project intended to produce nuclear energy. July 31, 2004: Iran states that it has resumed building nuclear centrifuges to enrich uranium, reversing a voluntary October 2003 pledge to Britain, France, and Germany to suspend all uranium enrichment-related activities. The United States contends that the purpose is to produce weapons-grade uranium. August 10, 2004: Several long-standing charges and questions regarding weapons-grade uranium samples found in Iran are clarified by the IAEA. Some samples match Pakistani and Russian sources which had contaminated imported Iranian equipment from those countries. The sources of the remaining samples remain unaccounted for. [8] August 24, 2004: Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi declares in Wellington, New Zealand, that Iran will retaliate with force against Israel or any nation that attempts a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear program. Earlier in the week, Israel's Chief of Staff, General Moshe Ya'alon, told an Israeli newspaper that "Iran is striving for nuclear capability and I suggest that in this matter [Israel] not rely on others." September 6, 2004: The latest IAEA report finds that "unresolved issues surrounding Iran's atomic program are being clarified or resolved outright". [9] September 18, 2004: The IAEA unanimously adopts a resolution calling on Iran to suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment. September 21, 2004: Iran announces that it will continue its nuclear program converting 37 tonnes of yellowcake uranium for processing in centrifuges. [10] October 18, 2004: Iran states that it is willing to negotiate with the U.K., Germany, and France regarding a suspension of its uranium enrichment activities, but that it will never renounce its right to enrich uranium. October 24, 2004: The European Union makes a proposal to provide civilian nuclear technology to Iran in exchange for Iran terminating its uranium enrichment program permanently. Iran rejects this outright, saying it will not renounce its right to enrichment technologies. A decision to refer the matter from the International Atomic Energy Agency to the United Nations Security Council is expected on November 25, 2004. November 15, 2004: Talks between Iran and three European Union members, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, result in a compromise. Iran agrees to temporarily suspend its active uranium enrichment program for the duration of a second round of talks, during which attempts will be made at arriving at a permanent, mutually-beneficial solution. November 15, 2004: A confidential UN report is leaked. The report states that all nuclear materials within Iran have been accounted for and there is no evidence of any military nuclear program. Nevertheless, it still cannot discount the possibility of such a program because it does not have perfect knowledge. [11] November 22, 2004: Iran declares that it will voluntarily suspend its uranium enrichment program to enter negotiations with the EU. Iran will review its decision in three months. The EU seeks to have the suspension made permanent and is willing to provide economic and political incentives. November 24, 2004: Iran seeks to obtain permission from the European Union, in accordance with its recent agreement with the EU, to allow it to continue working with 24 centrifuges for research purposes. November 28, 2004: Iran withdraws its demand that some of its technology be exempted from a freeze on nuclear enrichment activities. [12]

2005

75

June 2005: U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei should either "toughen his stance on Iran" or fail to be chosen for a third term as the agency's head. Following a one on one meeting between Rice and ElBaradei on June 9, the United States withdrew its opposition and ElBaradei was re-elected to his position on June 13, 2005.[13] August 5, 2005: The EU-3 submit a proposal to Iran pursuant to the Paris Agreement which requires Iran to permanently cease enrichment. The proposal is rejected by Iran as a violation of the Paris Agreement and Iran's Non-Proliferation Treaty rights. Between August 8 and August 10, 2005: Iran resumed the conversion of uranium at the Isfahan facility, under IAEA safeguards, but did not engage in enrichment of uranium. August 9, 2005: The Iranian Head of State, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. August 11, 2005: The 35-member governing board of the IAEA adopted a resolution calling upon Iran to suspend uranium conversion, and instructing ElBaradei to submit a report on Iran's nuclear program by September 3, 2005. August 15, 2005: Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, installed his new government. Iranian presidents do not have exclusive control over Iran's nuclear program, which falls mainly under the purview of Iran's Supreme Leader. Ali Larijani replaced Hassan Rowhani as secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top policy-making body, with nuclear policy in his purview. September 15, 2005: Ahmadinejad stated at a United Nations high-level summit that Iran has the right to develop a civil nuclearpower program within the terms of the 1970 treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. He offered a compromise solution in which foreign companies would be permitted to invest and participate in Iran's nuclear program, which he said would ensure that it could not be secretly diverted to make nuclear weapons. The majority of the U.S. delegation left during his speech, but the U.S./UN mission denied there was a walkout.[14] October 10, 2005: Iranian Oil Ministry Deputy for International Affairs Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian said that Iran could run out of oil reserves in nine decades.[15] November 5, 2005: The Iranian government approved a plan that allows foreign investors to participate in the work at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant. The cabinet also authorised the AEOI to take necessary measures to attract foreign and domestic investment in the uranium enrichment process.[16] November 19, 2005: The IAEA released a report saying that Iran blocked nuclear inspectors from the United Nations from conducting a second visit to a site known as Parchin military complex, where Iran was not legally required to allow inspections at all. The first inspections had failed to turn up any evidence of a nuclear program. IAEA Director-General Mohamed El-Baradei said in the report, "Iran's full transparency is indispensable and overdue." Separately, Iran confirmed that it had resumed the conversion of new quantities of uranium pursuant to its rights under the NPT, despite an IAEA resolution to stop such work. [17]

2006 January 2006: Iran provides the European negotiating side with a six-point proposal, which includes an offer to again suspend uranium enrichment for a period of two years, pending the outcome of continued negotiations. The offer is dismissed by the Europeans, and not reported in the Western press.[18] This offer of compromise follows several other offers from Iran, all of which were summarily dismissed by the US. January 31, 2006: The IAEA reports that "Iran has continued to facilitate access under its Safeguards Agreement as requested by the Agency ... including by providing in a timely manner the requisite declarations and access to locations" and lists outstanding issues.[19] January 2006: The #ew York Times reporter James Risen published State of War, in which he alleged a CIA operation code-named Operation Merlin backfired and may have helped Iran in its nuclear program, in an attempt to delay it feeding them false information. February 2, 2006: Pakistani Finance Minister Sirajul Haq: "Attack on Iran will be construed as attack on us"[20] February 4, 2006: The IAEA votes 27-3 to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council. After the vote, Iran announced its intention to end voluntary co-operation with the IAEA beyond basic Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty requirements, and to resume enrichment of uranium.[21] March 2006: The U.S. National Security Strategy decried Iran, stating that "Iran has violated its Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards obligations and refuses to provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes."[22] The term "objective guarantees" is understood to mean permanent abandonment of enrichment. March 15, 2006: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reaffirms Iran's commitment to developing a domestic nuclear power industry.[23] March 27, 2006: In a Foreign Policy article entitled "Fool Me Twice", Joseph Cirincione, director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, claimed that "some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran." and that there "may be a co-ordinated campaign to prepare for a military strike on Iran." Joseph Cirincione also warns "that a military strike would be disastrous for the United States. It would rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular regime, inflame anti-American anger around the Muslim world, and jeopardise the already fragile U.S. position in Iraq. And it would accelerate, not delay, the Iranian nuclear program. Hard-liners in Tehran would be proven right in their claim that the only thing that can deter the United States is a nuclear bomb. Iranian leaders could respond with a crash nuclear program that could produce a bomb in a few years."[24] Wikinews has related news: Former Iranian president Rafsanjani states Iran is enriching uranium April 11, 2006: Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had enriched uranium to reactor-grade using 164 centrifuges. He said, "I am officially announcing that Iran has joined the group of those countries which have nuclear technology. This is the result of the Iranian nation's resistance. Based on international regulations, we will continue our path until we achieve production of industrial-scale enrichment". He reiterated that the enrichment was performed for purely civil power purposes and not for weapons purposes.

76

April 26, 2006: Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Americans should know that if they assault Iran their interests will be harmed anywhere in the world that is possible, and that the Iranian nation will respond to any blow with double the intensity.[25] April 28, 2006: The International Atomic Energy Agency hands a report titled Implementation of the #PT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran to the UN Security Council.[26] The IAEA says that Iran has stepped up its uranium enrichment programs during the 30 day period covered by the report.[27] June 1, 2006: The UN Security Council agrees to a set of proposals designed to reach a compromise with Iran.[28] July 31, 2006:United Nations Security Council Resolution 1696 gives until August 31, 2006 for Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment and related activities or face the prospect of sanctions.[29] The draft passed by a vote of 14-1 (Qatar, which represents Arab states on the council, opposing). The same day, Iran's U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif qualified the resolution as "arbitrary" and illegal because the NTP protocol explicitly guarantees under international law Iran’s right to pursue nuclear activities for peaceful purposes. In response to today’s vote at the UN, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that his country will revise his position vis-à-vis the economic/incentive package offered previously by the G-6 (5 permanent Security council members plus Germany.)[30] September 16, 2006: (Havana, Cuba) All of the 118 Non-Aligned Movement member countries declare their support for Iran's nuclear program for civilian purposes in their final written statement [3]. That is a clear majority of the 192 countries comprising the entire United Nations. December 23, 2006: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737 was unanimously passed by the United Nations Security Council.[31] The resolution, sponsored by France, Germany and the United Kingdom,[32] imposed sanctions against Iran for failing to stop its uranium enrichment program following resolution 1696. It banned the supply of nuclear-related technology and materials and froze the assets of key individuals and companies related to the enrichment program.[33] The resolution came after the rejection of UN economic incentives for Iran to halt their nuclear enrichment program. The sanctions will be lifted if Iran suspends the "suspect activities" within 60 days to the satisfaction of the International Atomic Energy Agency.[31]

2007 January 15, 2007: Ardeshir Hosseinpour, an Iranian junior scientist involved in The Uranium Conversion Facility at Isfahan, dies, reportedly due to "gassing".[34] Several other scientists may also be killed or injured, and treated in nearby hospitals.[35] January 21, 2007: The death of Ardeshir Hosseinpour is finally reported by the Al-Quds daily[36] and the Iranian Student's News Agency[37] (in Arabic & Persian).[35] February 2, 2007: The U.S. private intelligence company Stratfor releases a report saying that Ardeshir Hosseinpour was killed by the Mossad through radioactive poisoning.[38][39] February 4, 2007: Reva Bhalla of Stratfor confirms the details of Stratfor's report to The Sunday Times.[39] Despite the previous reports, the "semi-official"[40] Fars News Agency reports that an unnamed informed source in Tehran told them that Ardeshir Hosseinpour was not involved in the nuclear facility at Isfahan, and that he "suffocated by fumes from a faulty gas fire in sleep."[41] March 6, 2007: Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, the head of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran declared that Iran has started construction of a domestically built nuclear power plant with capacity of 360 MW in Darkhovin, in southwestern Iran.[42] March 24 2007:United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 was adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 24 March 2007. In the resolution, the Council resolved to tighten the sanctions imposed on Iran in connection with that nation's nuclear program. It also resolved to impose a ban on arms sales and to step up the freeze on assets already in place. [43] April 9, 2007:President Ahmadinejad has announced Iran can now produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale. Some officials said 3,000 uranium gas enrichment centrifuges were running at the Natanz plant in central Iran.[44] June 7, 2007: Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammad ElBaradei was quoted by the BBC as warning against the views of "new crazies who say 'let's go and bomb Iran'".[45][46] June 30, 2007: U.S. Congressional Representatives Mark S. Kirk and Robert E. Andrews proposed a bill to sanction against any company or individual that provides Iran with refined petroleum products. The plan is to pressure Iran over its nuclear program from December 31 2007.[47] [48] October 20, 2007: Ali Larijani resigned from his post of secretary of Supreme National Security Council of Iran.[49] December 3, 2007: The U.S. Intelligence Community released a National Intelligence Estimate concluding that Iran "halted its nuclear weapons program" in 2003, but "is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons." [50] December 11, 2007: British spy chiefs have grave doubts that Iran has mothballed its nuclear weapons program, as a US intelligence report claimed last week, and believe the CIA has been hoodwinked by Tehran.[51] December 16, 2007: Iran's president said on Sunday the publication of a U.S. intelligence report saying Iran had halted a nuclear weapons program in 2003 amounted to a "declaration of surrender" by Washington in its row with Tehran.[52]

2008 • • • [55]

March 4, 2008: The UN Security Council adopts Resolution 1803 - the third sanction resolution on Iran with a 14-0 vote (Indonesia abstained). The resolution extends financial sanctions to additional banks, extends travel bans to additional persons and bars exports to Iran of nuclear- and missile-related dual-use items. [53] March 24, 2008: The last shipment of fuel and equipment arrives at the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant.[54] May 16, 2008: Iran offers proposed package to the UN, UN Security Council, Group of G+1 and submitted to Russia and China.[55]

References and notes

77

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. See also

^ a b c Dr. Farhang Jahanpour (2006). "Chronology of Iran's Nuclear Program". Oxford Research Group. Retrieved on 2006-09-25. ^ "ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN". International Atomic Energy Agenct (2003). Retrieved on 2006-09-21. ^ Campbell, Colin (2003). "Country Assessment – Iran". Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas. Retrieved on 2006-05-28. ^ a b "Islamic Republic of Iran". International Atomic Energy Agency (2002). Retrieved on 2006-05-28. ^ Robin Gedye (September 10 2003). "Iran's nuclear history". The Telegraph. ^ a b c d BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Timeline: Iran nuclear crisis ^ "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran" (PDF). IAEA. ^ http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jdw/jdw040810_1_n.shtml (Jane's Intelligence) ^ Iran gets mixed nuclear report - Jane's Security News ^ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6292567 (Reuters) ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4013321.stm (BBC) ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4049967.stm (BBC) ^ "US agrees to back UN nuclear head". BBC News. ^ Stewart Stogel (September 15, 2005). "'No-Shows' Mark U.N. Summit". NewsMax. ^ "Iran may run out of oil in 90 years". Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections. Retrieved on 2006-04-23. ^ "Iran to involve foreign investments in nuclear program", Xinhua (November 6, 2006). ^ http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/179393/1/.html CNA ^ Kaveh L Afrasiabi (February 7, 2006). "Sideshows on Iran's frogmarch to the UN". Asia Times. ^ "Developments in the Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Agency Verification of Iran’s Suspension of Enrichment-related and Reprocessing Activities" (PDF). IAEA (January 31, 2006). ^ "Attack on Iran will be construed as attack on us: Pakistan minister". Turkish Weekly (2006). Retrieved on 2006-05-28. ^ "Iran halts nuclear spot checks, resumes enrichment", The Telegraph (February 5, 2006). ^ Section 5 of the March 2006 U.S. National Security Strategy ^ Iran Focus ^ "Fool Me Twice", Foreign Policy (March 27, 2006). ^ "Iran threatens to strike at US targets if attacked". Reuters. Retrieved on 2006-04-27. ^ "Report on Iran Nuclear Safeguards Sent to Agency's Board and UN Security Council". International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved on 2006-04-29. ^ "Iran speeding up nuclear work: IAEACouncil". ABC News (Australia). Retrieved on 2006-04-29. ^ "China, Russia join other powers on Iran package". CNN. Retrieved on 2006-06-01. ^ "Iran remains defiant in nuclear stand-off". AFP. Retrieved on 2006-08-01. ^ "UN gets Iran incentive deal". Reuters. Retrieved on 2006-07-13. ^ a b "Security Council imposes sanctions on Iran for failure to halt uranium enrichment, unanimously adopting Resolution 1737", United Nations (2006-12-23). Retrieved on 23 December 2006. ^ "UNSC Resolution 1737 text" (2006-12-23). Retrieved on 24 December 2006. ^ "UN passes Iran nuclear sanctions", BBC #ews, BBC (2006-12-23). Retrieved on 23 December 2006. ^ "‫ته ا‬WWWW‫مند ھس‬WWWW‫ک دانش‬WWWW‫کوک ي‬WWWW‫رگ مش‬WWWW‫الم یجمھور یم‬WWWW‫( اس‬Scientist Nuk Dies)" (HTML) (in Persian). Radio Farda. Retrieved on 2007-02-04. ^ a b Melman, Yossi (2007-02-04). "U.S. website: Mossad killed Iranian nuclear physicist" (HTML) (in English). Haaretz. Retrieved on 2007-02-05. ^ "AL-Quds Daily Newspaper" (HTML) (in Arabic). ^ "ISNA - Iranian Student's News Agency" (HTML) (in Persian). ^ "Geopolitical Diary: Israeli Covert Operations in Iran" (HTML) (in English). Stratfor (2007-02-02). Retrieved on 200702-04. (requires premium subscription) ^ a b Baxter, Sarah (2007-02-04). "Iranian nuclear scientist ‘assassinated by Mossad’" (HTML) (in English). The Sunday Times. Retrieved on 2007-02-05. (refers to interview of Stratfor's Rheva Bhalla) ^ "U.S. troops allowed to kill Iranians plotting attacks in Iraq" (in English). CNN. Retrieved on 2007-02-05. ^ "Moussad Incapable of Running Operations in Iran" (HTML) (in English). Fars News Agency (2007-02-04). Retrieved on 2007-02-05. ^ [1] ^ The full text of the resolutionPDF ^ BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran 'enters new nuclear phase' ^ BBC NEWS | Programmes | Nuclear Detectives | Nuclear watchdog's attack warning ^ Gulfnews: Cheney against using military force, says Rice ^ Platts ^ Public resentment with Ahmadinejad grows over fuel rationing, rising prices - International Herald Tribune ^ Iran's nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani resigns | NEWS.com.au ^ Iran: Nuclear Capabilities and Intentions ^ Iran 'hoodwinked' CIA over nuclear plans ^ Iran says U.S. report a "declaration of surrender" ^ Security Council Tightens Restrictions on Iran’s Proliferation-Sensitive Nuclear Activities, Increases Vigilance Over Iranian Banks, Has States Inspect Cargo ^ "Russia Completes Fuel Delivery For Bushehr". Retrieved on 2008-03-10. ^ a b "Iran's N-Package submitted to Chinese FM officials - envoy". IRNA (2008-05-16). Retrieved on 2008-05-26.

78

• • • • • • • • •

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 13 steps, Article 6 of the NPT (disarmament pledge) Operation Merlin Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty - Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Ali Larijani, Iran's nuclear negotiator [4] - Iran and weapons of mass destruction Iran-Pakistan relations United States-Iran relations Plans for strikes against the Iranian nuclear program The so called current international tensions with Iran

Atomic Energy Organization of Iran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) is the main official body responsible for implementing regulations and operating nuclear energy installations in Iran. It is headquartered in northern Amir Abad district in Tehran, but has facilities throughout the country. The organization is currently headed by former Minister of Petroleum Gholam Reza Aghazadeh. Sub-Divisions • #uclear Fuel Production Division (#FPD): Research and development on the nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium exploration, mining, milling, conversion, and nuclear waste management; departments include Jaber Ibn Hayan Research Dept., Exploration and Mining Dept., Benefication and Hydrometallurgical Research Center, Nuclear Fuel Research and Production Center, Waste Management Dept., and Saghand Mining Dept. • #uclear Power Plant Division (#PPD): Responsible for planning, construction, commissioning, decommissioning and nuclear safety of nuclear power plants in Iran. • Engineering and Technical Supervision Department (ETSD): Design, review, evaluation and approval of engineering and technical documents, participation and quality control. • Research Division: Responsible for planning and guiding research projects; has eight affiliated research centers: Nuclear Research Center, Research Center for Lasers and their Application; Nuclear Fusion Research Center, Gamma Irradiation Center, Center for Renewable Energy Development, Nuclear Research Center for Agriculture and Medicine (Karaj), Yazd Radiation Processing Center, and Bonab Research Center. • International Affairs Department (IAD): Oversees cooperation with AEOI counterparts abroad and drafts documents on AEOI policies; maintains a delegation at the IAEA in Vienna, Austria and one in Moscow, Russia. Officials • Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, Head • Mohammad Saeedi, Deputy Head See also • Science in Iran • Energy of Iran External links • Official website

79

Green Salt Project From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Green Salt Project (also known as the "Project 1-11")[1] is an alleged secretive Iranian entity focusing on uranium processing, high explosives and a missile warhead design. The Green Salt Project derives its name from uranium tetrafluoride, also known as green salt, an intermediate product in the conversion of uranium ore into uranium hexafluoride — a toxic gas that can undergo enrichment or purification into fuel for nuclear reactors or bombs.[1] Since the International Atomic Energy Agency began investigating Iranian nuclear activities in 2002, the IAEA has discovered a series of clandestine nuclear activities, some of which violated Iran’s safeguards agreement with the agency.[2] The Green Salt Project is allegedly among these projects. The Green Salt Project was initially brought to light by reports of a laptop computer in the CIA's possession which was supposedly smuggled out of Iran that contained a variety of information on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, from the design of underground testing facilities to schematics of nuclear missile warheads. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) referred to the green salt project on January 31, 2006, though the contents of the laptop have not been provided by the US to the IAEA for independent analysis or confirmation. IAEA officials reportedly remain suspicious of the information. On 5 December 2005, the IAEA Secretariat had repeated its request for a meeting to discuss information that had been made available to the Secretariat about alleged nuclear research studies, including the Green Salt Project, as well as tests related to high explosives and the design of a missile re-entry vehicle, all of which could involve nuclear material and which appear to have administrative interconnections.[3] On 16 December 2005, Iran replied that the “issues related to baseless allegations.” Iran agreed on 23 January 2006 to a meeting with the Deputy Director-General for Safeguards for the clarification of the alleged Green Salt Project, but declined to address the other topics during that meeting. In the course of the meeting, which took place on 27 January 2006, the Agency presented for Iran’s review a number of communications related to the project. Iran reiterated that all national nuclear projects are conducted by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), that the allegations were baseless and that it would provide further clarifications later.[3] On 26 February 2006, the IAEA Deputy Director-General for Safeguards met with Iranian authorities to discuss the alleged Green Salt Project. Iran repeated that the allegations “are based on false and fabricated documents so they were baseless,” and that neither such a project nor such studies exist or did exist.[3] References • [1] "UN Calls US Data on Iran's Nuclear Aims Unreliable" Los Angeles Times Sunday, February 25, 2007. [2] • [2] "Military Linked to Iran Nuclear Project," The Sydney Morning Herald, February 2, 2006. [3] • [3] "Questions Surround Iran's Nuclear Program," Arms Control Association, March 3, 2006. [4] • [4] IAEA Report by the Director General concerning Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran.[5]

80

uclear facilities in Iran From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anarak Anarak has a waste storage site, near Yazd. Arak Arak was one of the two sites exposed by a spokesman for the MEK terrorist group in 2002. Iran is constructing a 40 MWt heavy water moderated research reactor at this location 34°22′24″N 49°14′27″E34.3734°N 49.2408°E, which should be ready for commissioning in 2014, referred to as IR-40.[1][2] In August 2006, Iran announced the inauguration of the Arak plant for the production of heavy water. Under the terms of Iran's safeguards agreement, Iran was under no obligation to report the existence of the site while it was still under construction since it was not within the 180-day time limit specified by the safeguards agreement. This reactor is intended to replace the life-expired 1967 Tehran Nuclear Research Center research reactor, mainly involved in the production of radioisotopes for medical and agricultural purposes.[3] Ardakan Construction of a nuclear fuel site at Ardakan is reportedly scheduled to be finished in mid-2005. Bonab The Atomic Energy Research Center at Bonab is investigating the applications of nuclear technology in agriculture. It is run by the AEOI. Bushehr Main article: Bushehr #uclear Power Plant The Bushehr Nuclear Power Facility ( 28°50′05″N 50°53′37″E28.83484°N 50.89356°E) is located 17 kilometres south of the city of Bushehr (also known as Bushire), between the fishing villages of Halileh and Bandargeh along the Persian Gulf. On June 29, 2004, IAEA Director General Mohammad El-Baradei announced that the Bushehr reactor was "not of international concern" since it was a bilateral Russian-Iranian project intended to produce nuclear energy. The reactor is under full IAEA safeguards. The facility was the idea of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who envisioned a time when the world's oil supply would run out. He wanted a national electrical grid powered by clean nuclear power plants. Bushehr would be the first plant, and would supply energy to the inland city of Shiraz. In August 1974, the Shah said, "Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn... We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23 000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants". In 1975, the Bonn firm Kraftwerk Union AG, a joint venture of Siemens AG and AEG Telefunken, signed a contract worth $4 to $6 billion to build the pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Construction of the two 1,196 MWe nuclear generating units was subcontracted to ThyssenKrupp AG, and was to have been completed in 1981. Kraftwerk Union was eager to work with the Iranian government because, as spokesman Joachim Hospe said in 1976, "To fully exploit our nuclear power plant capacity, we have to land at least three contracts a year for delivery abroad. The market here is about saturated, and the United States has cornered most of the rest of Europe, so we have to concentrate on the third world." Kraftwerk Union fully withdrew from the Bushehr nuclear project in July 1979, after work stopped in January 1979, with one reactor 50% complete, and the other reactor 85% complete. They said they based their action on Iran's non-payment of $450 million in overdue payments. The company had received $2.5 billion of the total contract. Their cancellation came after certainty that the Iranian government would unilaterally terminate the contract themselves, following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which paralyzed Iran's economy and led to a crisis in Iran's relations with the West. In 1984, Kraftwerk Union did a preliminary assessment to see if it could resume work on the project, but declined to do so while the Iran-Iraq war continued. In April of that year, the U.S. State Department said, "We believe it would take at least two to three years to complete construction of the reactors at Bushehr." The spokesperson also said that the light water power reactors at Bushehr "are not particularly well-suited for a weapons program." The spokesman went on to say, "In addition, we have no evidence of Iranian construction of other facilities that would be necessary to separate plutonium from spent reactor fuel." The reactors were then damaged by multiple Iraqi air strikes from 1984 to 1988, during the Iran-Iraq war. Shortly afterwards Iraq invaded Iran and the nuclear program was stopped until the end of the war. In 1990, Iran began to look outwards towards partners for its nuclear program; however, due to a radically different political climate and punitive U.S. economic sanctions, few candidates existed. In 1995 Iran signed a contract with Russia to resume work on the partially-complete Bushehr plant, installing into the existing Bushehr I building a 915MWe VVER-1000 pressurized water reactor, with completion expected in 2007.[4] The Russian state-controlled company Atomstroyexport (Atomic Construction Export), an arm of Russia's atomic energy ministry, MinAtom, is constructing the plant. In response to American and European pressure on Russia, a new revised agreement was reached in September 2006, under which fuel deliveries to Bushehr were scheduled to start in March 2007 and the plant was due to come on stream in September 2007 after years of delays.[5] However, already five years behind schedule, it was reported again on February 20th, 2007 by Russian officials that the opening of Bushehr could be delayed further because Iran has allegedly fallen behind with the payments. A top Iranian nuclear official denied this and accused the Russians of deliberately delaying and politicising the issue under European and American pressure. [1] [2] Other Russian sources have made conflicting claims, saying the delays are caused by Iranian contractors not meeting their obligations. Iranians, on the other hand, claim the plant would have been finished long ago if Russians were not involved in the construction. Iran announced on April 15, 2007, that it is seeking bids for two additional nuclear reactors to be located near Bushehr. On January 20 2008 a fourth Russian shipment of nuclear fuel arrived in Iran destined for the Bushehr plant. Russia has pledged to sell 85 tons of nuclear fuel to the plant.[6] Chalus In 1995 Iranian exiles living in Europe claimed Iran was building a secret facility for building nuclear weapons in a mountain 20 kilometres from the town of Chalus.[7] In October 2003 Mohamed ElBaradei announced that "In terms of inspections, so far, we have been allowed to visit those sites to which we have requested access". It therefore appears the allegations about the Chalus site were unfounded.[8]

81

Darkovin Iran declared on March 6, 2007, that it has started construction of a domestically built nuclear power plant with capacity of 360 MW in Darkovin, in southwestern Iran. Isfahan The Nuclear Technology Center of Isfahan is a nuclear research facility that currently operates four small nuclear research reactors, all supplied by China. It is run by the AEOI.[9] The Uranium Conversion Facility at Isfahan converts yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride. As of late October 2004, the site is 70% operational with 21 of 24 workshops completed. There is also a Zirconium Production Plant (ZPP) located nearby that produces the necessary ingredients and alloys for nuclear reactors. Karaj The Center for Agricultural Research and Nuclear Medicine at Hashtgerd was established in 1991 and is run by the AEOI. [3] Lashkar Abad Lashkar Abad is a pilot plant for isotope separation. Established in 2002, the site was first exposed by Alireza Jafarzadeh in May 2003 which led to the inspection of the site by the IAEA. Laser enrichment experiments were carried out there, however, the plant has been shut down since Iran declared it has no intentions of enriching uranium using the laser isotope separation technique.[4] In September 2006, Alireza Jafarzadeh claimed that the site has been revived by Iran and that laser enrichment has been taking place at this site. SPC Lavizan ( 35°46′23″N 51°29′52″E35.77306°N 51.49778°E) All buildings at the former Lavizan-Shian Technical Research Center site were demolished between August 2003 and March 2004. Environmental samples taken by IAEA inspectors showed no trace of radiation. The site is to be returned to the City of Teheran.[10] According to Reuters, claims by the US that topsoil has been removed and the site had been sanitized could not be verified by IAEA investigators who visited Lavizan: Washington accused Iran of removing a substantial amount of topsoil and rubble from the site and replacing it with a new layer of soil, in what U.S. officials said might have been an attempt to cover clandestine nuclear activity at Lavizan. Former U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, Kenneth Brill, accused Iran in June of using "the wrecking ball and bulldozer" to sanitize Lavizan prior to the arrival of U.N. inspectors. But another diplomat close to the IAEA told Reuters that on-site inspections of Lavizan produced no proof that any soil had been removed at all. atanz ( 33°43′24.43″N 51°43′37.55″E33.7234528°N 51.7270972°E) Natanz is a hardened Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) covering 100,000 square meters that is built 8 meters underground and protected by a concrete wall 2.5 meters thick, itself protected by another concrete wall. In 2004, the roof was hardened with reinforced concrete and covered with 22 meters of earth. The complex consists of two 25,000 square meter halls and a number of administrative buildings. This once secret site was one of the two exposed by Alireza Jafarzadeh in 2002. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei visited the site on 21 February 2003 and reported that 160 centrifuges were complete and ready for operation, with 1000 more under construction at the site.[11] Under the terms of Iran's safeguards agreement, Iran was under no obligation to report the existence of the site while it was still under construction. Parchin The Parchin Military Complex 35°31′N 51°46′E35.52°N 51.77°E is not a nuclear site. This was confirmed on 1 November 2005, when the IAEA was given access to the site and environmental samples were taken. Inspectors did not observe any unusual activities in the buildings visited, and the results of the analysis of environmental samples did not indicate the presence of nuclear material.[12] Saghand ( 32°28′45″N 55°24′30″E32.47917°N 55.40833°E) Location of Iran's first uranium ore mines, expected to become operational by March 2005. The deposit is estimated to contain 3,000 to 5,000 tons of uranium oxide at a density of about 500 ppm over an area of 100 to 150 square kilometers. [5] Tehran The Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) is managed by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). It is equipped with a U.S.-supplied 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor capable of producing 600 g of plutonium annually in spent fuel. 17 years production would be sufficient to make a single atomic bomb, however storage of the waste is closely monitored by the IAEA and extracting the plutonium is not possible while Iran maintains its status as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Also, the Supreme Leader of Iran's Islamic Republic, Ayatallah Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa saying the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam, and thus for Iran's Islamic Republic. The Plasma Physics Research Center of Islamic Azad University operates a Tokamak fusion reactor designated Iran Tokamak 1 (IRT1).[13] Yazd Yazd Radiation Processing Center is equipped with a Rhodotron TT200 accelerator, made by IBA, Belgium, with outputs of 5 and 10MeV beam lines and a maximum power of 100 kW. As of 2006 the centre is engaged in geophysical research to analyze the mineral deposits surrounding the city and is expected to play an important role in supporting the medical and polymer industries.[14] Footnotes 1. ^ Arak, GlobalSecurity.org 2. ^ Kim Howells (16 Jan 2006), Written Answers to Questions - Iran, Hansard, Column 977W, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060116/text/60116w26.htm#60116w26.html_wqn7, retrieved on 5 November 2007 3. ^ "INFCIRC/696". IAEA (6 March 2007). Retrieved on 2007-03-24. 4. ^ "Iran urges Russia to speed up Bushehr nuclear plant work", Forbes (2006-05-12). Retrieved on 3 June 2006. 5. ^ "Iran urges Russia to speed up Bushehr nuclear plant work", Xinhua News Agency (2007-02-21). Retrieved on 21 February 2007. 6. ^ Russian nuclear fuel shipment reaches Iran Associated Press Jan 20 2008

82

7. 8.

^ "Tehran's Magic Mountain". US and World News Report (1995). Retrieved on 2006-05-28. ^ "IRAN TO ACCEPT INTERNATIONAL INSPECTIONS EVEN ON MILITARY SITES". Iran Press Service. Retrieved on 2006-08-26. 9. ^ Esfahan / Isfahan - Iran Special Weapons Facilities 10. ^ "Iran tried to acquire nuclear equipment at suspect Lavizan site: UN agency". Iran Focus. Retrieved on 2006-04-23. 11. ^ Pike, John (2006). "Natanz [Kashan]". GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved on 2006-05-28. 12. ^ "Transparency Visits and Discussions" (PDF). Implementation of the #PT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran. International Atomic Energy Agency (2006). Retrieved on 2006-05-28. 13. ^ Dr. Farhang Jahanpour (2006). "Chronology of Iran's Nuclear Program". Oxford Research Group. Retrieved on 2006-0925. 14. ^ "Yazd Radiation Processing Center (YRPC)". Nuclear Threat Initiative (2006). Retrieved on 2006-09-25. External links • Iran's key nuclear sites by BBC news

Bushehr uclear Power Plant From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coordinates

28°49′44″N 50°53′13″E28.829, 50.887Coordinates: 50°53′13″E28.829, 50.887

Built

01.05.1975

Start of commercial operation

31.08.2009

28°49′44″N

Reactors Reactor supplier

Atomstroyexport

Reactor type

VVER-1000/446

Reactors under construction

1 (1000 MW)

Reactors canceled

1 (1000 MW)

Reactors planned

2 (2000 MW)

Capacity

1000 MW As of Juli 21, 2008

The Bushehr uclear Power Plant (Persian ‫م ین‬WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW‫اه ات‬WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW‫ھر یروگ‬WWWWWWWWWWWWWW‫ ) بوش‬is a nuclear power plant in Iran which is under construction south-east of the city of Bushehr. The nuclear power plant is planned to go on network in 2009.[1] History The construction of the plant started in 1975. The German KWU started building two 1,300 MWe pressurized water reactors, identical with the two reactors from the German Biblis Nuclear Power Plant. The start up was planned for 1982. But in 1979 the construction of the two reactors was suspended following the Iranian Revolution.[2] The Russian company Atomstroiexport is now building the first VVER-1000/446 reactor power unit. The contract on the construction was signed in Tehran on January 8, 1995.[3] The start up of the Bushehr nuclear power plant is planned for the year 2009. A further two reactors of the same type are planned. The fourth unit was canceled.[2] In December 2007 Russia started delivering nuclear fuel to the Bushehr nuclear power plant.[4] Reactor data Reactor unit[5]

Reactor type

et capacity

Gross capacity

Construction started (Planned)

Electricity Grid

Commercial Operation

Shutdown

Bushehr-1 [6]

VVER-1000/446

915 MW

1,000 MW

01.05.1975

(01.08.2009)

(31.08.2009)

-

Bushehr-2

[7]

VVER-1000/446

915 MW

1,000 MW

(01.01.2011)

-

-

-

Bushehr-3

[8]

VVER-1000/446

915 MW

1,000 MW

(01.01.2012)

-

-

-

Bushehr-4

[9]

VVER-1000/446

915 MW

1,000 MW

Cancelled

-

-

-

References 1. ^ "Iranian specialists ready to launch Bushehr nuclear power plant", ITAR-TASS (2008-10-14). Retrieved on 17 October 2008. 2. ^ a b Bushehr: Fertigstellung des iranischen Kernkraftwerkes ist für Russland Ehrensache (German) 3. ^ "Technical events to be held at Bushehr nuclear plant – Atomstroiexport", ITAR-TASS (2008-09-08). Retrieved on 17 October 2008. 4. ^ Russia delivers nuclear fuel to Iran. CNN. 17 December 2007

83

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

^ Power Reactor Information System from the IAEA: „Iran, Islamic Republic of: Nuclear Power Reactors“ ^ Bushehr 1 on the PRIS of the IAEA ^ Bushehr 2 on the PRIS of the IAEA ^ Bushehr 3 on the PRIS of the IAEA ^ Bushehr 4 on the PRIS of the IAEA

Atomstroyexport From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Type Founded Headquarters Key people

Joint Stock Company 1973 Moscow, Russia Sergei Shmatko, CEO

Industry

nuclear technology

Products

nuclear reactors

Services

construction of nuclear power and research projects

Parent

Atomenergoprom

Website

http://www.atomstroyexport.com/

Atomstroyexport (Russian: Атомстройэкспорт) is the Russian Federation's nuclear power equipment and service export monopoly. It belongs to Atomenergoprom holding with 49.8% of shares owned by Gazprombank. The CEO of Atomstroyexport is Sergei Shmatko.[1] Projects on abroad The Russian nuclear vendor is building the first reactor power unit in Iranian Bushehr nuclear power plant located 400 kilometres (250 mi) southwest of Tehran under a US$1 billion contract signed in 1995.[citation needed] In 2007, AtomStroyExport signed a memorandum of understanding with Ciner Insaat Ticaret ve Sanayi to promote its VVER-design pressurized water reactors in Turkey. In Bangladesh, proposals have been prepared to resurrect the potential Roppur nuclear power plant. In the UK Atomstroyexport would consider partnering with a Western manufacturer for UK new build.[1] In Morocco, Atomstroyexport considers participate in construction of a nuclear power plant at Sidi Boulbra.[2] In late October 2006, the offer of Atomstroyexport for construction of the Belene Nuclear Power Plant in Bulgaria, using third-generation VVER-1000/V-446B reactors, was approved. The first unit would be in operation by 2013 and the second a year later.[3][4] In 1999-2007, Atomstroyexport constructed the Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant in China,which consists of two VVER reactors with 1,060 MW each, and has signed an agreement for construction of units 3 and 4. Unit 5 to 8 are firmly planned.[5] On 19 February 2008, Atomstroyexport signed a cooperation agreement with Technopromexport, a Russian exporter of other large-scale power generation types, on the construction and management of power projects in Russia and abroad.[6] References 1. ^ a b "Russian push for new business continues". World Nuclear News (2008-01-03). Retrieved on 2008-01-06. 2. ^ "Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries. Briefing Paper 102". Uranium Information Centre (June 2007). Retrieved on 2007-07-14. 3. ^ Цанев, Белчо (2006-10-31). "Дадоха “Белене” на руснаците" (in Bulgarian), Standart News. Retrieved on 31 October 2006. 4. ^ "Europe approves of Belene plan". World Nuclear News (2007-12-10). Retrieved on 2008-01-06. 5. ^ "Russia and China deal on uranium, enrichment and power". World Nuclear News (2007-11-09). Retrieved on 2008-0106. 6. ^ "Russian power giants join forces". World Nuclear News (2008-02-21). Retrieved on 2008-02-23. External links • Official website of Atomstroyexport

84

Ali Larijani From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ali Larijani lecturing for his presidential campaign at Sharif University of Technology in March 2005. Ali Ardashir Larijani (Persian: ‫ ;یجانیر الریاردش یعل‬born 1958) is an Iranian philosopher, politician and the chairman/speaker of the Iranian parliament.[1] Larijani was the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council from August 15, 2005 to October 20, 2007, appointed to the position by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,[2] replacing Hassan Rowhani. Acceptance of Larijani's resignation from the secretary position was announced on October 20, 2007 by Gholamhossein Elham, the Iranian government's spokesman, mentioning that his previous resignations were turned down by President Ahmadinejad.[3] Larijani is one of the two representatives of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei to the council, the other being Hassan Rowhani. In his post as secretary he effectively functioned as the top negotiator on issues of national security, including Iran's nuclear program. Personal life Ali Larijani is a son of Ayatollah Ozma Hashem Amoli, a brother of Sadegh Larijani (a cleric member of the Guardian Council), Mohammad Javad Larijani, Bagher Larijani (chancellor of Tehran University of Medical Sciences), and Fazel Larijani (Iran's cultural attachée in Ottawa). He is also the son-in-law of Ayatollah Morteza Motahhari, having married his daughter Farideh, and also a cousin of Ahmad Tavakkoli (Larijani's and Tavakkoli's mothers are sisters). Education Dr. Larijani holds a Ph.D. and Masters degree in Western philosophy from Tehran University and graduated with a B.Sc. in Computer Science and Mathematics from Sharif University of Technology. Initially he wanted to continue his graduate studies in Computer Science, but changed his subject after consultation with Morteza Motahhari. Larijani has published books on Immanuel Kant. Presidential candidacy Larijani was a presidential candidate for the 2005 presidential elections, where he ranked sixth, winning 5.94% of the votes. He was also the previous president of the IRIB, installed by the Supreme Leader, and was followed by Ezzatollah Zarghami after serving ten years in the post from 1994 to 2004. Before his presidency at the IRIB, Larijani served as the Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance under President Rafsanjani after Mohammad Khatami's resignation from the post. Larijani, 50, was head of Iran's state broadcasting monopoly for 10 years before stepping down in 2004, to become a security adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's ultimate authority. A former member of the Revolutionary Guards, an ideological force that sees itself as the guardian of the Islamic Republic, he ran in the 2005 presidential race. Larijani was considered the most important presidential candidate of the conservative alliance for the 2005 presidential elections. He was supported by the Islamic Society of Engineers (ISE), among other conservative groups. He had been announced as the final choice of the conservative Council for Coordination of the Forces of the Revolution (Persian: ‫ورا‬WWW‫الب یروھاین یھماھنگ یش‬WWWWWW‫)انق‬, which was made from representatives of some influential conservative parties and organizations. But he proved to be the least popular of the three conservative candidates, the others being Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (second rank in the first round, winner in the second round) and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf (fourth rank in the first round). uclear advisor In 2005, Larijani was appointed secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, a body which helps draw up nuclear and other policies. Khamenei has the final word in all such matters.[citation needed] He took a tough line on the nuclear file before his appointment as negotiator.[citation needed] He said that if Iran took incentives that were being offered by the European Union at the time in return for Iran giving up its nuclear fuel cycle, it would be like exchanging “a pearl for a candy bar.”[citation needed] As chief nuclear negotiator, Iranian analysts said he differed with the president[citation needed] over how to pursue negotiations with his European counterparts and say he backed a more pragmatic approach. Iranian nuclear crisis As Iran's top nuclear envoy he said on April 25, 2007 that he expected "new ideas" from senior EU official Javier Solana at talks on resolving the deadlock between Tehran's refusal to freeze its nuclear programme and United Nations Security Council demands that it do so.[4] 2008 parliamentary election In the March 2008 parliamentary election, Larijani won a seat from Qom. He said that he was willing to work with Ahmadinejad; according to Larijani, he did not disagree with Ahmadinejad on ideological issues and they had only

85

"differences in style". In May 2008, Larijani became speaker of the parliament, in what was described by Time magazine as a political blow to Ahmadinejad.[5] References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

^ Orla Ryan, Ahmadinejad rival elected as Iranian speaker, The Guardian, May 28, 2008, [1]. ^ (Persian) "‫ج‬WWWWWWW‫تر الري‬WWWWWWW‫اب دك‬WWWWWWW‫ورانتص‬WWWWW‫س جمھ‬WWWWW‫وي ريي‬WWWWW‫ي از س‬WWWWW‫ت مل‬WWWWW‫الي امني‬WWWWW‫ورايعالي ع‬WWWWW‫ير ش‬WWWWW‫وان دب‬WWWWW‫ه عن‬WWWWW‫ي ب‬WWWWW‫"ان‬, isna.ir, Iranians Students News Agency (15 August 2005). Retrieved on 21 October 2007. ^ "Iran's nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani resigns", news.com.au (October 20, 2007). Retrieved on 21 October 2007. ^ "Iran's Top Envoy Says He Expects 'New Ideas' From EU Official on Nuclear Issue", Fox#ews.com, Associated Press (via Fox News) (April 25, 2007). Retrieved on 21 October 2007. ^ Time: Are Ahmadinejad's Days Numbered?

External links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Ali Larijani

Wikinews has related news: Iran's leader appoints new members to cultural council

• • • • • • •

Ali Larijani interview Interview with Jon Snow, Channel 4 News, live in Tehran. Mar 6, 2006. The new air Larijani's official campaign website (in Persian). Larijani's biography on his campaign website (in Persian). Frances Harrison, "Iran's Nuclear Negotiator," Interview with BBC News, Nov. 8, 2005. Gareth Smyth. "Larijani's Pragmatist Reputation Faces Severe Challenge," Financial Times (London), Jan. 10, 2006. Transcript of interview with Roula Khalaf and Gareth Smyth, Financial Times (London), Jan. 22, 2006. Suspension of Uranium Enrichment Is Like Denying Iran Nuclear Technology Feb. 2005 transcript

Video clips

•

Suspension of Uranium Enrichment Is Like Denying Iran Nuclear Technology Feb. 2005

Preceded by Hassan Rowhani

Secretary of Supreme at Security Counc0il 2005-2007

Preceded by Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel Speaker of Majles 2008-present

Succeeded by Saeed Jalili Succeeded by Incumbent