Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 85

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
o
• 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
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 nuclear-
arms 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/2006-
05-13-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/2006-
11/15/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/nuclear-
blackmarket-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/cgi-
bin/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/x-
55.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 Al-
Aqsa 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. ^ a b c "State Sponsors: Iran". Council of Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/. Retrieved on 4 August


2007
2. ^ 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
3. ^ 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
4. ^ a b BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iran urges US pull-out from Iraq
5. ^ a b c UN envoy doubts U.S. assertion Iran arming Afghan insurgents
6. ^ "Saudi cleric blasts Israel". BBC. 2002-02-22
18

7. ^ a b c "Qods (Jerusalem) Force Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC -Pasdaran-e Inqilab)". GlobalSecurity.org.
2005-04-26
8. ^ "Senate on Iran Revolutionary Guard: Terrorist Organization". Friends Committee on National Legislation. 2007-09-26
9. ^ "U.S. to Label Iran Revolutionary Guard ‘Terrorists’". Fox News. 2007-08-15
10. ^ "Operations Ministry of Intelligence and Security MOIS Vezarat-e Ettela'at va Amniat-e Keshvar VEVAK". FAS. 1997-
12-08
11. ^ "Iran Hostage Crisis". infoplease.com
12. ^ "Hezbollah". MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base
13. ^ William, Beeman (2006-08-15). "Examining Irans ties to Hezbollah". In These Times
14. ^ "Understanding the Iran-Hezbollah Connection". United States Institute of Peace. 2006-09
15. ^ La Guardia, Anton (2004-10-15). "Iran "in control of terrorism in Israel"". Telegraph
16. ^ "Chapter 6 -- State Sponsors of Terror Overview". U.S. Department of State. 2006-04-28
17. ^ Caldwell, Robert (2007-08-03). "Iran and Syria's proxy war in Iraq". Bend Weekly
18. ^ Kaplan, Eben (2007-07-28). "McConnell Cites ‘Overwhelming Evidence’ of Iran’s Support for Iraqi Insurgents".
Council on Foreign Relations
19. ^ Bowers, Carol (2007-09-11). "Iran Playing ‘Destabilizing Role’ in Iraq". U.S. Department of Defense
20. ^ "Iraqi official says Iran arms evidence not conclusive". Wiredispatch. May 4, 2008
21. ^ "IRAQ: The elusive Iranian weapons". L.A. Times. May 8, 2008
22. ^ "Doubting the Evidence Against Iran". TIME. May 5, 2008
23. ^ U.S., Iran trade barbs in direct talks - Boston.com
24. ^ BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iraq PM Maliki in Iran for talks
25. ^ "Talabani: Iran sends no weapon to Iraq". PRESS TV. 17 May 2008
26. ^ 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
27. ^ 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
28. ^ Gareth Porter (2007-06-20). "U.S.-IRAN: New Arms Claim Reveals Cheney-Military Rift".
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38244
29. ^ SEBASTIAN ABBOT and NASSER KARIMI. "West links drug war aid to Iranian nuclear impasse". Associated Press.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gJMIrzAC9Dw01J0mpOWszgsUt5cgD91GCHT80
30. ^ 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 of this article are disputed.


Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

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 uranium-
238 (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 third-
highest-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, Ahmadi-
Nejad, 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. ^ Iran nuclear
2. ^ Fars News Agency, Jan 18, 2007. Link: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8510280149
3. ^ http://iran-daily.com/1385/2788/html/
4. ^ Key countries agree on new UN resolution on Iran
5. ^ Iran swiftly seeks nuclear goal
6. ^ Some in Iran denounce Ahmadinejad stance
7. ^ AL Jazeera Article: Iranian leadership calls against Israel's existence
8. ^ http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html
9. ^ Interview of Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Time magazine
10. ^ Israel tense over 'the Iranian threat'
11. ^ Israel threatens strikes on Iranian nuclear targets, Ross Dunn, Scotsman.com, Nov 23, 2003
12. ^ Israel tense over "the Iranian threat"
13. ^ Islam Has Nothing in Common with Democracy Address by an Islamic Revolutionary Guards official.
14. ^ State Sponsors of Terror Overview April 28, 2006
15. ^ THE REACH OF WAR; IRANIAN REVEALS PLAN TO EXPAND ROLE INSIDE IRAQ. #ew York Times (1-29-
2007).
16. ^ Shiite Protests Send Message
17. ^ Lake, Eli. "Yanks Holding 36 Iranians, Tehran Regime Charges", The #ew York Sun, February 7, 2007. Retrieved
February 8, 2007.
18. ^ Iraq's Neighbors Agree to Baghdad Summit
19. ^ White House: Officials Investigating Iranians Detained in Iraq, December 25, 2006
20. ^ Iran's secret plan for mayhem
21. ^ Iran Protests Consulate Raid In Iraq
22. ^ Tehran Calls on Iraq to Stop US Intervention in Iran-Iraq Ties
23. ^ President's Address to the Nation, The White House, January 10, 2007. Retrieved February 1, 2007.
24. ^ President's Actions Could Lead to Impeachment
25. ^ U.S. can't prove Iran link to Iraq strife
26. ^ ["http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran13feb13,0,5090233.story?coll=la-home-world Iran seen as
key to untangling Iraq]
27. ^ Abdul-Zahra, Qassim. "Iraqi Gunmen Seize Iranian Diplomat", Forbes, February 6, 2007. Retrieved February 6, 2007.
28. ^ "Iran foreign ministry condemns recent Iranian diplomat kidnapping", Iranian Students News Agency, February 6, 2007.
Retrieved February 7, 2007.
29. ^ The Plan for Economic Strangulation of Iran
30. ^ Germany proposes wider Iran sanctions
31. ^ The Coming War
32. ^ Sleepwalking To Disaster In Iran, April 01, 2005, Scott Ritter
33. ^ Fool Me Twice, March 27, 2006, Joseph Cirincione, Foreign Policy
34. ^ The United States, Israel, and the Possible Attack on Iran, Stephen Zunes, May 2, 2006, ZNet
35. ^ CBS News reports
36. ^ Israel has plans for nuclear strike on Iran: paper Reuters
37. ^ Israel denies plan to hit Iran enrichment plant with tactical nukes
38. ^ Bush signals confrontational turn in Iran policy
39. ^ White House softens Iran tone
40. ^ Russian admiral: Numerous US nuclear subs signals imminent strike on Iran
41. ^ 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]
43. ^ Ritter: Iran is target
44. ^ "A Terrible Day for International Diplomacy", Z#et. Retrieved on 2006-12-24.
45. ^ Tens of Thousands March Against Iraq War
46. ^ Democrats Warn Bush Not to Attack Iran
47. ^ U.S. lawmakers seek to bar U.S. attack on Iran
48. ^ Iran Wins Backing From Nonaligned Bloc. Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty (2006). Retrieved on 2006-09-29.
49. ^ IAEA chief says attack on Iran would be catastrophe
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 third-
highest-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. ^ Ahmadinejad's Performance Gets Mixed Reaction From Iranians Radio Free Europe September 25, 2007
8. ^ Iran swiftly seeks nuclear goal
9. ^ Some in Iran denounce Ahmadinejad stance
10. ^ AL Jazeera Article: Iranian leadership calls against Israel's existence
11. ^ "Lost in translation", by Jonathan Steele, The Guardian, 2006-06-14
12. ^ "Khomeini Called for Israel's destruction",France24, 2008-03-10
13. ^ Erase Israel slogans spotted on Iranian ballistic missiles in Teheran Army Parade
14. ^ Interview of Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Time magazine
15. ^ Israel tense over 'the Iranian threat'
16. ^ Israel threatens strikes on Iranian nuclear targets, Ross Dunn, Scotsman.com, Nov 23, 2003
17. ^ Israel tense over "the Iranian threat"
18. ^ Islam Has Nothing in Common with Democracy Address by an Islamic Revolutionary Guards official.
19. ^ State Sponsors of Terror Overview April 28, 2006
20. ^ "THE REACH OF WAR; IRANIAN REVEALS PLAN TO EXPAND ROLE INSIDE IRAQ". #ew York Times. 2007-
01-29.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/world/middleeast/29iranians.html?ei=5094&en=d4deb1d521cb8706&hp=&ex=1170
046800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print.
21. ^ Shiite Protests Send Message
22. ^ Lake, Eli. "Yanks Holding 36 Iranians, Tehran Regime Charges", The #ew York Sun, February 7, 2007. Retrieved
February 8, 2007.
23. ^ Iraq's Neighbors Agree to Baghdad Summit
24. ^ White House: Officials Investigating Iranians Detained in Iraq, December 25, 2006
25. ^ Iran's secret plan for mayhem
26. ^ Iran Protests Consulate Raid In Iraq
27. ^ Tehran Calls on Iraq to Stop U.S. Intervention in Iran-Iraq Ties
28. ^ President's Address to the Nation, The White House, January 10, 2007. Retrieved February 1, 2007.
29. ^ President's Actions Could Lead to Impeachment
30. ^ Abdul-Zahra, Qassim. "Iraqi Gunmen Seize Iranian Diplomat", Forbes, February 6, 2007. Retrieved February 6, 2007.
31. ^ "Iran foreign ministry condemns recent Iranian diplomat kidnapping", Iranian Students News Agency, February 6, 2007.
Retrieved February 7, 2007.
32. ^ The Plan for Economic Strangulation of Iran
33. ^ Germany proposes wider Iran sanctions
34. ^ Iran faces more sanctions over nuclear advances: EU
35. ^ Platts
36. ^ The Coming War
37. ^ Sleepwalking To Disaster In Iran, April 01, 2005, Scott Ritter
38. ^ Fool Me Twice, March 27, 2006, Joseph Cirincione, Foreign Policy
39. ^ The United States, Israel, and the Possible Attack on Iran, Stephen Zunes, May 2, 2006, ZNet
40. ^ CBS News reports
41. ^ Israel has plans for nuclear strike on Iran: paper Reuters
42. ^ Israel denies plan to hit Iran enrichment plant with tactical nukes
43. ^ Bush signals confrontational turn in Iran policy
44. ^ White House softens Iran tone
45. ^ Russian admiral: Numerous US nuclear subs signals imminent strike on Iran
46. ^ Iran takes possession of Russian air defense missiles
47. ^ [http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=IVA20070124&articleId=4581 Iran Must Get
Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack]
48. ^ 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. ^ http://www.nftc.org/default/trade/NFTC%20Iran%20Normalizaton%20Book.pdf
4. ^ http://www.nftc.org/default/trade/NFTC%20Iran%20Normalizaton%20Book.pdf
5. ^ "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.
6. ^ Moin Khomeini, (2000), p.220
7. ^ 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 pro-
Israeli 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."
8. ^ Wright, Steven. The United States and Persian Gulf Security: The Foundations of the War on Terror, Ithaca Press, 2007
ISBN 978-0863723216
9. ^ Under Fire for Withdrawing Iranian Members' Benefits
10. ^ Nature journal: Reza Mansouri explains hostilities toward Iranian scientists
11. ^ "Iraq prime minister to visit Iran". Al Jazeera. September 9 2006.
12. ^ U.S. imposes sanctions on Iranian bank
13. ^ 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.
14. ^ "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
15. ^ "Iranians scheme to elude sanctions", by FARNAZ FASSIHI in Beirut and CHIP CUMMINS in Tehran, Wall Street
Journal, February 13, 2008
16. ^ "Iran gets around US bank sanctions", By Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran, Financial Times, August 21, 2008
See also
• 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/media-
centre/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 non-
nuclear 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. ^ a b Seymour M. Hersh (January 24, 2005). "Annals of National Security: The Coming Wars". The New Yorker.
2. ^ a b The Iran plans, Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker Mag., April 8, 2006
3. ^ a b c Sleepwalking To Disaster In Iran, April 1, 2005, Scott Ritter
4. ^ a b Fool Me Twice, March 27, 2006, Joseph Cirincione, Foreign Policy
5. ^ a b Hirsch, Jorge (November 1, 2005). "The Real Reason for Nuking Iran: Why a nuclear attack is on the neocon agenda".
antiwar.com.
6. ^ a b Heinrich, Mark; Karin Strohecker (June 14, 2007). "IAEA urges Iran compromise to avert conflict". Reuters.
Retrieved on 2007-06-21.
7. ^ 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.
8. ^ a b Knowlton, Brian (September 21, 2007). "Kouchner, French foreign minister, draws antiwar protesters in Washington",
International Herald Tribune. Retrieved on 1 November 2007.
9. ^ 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.
10. ^ a b "Arab states against military action on Iran". iranmania.com (June 18, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-06-21.
11. ^ Chomsky, Noam; Michael Shank (February 20, 2007). "Chomsky on Iran, Iraq, and the Rest of the World". Z
Communications. Retrieved on 2007-02-27.
12. ^ The United States, Israel, and the Possible Attack on Iran, Stephen Zunes, May 2, 2006, ZNet
13. ^ Deep Background, August 1, 2005, Philip Giraldi, The American Conservative
14. ^ A 'Legal' US Nuclear Attack Against Iran, Jorge Hirsch, November 12, 2005
15. ^ America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss ,Jorge Hirsch, February 20, 2006
16. ^ Nuclear War Against Iran, Michel Chossudovsky, January 3, 2006
17. ^ Klare, Michael T.. "Bush's Future Iran War Speech: Three Charges in the Case for War", Nation Institute. Retrieved on 9
April 2007.
18. ^ 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
19. ^ Admiral William Fox Fallon - US Central Command - Fallon's Military Strategies - Esquire
20. ^ Admiral William Fallon quits over Iran policy - Times Online
21. ^ Cheney to make Middle East tour - USATODAY.com
22. ^ Bloomberg.com: Africa
23. ^
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&langpair=ar|en&u=http://www.okaz.com.sa/okaz/osf/20080322/Con20080322
182151.htm
24. ^ Press TV - The Kingdom 'braces for nuclear war'
25. ^ Israel plans drills in face of nuke threat - UPI.com
26. ^ PM declares 'emergency' in drill | Israel | Jerusalem Post
27. ^ http://www.army.mil/-news/2008/04/25/8773-israels-war-drill-offers-lessons-for-guard/
28. ^ 'We'll destroy the Iranians if they attack us' | The Iranian Threat | Jerusalem Post
29. ^ Arrow's radar system successfully intercepts missile simulating Shihab - Haaretz - Israel News
30. ^ Conyers Tells Bush Iran Attack = Impeachment; Ask Your Representative to Co-Sign | AfterDowningStreet.org
31. ^ Olmert to U.S.: Impose naval blockade on Iran - Haaretz - Israel News
32. ^ http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/hc362_ih.xml
33. ^ Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
34. ^ http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9377
35. ^ http://capwiz.com/justforeignpolicy/issues/alert/?alertid=11518951
36. ^ Carah Ong, "H.Con.Res. 362: Pushing for a Naval Blockade against Iran?"
37. ^ NIAC - National Iranian American Council - Update: Is a New Congressional Resolution Declaring War with Iran?
38. ^ Congress's 'Virtual Iran War Resolution' - by Ron Paul
39. ^ 'Unavoidable' attack on Iran looms, says Israeli minister | World news | guardian.co.uk
40. ^ [1][dead link]
41. ^ alJazeera Magazine
42. ^ Press TV - Israel launches 'Iran Command' for war
42

43. ^ NY Times Advertisement


44. ^ AFP: Israel trains for possible strike on Iran: reports
45. ^ Shadow of war looms as Israel flexes its muscle | World news | The Observer
46. ^ FT.com / World - Olmert weighs cost of any attack
47. ^ [2][dead link]
48. ^ AFP: 'Ball of fire' if Iran attacked: IAEA chief
49. ^ Bahrain wants early warning of any move on Iran | Reuters
50. ^ Report: Olmert met with Osirak attack planner | Israel | Jerusalem Post
51. ^ alJazeera Magazine
52. ^ Iran ready to strike at Israel’s nuclear heart - Times Online
53. ^ Can the Arrow thwart Iran's Shihab 3? | Israel | Jerusalem Post
54. ^ Arrow successfully simulates intercept of mock Shihab missile - Haaretz - Israel News
55. ^ Israel successfully tests missile interceptor: report
56. ^ U.S. military chief visits Israel for high level defense update - International Herald Tribune
57. ^ Iran to ready thousands of graves for enemy soldiers - Yahoo! News
58. ^ Proceedings Story - U.S. Naval Institute
59. ^ AFP: Military strike on Iran would be 'catastrophic:' Russian ministry
60. ^ Press TV - Chavez to US: Stop your Iran threats
61. ^ [3][dead link]
62. ^ Strike and we'll strike you back, warns Tehran - Middle East, World - The Independent
63. ^ a b Strait front line in attack on Iran
64. ^ a b My Way News - Iran test-fires missiles in Persian Gulf
65. ^ tehran times : Maliki: Iraq no launch pad for Iran strike
66. ^ Military action 'would destabilise Iraq' - Middle East, World - The Independent
67. ^ Tehran Warns West Against Attack - NYTimes.com
68. ^ Defiant Iran angers US with missile test
69. ^ Pentagon plumbing Iran's missile tests for clues
70. ^ Reports: Iran test-fires more missiles - CNN.com
71. ^ OPEC warns against military conflict with Iran - International Herald Tribune
72. ^ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25651924/
73. ^ Avionews
74. ^ Bataan Completes 'Operation Brimstone'
75. ^ Iwo Jima Marks First for US, Brazil
76. ^ Forecasters afloat support multinational training exercise
77. ^ Reuters AlertNet - Iran to get new Russian air defences by '09 -Israel
78. ^ Jahn, George (2008-07-24). "Iran May End Cooperation With Nuclear Investigation". Retrieved on 9 August 2008.
79. ^ Iran ends cooperation on nuke probe - Iran - MSNBC.com
80. ^ Jahn, George (2008-07-25). "Iran to increase cooperation with IAEA". Retrieved on 9 August 2008.
81. ^ "Call on AP to retract false reporting on Iran", Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (2008-07-
28). 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/media-
centre/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 multi-
state "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. ^ Hopi founding statement [1]


2. ^ Who we are [2]
3. ^ Open letter to the anti war movement [3]
4. ^ Anti war activists do battle over intervention in Iran [4]
5. ^ About Stop the War [5]
6. ^ Controversy at Stop the War Coalition AGM [6]
7. ^ Anti war activists do battle over intervention in Iran [7]
8. ^ Day of Action [8]
9. ^ Blogging wars [9]
10. ^ What sort of solidarity do workers in Iran need? [10]
11. ^ 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 0-
7432-7066-5
• ""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 Non-
Proliferation 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-nuclear-
news.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-letter-
GNEP-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 pre-
revolution 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 in-
kind 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, France-
Iran 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 non-
nuclear 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 mid-
September, 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 Non-
Proliferation 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 missile-
related 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 non-
compliance 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 high-
value 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 estesh-
hadiyun (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 long-
term 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 Non-
Aligned 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 Non-
Proliferation 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. ^ "Part I: An Atomic Threat Made in America". 2008. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013007E.shtml. Retrieved on


2008-02-24.
2. ^ 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.
3. ^ "Iranian specialists ready to launch Bushehr nuclear power plant". ITAR-TASS. 2008-10-14. http://www.itar-
tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13171634. Retrieved on 17 October 2008
65

4. ^ "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
5. ^ "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
6. ^ a b "Nuclear proliferation: The Islamic Republic of Iran", Gawdat Bahgat, Iranian Studies Journal, vol. 39(3), September
2006
7. ^ Chubin, Shahram. "Does Iran want nuclear weapons?" Survival, Volume 37, Issue 1 Spring 1995, pp. 86-104.
8. ^ U.S. FEARS IRAN MAY USE CHEMICAL ARMS New York Times April 25, 1985
9. ^ http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol08/81/81ali.pdf
10. ^ Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, May 1996
11. ^ IRANIAN NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS: IMPLICATIONS AND RESPONSE
12. ^ James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies: Study Finds U.S. Intelligence Community Confidence in Iran's
Chemical Weapons Capability Has Diminished Steadily Since 2003
13. ^ Dr. Jean Paul Sanders: "Iranian Use of Chemical Weapons: A Critical Analysis of Past Allegations"
14. ^ IR#A: "Jalili: Chemical weapons have no place in Iran's defense doctrine"
15. ^ [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)
16. ^ "file:///C|/Users/MJZ/Desktop/Doc2.htm" (PDF). http://www.zarif.net/Articles/Columbia%20JIA.pdf. Retrieved on
2008-10-26.
17. ^ "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.
18. ^ "Integrated Nuclear Fuel Cycle Information Systems (iNFCIS)". 2008. http://www-nfcis.iaea.org. Retrieved on 2008-02-
24.
19. ^ Lining up to enrich uranium by Charles D. Ferguson and William C. Potter, International Herald Tribune, Sept. 12, 2006
a b
20. ^ "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
21. ^ "Publications: Magazines and Newsletters". 2008.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull462/nuclear_fcycle.html. Retrieved on 2008-02-24.
22. ^ "Iran Crisis". Mit.edu. http://mit.edu/stgs/irancrisis.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-26.
23. ^ "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.
24. ^ [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.
25. ^ "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.
26. ^ "Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel Acceptance". U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration.
http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/na-20/frrsnf.shtml.
27. ^ "Iran Profile - Nuclear Chronology 1957-1985". Nuclear Threat Initiative.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/1825_1826.html. Retrieved on 2006-05-18.
28. ^ 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.
29. ^ The Third World's Critical Mass, by Kai Bird and David Berick, Nation February 26, 1977
30. ^ . 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.
31. ^ (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
32. ^ 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.
33. ^ Gordon Prather (December 27, 2005). "ElBaradei Isn't Perfect". Antiwar.com.
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8308.
34. ^ (French) "Jean-Louis Bruguière, un juge d’exception". Voltaire Network. April 29, 2004.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article13591.html
35. ^ (French) Dominique Lorentz (November 11, 2001). "La république atomique". Le Monde.
http://www.politiqueglobale.org/article.php3?id_article=1967.
36. ^ "Iskandar Safa and the French Hostage Scandal". Middle East Intelligence Bulletin. February 2002.
http://www.meib.org/articles/0202_l2.htm
37. ^ "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.
38. ^ 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.
39. ^ "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.
40. ^ Jon Wolfsthal, "Iran Hosts IAEA Mission; Syria Signs Safeguard Pact", Arms Control Today, vol. 22 (March 1992), p.
28.
41. ^ "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 2008-
02-24.
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-and-
iran-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/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/01/22/AR2006012200808.html
80. ^ World Public Opinion: Iranians Oppose Producing Nuclear Weapons, Saying It Is Contrary to Islam
67

81. ^ BBC Poll: 94% of Iranians: We have right to develop nuclear plan
82. ^ Iranian Public Opinion on Governance, Nuclear Weapons and Relations with the United States, August 27, 2008
83. ^ 2008 Annual Arab Public Opinion Poll - see "Key Findings"
84. ^ [“NPT blamed for secrecy”, Nuclear Engineering International, 29 February 2004.]
85. ^ "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/wp-
dyn/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 2008-
02-24.
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&section=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,,2-10-
1462_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/line-
17/0606232976095647.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,L-
3450421,00.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/nuc-
india-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/nuclear-
weapons/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 Non-
Proliferation 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 nuclear-
power 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
• 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]
[55]

References and notes


77

1. ^ a b c Dr. Farhang Jahanpour (2006). "Chronology of Iran's Nuclear Program". Oxford Research Group. Retrieved on
2006-09-25.
2. ^ "ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN". International Atomic Energy Agenct (2003). Retrieved on 2006-09-21.
3. ^ Campbell, Colin (2003). "Country Assessment – Iran". Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas. Retrieved on
2006-05-28.
4. ^ a b "Islamic Republic of Iran". International Atomic Energy Agency (2002). Retrieved on 2006-05-28.
5. ^ Robin Gedye (September 10 2003). "Iran's nuclear history". The Telegraph.
6. ^ a b c d BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Timeline: Iran nuclear crisis
7. ^ "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran" (PDF). IAEA.
8. ^ http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jdw/jdw040810_1_n.shtml (Jane's Intelligence)
9. ^ Iran gets mixed nuclear report - Jane's Security News
10. ^ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6292567 (Reuters)
11. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4013321.stm (BBC)
12. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4049967.stm (BBC)
13. ^ "US agrees to back UN nuclear head". BBC News.
14. ^ Stewart Stogel (September 15, 2005). "'No-Shows' Mark U.N. Summit". NewsMax.
15. ^ "Iran may run out of oil in 90 years". Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections. Retrieved on 2006-04-23.
16. ^ "Iran to involve foreign investments in nuclear program", Xinhua (November 6, 2006).
17. ^ http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/179393/1/.html CNA
18. ^ Kaveh L Afrasiabi (February 7, 2006). "Sideshows on Iran's frogmarch to the UN". Asia Times.
19. ^ "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).
20. ^ "Attack on Iran will be construed as attack on us: Pakistan minister". Turkish Weekly (2006). Retrieved on 2006-05-28.
21. ^ "Iran halts nuclear spot checks, resumes enrichment", The Telegraph (February 5, 2006).
22. ^ Section 5 of the March 2006 U.S. National Security Strategy
23. ^ Iran Focus
24. ^ "Fool Me Twice", Foreign Policy (March 27, 2006).
25. ^ "Iran threatens to strike at US targets if attacked". Reuters. Retrieved on 2006-04-27.
26. ^ "Report on Iran Nuclear Safeguards Sent to Agency's Board and UN Security Council". International Atomic Energy
Agency. Retrieved on 2006-04-29.
27. ^ "Iran speeding up nuclear work: IAEACouncil". ABC News (Australia). Retrieved on 2006-04-29.
28. ^ "China, Russia join other powers on Iran package". CNN. Retrieved on 2006-06-01.
29. ^ "Iran remains defiant in nuclear stand-off". AFP. Retrieved on 2006-08-01.
30. ^ "UN gets Iran incentive deal". Reuters. Retrieved on 2006-07-13.
31. ^ 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.
32. ^ "UNSC Resolution 1737 text" (2006-12-23). Retrieved on 24 December 2006.
33. ^ "UN passes Iran nuclear sanctions", BBC #ews, BBC (2006-12-23). Retrieved on 23 December 2006.
34. ^ "‫ته ا‬WWWW‫مند ھس‬WWWW‫ک دانش‬WWWW‫کوک ي‬WWWW‫رگ مش‬WWWW‫الم یجمھور یم‬WWWW‫( اس‬Scientist Nuk Dies)" (HTML) (in Persian). Radio Farda. Retrieved on
2007-02-04.
35. ^ a b Melman, Yossi (2007-02-04). "U.S. website: Mossad killed Iranian nuclear physicist" (HTML) (in English). Haaretz.
Retrieved on 2007-02-05.
36. ^ "AL-Quds Daily Newspaper" (HTML) (in Arabic).
37. ^ "ISNA - Iranian Student's News Agency" (HTML) (in Persian).
38. ^ "Geopolitical Diary: Israeli Covert Operations in Iran" (HTML) (in English). Stratfor (2007-02-02). Retrieved on 2007-
02-04. (requires premium subscription)
39. ^ 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)
40. ^ "U.S. troops allowed to kill Iranians plotting attacks in Iraq" (in English). CNN. Retrieved on 2007-02-05.
41. ^ "Moussad Incapable of Running Operations in Iran" (HTML) (in English). Fars News Agency (2007-02-04). Retrieved
on 2007-02-05.
42. ^ [1]
43. ^ The full text of the resolutionPDF
44. ^ BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran 'enters new nuclear phase'
45. ^ BBC NEWS | Programmes | Nuclear Detectives | Nuclear watchdog's attack warning
46. ^ Gulfnews: Cheney against using military force, says Rice
47. ^ Platts
48. ^ Public resentment with Ahmadinejad grows over fuel rationing, rising prices - International Herald Tribune
49. ^ Iran's nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani resigns | NEWS.com.au
50. ^ Iran: Nuclear Capabilities and Intentions
51. ^ Iran 'hoodwinked' CIA over nuclear plans
52. ^ Iran says U.S. report a "declaration of surrender"
53. ^ Security Council Tightens Restrictions on Iran’s Proliferation-Sensitive Nuclear Activities, Increases Vigilance Over
Iranian Banks, Has States Inspect Cargo
54. ^ "Russia Completes Fuel Delivery For Bushehr". Retrieved on 2008-03-10.
55. ^ a b "Iran's N-Package submitted to Chinese FM officials - envoy". IRNA (2008-05-16). Retrieved on 2008-05-26.
See also
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 (IR-
T1).[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. ^ "Tehran's Magic Mountain". US and World News Report (1995). Retrieved on 2006-05-28.
8. ^ "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 2006-09-
25.
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: 28°49′44″N


50°53′13″E28.829, 50.887
Built 01.05.1975
Start of commercial operation 31.08.2009
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
et Gross Construction started Electricity Commercial
Reactor unit[5] Reactor type Shutdown
capacity capacity (Planned) Grid Operation
Bushehr-1 [6] VVER-1000/446 915 MW 1,000 MW 01.05.1975 (01.08.2009) (31.08.2009) -
[7]
Bushehr-2 VVER-1000/446 915 MW 1,000 MW (01.01.2011) - - -
[8]
Bushehr-3 VVER-1000/446 915 MW 1,000 MW (01.01.2012) - - -
[9]
Bushehr-4 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. ^ Power Reactor Information System from the IAEA: „Iran, Islamic Republic of: Nuclear Power Reactors“
6. ^ Bushehr 1 on the PRIS of the IAEA
7. ^ Bushehr 2 on the PRIS of the IAEA
8. ^ Bushehr 3 on the PRIS of the IAEA
9. ^ Bushehr 4 on the PRIS of the IAEA

Atomstroyexport
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Type Joint Stock Company

Founded 1973

Headquarters Moscow, Russia

Key people 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 2008-01-
06.
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. ^ Orla Ryan, Ahmadinejad rival elected as Iranian speaker, The Guardian, May 28, 2008, [1].
2. ^ (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.
3. ^ "Iran's nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani resigns", news.com.au (October 20, 2007). Retrieved on 21 October 2007.
4. ^ "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.
5. ^ 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 Succeeded by Saeed Jalili
Preceded by Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel Speaker of Majles 2008-present Succeeded by Incumbent