In November 2003, Iran prevented a crisis when it decided to put an end to the activities that would have allowed the production of military nuclear material. The International Atomic Energy Agency Agence Internationale de l’Energie Atomique (IAEA) had discovered what Iran had achieved in 18 years of not declaring its nuclear activities as stated in the Non Proliferation Treaty, thus violating its obligations. Since Teheran accepted to end its activities, the IAEA did not report anything to the UN Security Council. Last November, Iran signed an agreement with Great Britain, France and Germany to bring to an end the activities of all its uranium conversion facilities. _ The IAEA Board of Governors should meet in Vienna to make a decision but there’s no consensus. This matter should be entrusted to the UN Security Council but many members that have been submitted to Teheran’s lobby are reluctant. They fear this might provoke a situation similar to that of Iraq. Not to report anything to the UN Security Council will weaken the IAEA and the non proliferation system. It must be kept in mind that reporting to the Security Council does no mean immediate sanctions. It could strengthen the work of inspectors, though.
Iran does not want to cooperate and it’s necessary to give the IAEA the necessary authority. Therefore, it’s necessary to have a resolution of the Security Council.

Differences between the United States and the European Union are bad for both sides of the Atlantic. We’re disappointed by the Iranian refusal to the agreement offered by France, Great Britain and Germany, with the support of the United States. Teheran has chosen to reject this offer and has reactivated its uranium enrichment programme. We believe an Iranian state with the capacity to produce nuclear weapons is a destabilizing fact for the whole region. The United States and Iran have a common interest in bringing Teheran to the bargaining table. Iran must be convinced that, on the contrary, it has nothing to lose but much to win, an idea which must be supported by the United States.
Americans and Europeans should make a common declaration on the following issues:
 The United States and the European Union should demand the end of Iran’s uranium enrichment and the shipment of all the material produced in Isfahan since its reopening outside of the country.
 The United States should support negotiations between Iran and Europe and should accept the fact that Iran could have a civil nuclear programme.
 The United States should be willing to begin bilateral negotiations with Iran about economic sanctions, Teheran’s support to international terrorist groups, Iran’s opposition to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the inclusión of Iran to the WTO. The European Union and the United States should support the efforts of the Iranian people with regard to human rights.
 The European Union should renew its support to the Iranian nuclear civil programme but it should join the sanctions’ threats in case Teheran chooses not to end its uranium enrichment programme.
It’ll be necessary to find a solution agreed by consensus at the UN Security Council. However, the probable Russian and Chinese oppositions should make the European Union think about a system of transatlantic sanctions with Japan.

The magnitude of the Iranian nuclear issue largely depends on the nature and the behaviour of the Islamic regime. Part of the international community supported the action of Germany, France and the United Kingdom aimed at putting an end to the unacceptable activities of a signatory country of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, the Iranian issue is completely manageable and developing a crisis is worthless.
Iran reactivated its nuclear programme in the 1980s to pressure Saddam Hussein, but after years of effort violating its international commitments, Iran reached to the conclusion that things were much more difficult, undoubtedly. When the clandestine programme was made public in 2002 it had only produced some milligrams of plutonium and some grams of uranium. Since then, no other significant progress has been achieved during the intensive ground inspection campaigns by the experts of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Teheran accepted the implementation of the additional control system of the agency on its territory. This control is still maintained, as well as the activities of Isfahan, even when they contravene the demands of the international community.
Such an achievement is important and it was the result of the actions of Germany, France and the United Kingdom. We must lean on it to achieve progress. Iran is a member of the NPT and it should remain so. If it joined the additional protocol of the IAEA, it should ratify it now. It should also guarantee that nuclear technologies won’t be use with military purposes. It’s here where negotiations come to a halt. The Europeans have asked Iran to relinquish the especially sensitive technology of uranium enrichment by the centrifuge process while they’ll guarantee the neceesary supply of oil. On its side, Iran fears that its energy sector will depend on European good will. Nobody wants to twist its arm.
However, there’s a posible convergence zone. Based on the NPT, the Iranians have the right to do research and to develop centrifugation. Such rights can be recognized by limiting them to a compromise of not enriching uranium beyond the enough and necessary 3 to 5% needed for oil stations, but not enough for nuclear weapons. If facilities were controlled by the IAEA, a few days will be needed to know if the contract is violated whereas much more time will be needed to have the nuclear material necessary for a bomb. If the IAEA believes it’s able of making the necessary controls, the the problem could be solved.
Those who oppose this agreement say that Iran could, based on the agreement, develop a clandestine programme. This could be completely true if Teheran affirms that it will put an end to its uranium enrichment programme. Hiding the activities of a dozen centrifuges is easy to achieve, but not the operation of thousands of them. It’s not easy to gather uranium secretly either. Such a security system should be built but we should remain mistrustful and our eyes should remain wide open. Let’s keep in mind that the worst thing to be there is an Iran abandoning the additional protocol, a sort of a NPT, due to unacceptable pressures or aggressions, as well as the denial of what it considers, right or wrong, as an imprescriptible right to have access to the technologies of the modern world.

Years ago, pacifists made the following rhetorical question: what would happen if war is declared and nobody accepts to fight? Today, we should wonder: What would happen if the Pentagon had to fight a war and Germany does not give its approval?
The possibility of the use of force on the part of the United States against the Islamic fascist regime of Iran to prevent it from having nuclear weapons is increasing. Mahmud Ahmadineyad was very precise: Iran will continue with its military nuclear programme and it’s ready to supply other Islamic states with this technology. France, Great Britain and Germany tried at first to eliminate tensions but once they’ve realized this policy is useless they seem willing to hold the American position and want to submit the problem to the UN. However, Russia’s and China’s protection will give Iran the chance of escaping any sanction of the organization.
Thanks to this sponsorship, Iran can go on disturbing the liberation of Iraq and transforming Gaza into a refuge for terrorists. But this is not all. Iran is looking for something to hit the United States with, a massive electromagnetic pulse that will destroy all electronic programmes in our country. Therefore, our defenses should be ready to respond to an attack against Iran. Unfortunately, the US Army, the Navy and the offices of the Pentagon depend on a non trusted resources management programme sold by a German society. But appart from having Gerhard Schröder opposed to a war against Iran, we also have that this informatics programme is also being commercialized in Iran. Since we don’t have an American programme, Germany has a right to veto our interventions.

Iran, one of the countries better located from the geographical point of view, has always been a target of great colonial powers. Its location has also enabled Iran to become a unique commercial market and ensured the path of the most important oil pipelines.
In this regard, several countries like India or China rushed to establish excellent relations with Tehran. Within this framework, Iran prefers the Indian market for its exports and at the same time chooses Indian products when it comes to imports. Europe urgently needs Iran’s gas and oil. An example of that was Lionel Jospin’s violation of Amato’s law. The former French prime minister subscribed oil contracts with the Iranian government through the important French company Total. The U.S. had realized, since the beginning of the Cold War, of the importance of Iran as a strategic front to defend the West. Therefore, the U.S. administrations at that time did not take long to put their most modern weapons at Iran’s disposal in exchange for oil contracts.
Iran’s importance goes beyond its geographical situation and its relations with the great powers. Tehran has begun to play its cards, mainly regarding the demographic weight of the Shiite population. From now on, the Shiite factor, represented by Iran, might play a crucial role in the Iraqi domestic policy. Also, Tehran, represented by the Hezbollah Shiite movement, in the south of Lebanon, is involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The United States is facing a real dilemma. Will it be necessary to attack Iran so that it gives up its nuclear activities? But Iran, with its demographic, geographic and oil weight is not accessible to the U.S. occupant. The country of the Ayatollahs is not that of Saddam. The Iranians have grass-roots organizations across the Arab world and its army has never been subjected to any embargo. Besides, Tehran’s government has good relations with countries which have the right to veto in the UN Security Council.
However, all these elements will not prevent the U.S., in case it feels so, from waging a war against Iran, a war that will cause huge losses to the Bush administration.

When Iran turned to Europe more than two years ago in order to address the controversy surrounding its civil nuclear program, it created a favorable opportunity. Here was a chance for Europeans to play a more proportionate role in tackling international problems, and forge an alliance for the benefit of the region and the world.
Given the unjust sanctions imposed upon it by the West, Iran had to diversify its sources of energy- a need that was in fact recognized long before the 1979 revolution. However, the West questions Iran’s right to have civil nuclear technologies. According to a recent BP estimate, Iran will be an oil importer in 2024 if it continues to consume oil at current rates [1]. It was on this basis that Iran and three major European countries agreed to work together: On the one hand Iran would assure that its program would be exclusively aimed at civilian purposes and the European Union should help it in this regard.
Talks were making progress when the United States decided to pressure the European Union. Europe countered with a proposal and demanded that Iran should relinquish all of its nuclear activities. In view of this attitude, Iran resumed its uranium enrichment program. As a result of this, the European Union played into the hands of the United States and tried to convince the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the need to adopt sanctions. Iran, of course, could not accept this because its purpose is legal and falls within its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Europe’s opportunity is fading away.

I just met with the Iranian president in New York and he has asserted that Iran wanted to continue with the negotiation process with the European troika. It was on this basis that we had our discussions. We are willing to coordinate our actions with those of the Europeans and Americans. Our positions are very close. Whatever the case might be, we have a common position about one issue: we all strongly oppose the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and this applies to Iran’s case.
At the moment, Iran is cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and we look forward to continuing the common work. Those who are familiar with the international law should know that any permanent member of the Security Council has the right, on its own initiative, to submit a problem to the UN Security Council. It is as if it were a full-fledged fact. If the IAEA commented on this matter, we would collaborate with the members of the Security Council. The more inflexible we stand, the bigger chances for problems to come up and then, we run the risk to end up in a dead-end.
It is undeniable that Iran has made a lot of mistakes as to its relations with the IAEA and it has acknowledged so. It has shown to us the works being undertaken nowadays and its cooperation with the inspections. I hope Iran will keep this attitude.

Russia might work together with Germany, France and Great Britain to propose a common project for a new nuclear plant. This would be the ideal solution. Within the IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), we discussed with the European troika in order to find out whether we could increase our common presence in Iran through the construction of new blocks. Multiple countries have shown their interest in Iran as the market potential player. For Russia, the best scenario would be to work together with the troika in the construction of a nuclear plant.
In order to develop nuclear energy, Iran has to respect the non-proliferation treaty, but this is a right it has. The main criticisms against Iran, which is to say that with the amount of gas and oil it has it does not need to develop the nuclear sector, is also valid for Russia. Our country has also a highly developed nuclear industry when we actually have a lot of gas and oil. We simply think of the future, economy and exhaustion of resources.