How did it come to this?
Last Updated: 1:57am GMT 22/02/2007



Why is the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme reaching a critical stage?

Iran started enriching uranium last January. This can produce the material essential to building a nuclear bomb. By taking this step, Iran broke a deal signed with Britain, France and Germany. The UN passed two Resolutions last year calling for Iran to stop developing its nuclear programme. So far, Iran has ignored these calls.

Why is Iran suspected of seeking nuclear weapons?

advertisement
Iran says that its nuclear programme is peaceful and designed to generate electricity for its growing population of 70 million. Western governments don't believe this for two reasons. First, Iran has failed to declare all of its nuclear facilities and deliberately obstructed UN inspectors. The plant at Natanz was only revealed by exiles from the National Council of Resistance of Iran in 2002. Second, highly enriched uranium only has military purposes. Samples have been found on Iran's centrifuges.

How far away might Iran be from having a nuclear bomb?

If Iran starts enriching uranium on an industrial scale, it will take two or three years to make enough for one bomb. Iran would also need long-range ballistic missiles to carry a nuclear warhead. It could take four to eight years to develop a fully operational weapons system.

How did they get this far?

Iran's nuclear programme began before the Shah's overthrow in the Revolution of 1979. It made little progress until 1995, when Russia agreed to help build nuclear reactors at the Bushehr power plant. Iran's key supplier was Abdul Qadeer Khan, the head of Pakistan's nuclear programme, who ran a "nuclear supermarket" for much of the 1990s, selling parts and designs to Iran, North Korea and Libya. Iran is believed to have bought centrifuge parts from Khan, who was placed under house arrest in Islamabad in 2004.

What has Iran got to gain by restricting its programme?

Western governments, including America, have offered Iran trade concessions, economic help and investment in return for Teheran curbing its nuclear ambitions. They have also offered technical help for a civilian programme.

Why might Iran press ahead regardless?

Iran has its own security concerns. Pakistan is a nuclear power, Russia is a near neighbour and America has troops on its borders, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran may judge that having a nuclear weapon will guarantee its own security and allow it to become the leading power in the Middle East. Israel believes it would be the prime target for any Iranian bomb. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has pledged to wipe Israel off the map.

Who is in charge of Iran's nuclear policy?

Not the firebrand president, you might be relieved to learn. Real power is wielded by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He will have the final say on whether Iran presses ahead or not. Ahmadinejad has the power to wreck negotiations with the West, but not to make or unmake the programme.






Post this story to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine

Eight to ten years is hardly today. But yes, eventually, they will get a bomb just as South Africa, Israel, the USA, the UK, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and North Korea (apologies to those whom I left out). It's not an exclusive club now.

Also, they may not go the bomb route; the Iranian leaders may be rattling atomic sabers they don't intend to make.

FITS I would counter your logic of relativism, which implies in vagueness that it is okay for anyone to have a weapon along as others have them.

It not in the having of a weapon be it a nuclear Missile or a pistol, rifle or other type of weapon, it is ALL and EXCLUSIVELY in who’s hands that weapon and its capabilities are and of what character they are in likely using it to harm others in misjudgment, mistake, miscalculation and in some combination of willful intentionally.

Why do you think there is not some wisdom and logic in most of the world that is ruled by rules of law, social norms of reason and rational with an emphasis on public safety behavior, to not allow criminals and those of such mental incapacities and or capabilities, or proven harmful and or potentially harmful behaviors in acts, deeds and intents not to be allowed to possess weapons of sort for any purpose.

Likewise, everyone has a car, yet most use them responsibility yet there those that use them recklessly at the peril of other in mentally misjudgment or as often is the case in willful impairment using them in such a way that is harmed or harmful, potentially harmful and this unacceptable and as such are often forbidden to use them because of the risk they provide to the public at large.

I could do on... but you get the point, the community of nations, we are in but larger examples of cities, states and nations, who must not allow those who do harm or potentially do harm to others, free reign to do it, for if we do, are we not a barbarous in the harm that they cause as they are in causing it?

Yet, in being your brothers keeper, there may be a price to be paid in stopping those who will not listen to reason or rational and act irresponsibly or recklessly in total disregard to willfully or in some way by their capabilities and intentions do harm to others.

One cannot stand with clean hands seeing others do harm to others and do nothing and not be equally vile as those that do it. Yet, we hear that bellow every day in the meism of relativism, which they say if some one can and does do it, it is okay, and it not my problem until they do it me and then I may ignore it cause they did it someone else relatively speaking.