Although Iranian and EU officials have recently agreed to resume talks on Iran's nuclear activities, there is little optimism that such talks will lead to any breakthrough in the existing deadlock over Iran's nuclear program. As senior Iranian diplomats and nuclear negotiators have remarked, Iran is determined to continue work on the nuclear fuel cycle despite Western countries' threats to have the UN Security Council impose economic sanctions and/or other coercive measures.

What should be the way forward for IRAN???????

Assalam Alaikum,

Brother it is so nice to see new members like you participating actively in this worthy forum, I deeply appreciate your participation.

Coming back to the issue, it is my firm believe that Iran wants to make the nuclear weapons as fast as they can so they will have upper hand in any form of negotiations. Seeking to create nuclear bomb is far different than having one. Take North Korea for example who is believe to have already made a bomb and is in a better position to negotiate with any pressure that International organizations may exert on it. Because they know that any nation will think twice before taking any military action, because there is always a possibility OR a danger to utilize such technology in the event of the war.

Iran on the other hand is progressing with a caution to make it possible to have such technology, because situation in Iraq is proving to be fruitful for it. Regardless of the support of RUSSIA & CHINA, western power very well know that Iran can create added chaos in Iraq any time it wants. So far Iran has kept the Shiites in Iraq contained to remind GORA SAAB, that it will remain like this as long as they walk on the other side of the line and restrain themselves from taking any military actions against Iran's nuclear sites.

Thanks.

Thanks for the appreciation..........

You are absolutely right with your observations..........
and one thing to add is that Israel has thousands of A-bombs, and I don't think Iran will feel safe enough without it......
on the other hand US will take military action, given George Bush's track record in Iraq.
What do you say about this possibility?

__________________
Life is a kaleidoscope of flaws, desires, emotions and mishaps__ YHK

Assalam Alaikum,

Israel is like KHAAIYA PIYA KUCH NAHIN GLASS TODA BARA AANE, the state of Israel is a perfect example of western hypocricy.

Coming back to the issue of Iran, let me start out by saying that any conflict in the peace time is only won by intimidation of an opponent. Let me give u an example, BUSH BHAIYA wanted to KILL 2 or even 3 birds from one arrow by invading Iraq.

1. Direct military presence in Iraq to intimidate the ROGUE STATES of Middle East.

2. Direct Control over oil.

3. With Iraq on one side, and Afghanistan on the other a direct hegemony on the over all Continent. Bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, South Korea, & Central Asian states put US in a very strong position from military strategic point of view.

Therefore, they wanted to capitalize on such strategic presence to intimidate the SO CALLED AXIS OF EVIL, that includes Iran, Pakistani Mullahs & Terrorism dilemma.

Unfortunately/Fortunately, depending on which side of the spectrum u are, the American plan backfired on them in the form of organized urban warfare that has inflicted a great intimidation affect on US. Therefore, giving upper hand to Iran.

As far as the Iran invasion in the foreseeable future is concerned, I don't see it possible because states will think twice before they commit to such action. US alone cannot venture into Iran, this is for 1 main reason....Analyze Pre War Iraq to Iran, Saddam was a dictator who was not popular (one man show, u take the man out GAME IS OVER) but not so, as the insurgency has proved. Therefore, Iran is a democratic country with religion infiltrated deep within the society, and personalities don't matter, therefore whoever is incharge in Iran, GAME WILL NOT BE OVER SO EASILY.

But I still believe that APNE BUSH BHAIYA still invades Iran every night in his dreams.

Thanks.

Dialogue barabar wallon ke beech mein hota hai.

Even if Iran has peaceful intentions behind the proliferation - I exhort the president of Iran to make a bomb.

Muslim world needs empowerment.

This NPT is all drama of the west!

Regards,

__________________
"The race is not over because I haven't won yet."

Adil Memon
Police Service of Pakistan (P.S.P)
37th Common Training Program

salam to all...
i just wanna add this .......that attitude of USA over the nuclar situation of Iran clearly shows its hypocracy..
2ndly USA will nt invade over Iran becoz Iraq is proving 2nd Vetnam for it ..so Us will think thrice before the attack on Iran...
Mr Yasir's question waz that wt way should be forward 4 Iran?
i think if Israeal can make atomic bombs y nt the Iran? They justify the nuclar power of Israeal by saying so that Israeal has to survive in the mid of Arab states & atomic power is its need....Iran has also survive against the Israeal & USA so nuclar power is its need also only Iran's fault is its being a muslim countery.....if IRAN gains the nuclar power once it will become in powerful state like Korea to negotiate.....so Iran should become a nuclar power as soon as if it wants to survive.....
with regards,
Muskan

__________________
My ALLAH it is enough for my respect that I m "Your" person & it is enough for my pride that "You" are my GOD."You" are exactly the way I desire.Thus please mould me the way "You" desire.

USA will not enter IRAN right ow.
C how USA invaded in IRAQ
they put sanctions on IRAQ, send a survellance team to find the chemical weapons whihc was never a issue, basically the team was to give ground information about weapons with whihc IRAQ might backfire when USA will attack on it..The war was decide earlier in 90's and USA was waiting for the right moment.
Things are different in IRAN.
USA has no ground facts of weapons of IRAN. Satellite is there but cannot give them a clear cut views to invade..untill and unless USA intervains with a survillance team in IRAN it wont happen. on the other hand IRAN will continue it s process but mark my word that IRAN will not develope A-BOMB without the help of any other nation in this continent like russia or china.and one more thing if USA will attack which they will later sometime they will do it from PAKISTAN.. WE R FRIENDS RIGHT.

The British forces will run high risks in May 2006, when they move their troops into southern Afghanistan, which borders Iran. We have seen several bomb blasts in public places, in the Arab majority province of Ahvaz, once the British forces had taken control of souther Iraq (also bordering Iran). So, they will probably not use Pakistan as a base against Iran, if they ever decide to attack Iran.

Secondly, the brinkmenship played by Iranian President Mehmoud Ahmedenejad keeps many advantages for Iran.

a) It gives Iranian negotiators strong leverage in negotioations
b) It unites Iranians, countering any intrigues by the West to incite ethnic or sectarian conflicts
c) President Mehmood Ahmadenejad will gather more support in wider public

The Head of Iran's Revolutionary guards said that his country was ready to use its Ballistic missiles if attacked.

"We do not intend to attack any country,but if we r attacked,we hav the capability to give an effective response.Our policy is defencive."

(Situation is becoming gradually worse,let see wt going to happen.)

__________________
My ALLAH it is enough for my respect that I m "Your" person & it is enough for my pride that "You" are my GOD."You" are exactly the way I desire.Thus please mould me the way "You" desire.

Sanctions against Iran would herald the start of a new era of confrontation - without being certain of achieving their aim of ending Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Any sanctions would be mainly economic. Their effect is questionable. And there are several stages to be gone through before they could be imposed.

To start with, Western countries have to agree among themselves that Iran's decision to remove UN seals and resume uranium enrichment research crosses a red line and means the end, for now at least, of diplomacy.


The EU three - Britain, France and Germany - which have been negotiating with Iran have reached that conclusion.

Then the West and its allies have to persuade the wider membership of the UN nuclear supervisory agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to agree to refer Iran to the UN Security Council.

Refused

Then the Council, if it is sufficiently united, is likely only to issue a warning to Iran before taking any other action. It would probably tell Iran to suspend all activities again and re-enter negotiations.

Only if Iran refused would sanctions then be drawn up.

What kind of sanctions? They would be trade-orientated, aimed primarily at the one major industry that Iran has - its oil and gas.

Iran is also currently applying for membership of the World Trade Organization (WTO), so this application would be blocked. The application is at an early stage. A working party to examine it was set up only last year but all that work would in effect stop.

The United States already embargoes major trade with Iran. It is especially keen to stop US oil companies from helping Iran develop its reserves.

Oil and gas are by far Iran's largest exports. According to the WTO, they and mining products account for 86% of Iranian exports.

But the US could not expect other countries to take such drastic action and it might be difficult to persuade some of them to take much action at all.

For example China, a veto-holding permanent member of the Security Council and in search of oil worldwide, would hardly vote for an oil embargo - given that in November 2004, it reached a major agreement with Iran to buy its oil and gas in a deal valued by the Chinese at $70bn.
The West also has to tread carefully in the current oil crisis. At the moment Japan is the largest importer of Iranian oil and would not want the trade to be curtailed too much.

The attitude of Russia, which is building a nuclear power station for Iran, is important.

Russia's attitude has become more critical of Iran recently, notably since Iran spurned its offer to enrich uranium on behalf of Iran to provide the fuel for the nuclear power Iran says its needs and wants.

But even so, Russia might be reluctant to go too far.

So there is some way to go on the sanctions front. And would sanctions work?

It has to be doubted in the short-term. Although Iranian industry might be slowed as a result, the country's political and religious leadership does not seem to worry too much. Oil is in great demand and Iran has plenty of it.

The leadership has its eyes set on wider horizons. Iran, it says, has the right to develop its own nuclear fuel cycle and it must stand up to what is seen as Western pressure.

When politics and national pride come to the fore, economics take a back seat. And within Iran this is already an issue of national pride.

Iran is astutely exploiting its legal rights in this - under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) it can indeed develop a nuclear fuel cycle under inspection. That is all it says it wants to do.

The counter-argument is that Iran forfeited that right by hiding an enrichment programme before and cannot now act as if nothing had happened. It could, this argument runs, buy fuel from well-regulated suppliers, as others do.

And what if sanctions do not work?

At some stage Iran might reach the point at which it had mastered the technology of fuel enrichment. This, as experts like the former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has said, might take many years. But sooner or later, it could happen.

Military action might then get onto the agenda.

The West, and Israel, say that Iran cannot be trusted and that it matters because the technology used to enrich uranium for fuel can also be used to enrich it further for a nuclear explosion.

If you master one, you master the other. And that would give Iran what is known as the 'break-out' capability. It could leave the NPT and go ahead and make a nuclear device.

If that moment came, it would be another decision point for the West - and for Israel. President Bush has said time and again that he will not permit Iran to build a bomb. And Israel might not want to wait that long.