Global Policy Forum

This draft resolution, presented to the Council by the UK and France, expresses "serious concerns" that Iran has not taken the steps required by the IAEA – mainly "suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities" - to guarantee that Tehran's nuclear program is for exclusively peaceful purposes. The measure, drafted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, makes the resolution mandatory under international law and opens the way to enforcement measures. The draft does not explicitly mention sanctions, but states the Council's "intention to consider such further measures as may be necessary to ensure compliance with this resolution."

On August 31, 2006, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported to the UN Security Council on Iran's nuclear activities. The report looks at whether Tehran is in compliance with the IAEA and whether it has suspended uranium enrichment as called for.

This International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report informs the Security Council on the developments that have taken place since March 2006 on Iran's cooperation with the IAEA regarding its nuclear program. According to the Agency's Director General, Iran has failed to cooperate actively and transparently with the IAEA in demonstrating the exclusively peaceful purposes of Tehran's nuclear activities. The report could pave the way for the Council to adopt a resolution invoking Chapter 7of the UN Charter, which allows enforcement measures, including sanctions.

In this statement, the Security Council expresses concern that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not provided assurances that Iran is not secretly developing nuclear weapons. It calls on Iran to comply with the agency's demand to halt all of its uranium enrichment activities to "build confidence" that Tehran's nuclear activities are for an "exclusively peaceful purpose." The Council calls on IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei to report on "the process of Iran's compliance" in 30 days.

In this report, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voices concern that Iran has not clarified "uncertainties related to the scope and nature of its nuclear program after three years of intensive Agency verification." As a result, the IAEA will forward the report to the UN Security Council. The Agency's Director General hopes that pressure by the Council will encourage Iran "to go back to negotiation and take measures" to convince the international community that its program is exclusively for peaceful purposes.

This confidential letter, addressed to French, German, and American diplomats, outlines UK's strategy for winning Russian and Chinese support for tougher Security Council action against Iran. In parallel with agreeing on a Security Council Presidential Statement, the UK hopes that the Council will adopt a resolution putting the Iran dossier onto a Chapter VII basis, thus opening the door to the possibility of sanctions or other measures. In return for "the Russians and Chinese agreeing to this," London proposes to present to the Iranians a new proposal by June 2006. The Security Council will adopt "further measures" should the Iranians fail to "engage positively." (Times, London)

This International Crisis Group (ICG) report addresses the options and recommendations aimed at ending the standoff between Iran and the international community over Tehran's nuclear program. If the Russian proposal to enrich uranium on Iran's behalf proves unachievable, the ICG suggests a three-phase solution that would allow Iran a "delayed, limited enrichment plan." Under this proposed compromise, the international community would give Iran the "right to enrich" domestically, but only under strict IAEA supervision and coupled with a series of concessions, assurances, and control mechanisms.

After weeks of negotiations, the UN Security Council has overcome Russia and China's opposition to the text imposing sanctions against Tehran. The resolution bans "all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology" which could contribute to Iran's enrichment program and freezes financial assets for a list of persons and entities. Tehran immediately rejected the resolution. (Malaysia Sun)

This Middle East Quarterly piece argues that economic sanctions will do little to convince Tehran not to develop nuclear technology. Because Iranian leaders seek greater political "prestige and influence" through nuclear power rather than defense or economic advantage, neither US unilateral actions nor UN sanctions will lead to a nuclear policy change from the Iranian government. Instead, the author claims that security inducements providing peace guarantees between Iran and Western countries may convince Tehran to renew cooperation with the international community on its nuclear program.

The Arms Control Association reports on the UN Security Council's dynamics concerning sanctions against Iran, and the divergences between the US and Russia's positions. While Moscow tries to limit the scope of the resolution, Washington remains determined to push for punitive action against Tehran. As both permanent members push for their opposed interests, debate on sanction remains on the Security Council agenda.

While the Security Council prepares to discuss sanctions targeted against Iran nuclear program, the permanent five remain divided on a resolution draft. This Asia Times article denounces the sanction approach taken by the US as "unlikely to bear fruit," suggesting that this approach might push Tehran to opt for a harder nuclear policy. Instead, the author suggests a more peaceful direction to ensure that "Iran's latent proliferation tendency remains just that, latent."

After Iran missed an October 2006 deadline to halt its nuclear program, the Security Council has decided to pursue a new resolution to adopt appropriate measures against Tehran's uranium enrichment program. While the US pushes for sanctions, Russia and China remain reluctant to endorse UN punitive actions, preferring cooperation with Iran on the nuclear issue. The article argues that Russia's position on the draft resolution stems from Moscow's concern that UN sanctions could affect its nuclear fuel export to Iran. (Arms Control Association)

North Korea's nuclear test, reportedly conducted on October 9, 2006, deflects international scrutiny from the Iranian government's nuclear ambitions. This Asia Times article argues the UN Security Council will not consider any resolution sanctioning Iran's actions when the North Korean regime engages in blatant acts of provocation. Additionally, the US may increase its military presence in East Asia and decrease US forces in the Persian Gulf. The article concludes that the situation created by North Korea will cause a rift among Iranian politicians - hardliners see it as an opportunity to further Iran's nuclear program while moderates see the increased national security risks and push for the cessation of nuclear activities.

Despite the UN Secretary General's call for a negotiated solution on the Iran nuclear program issue, a US-led move presses to draft UN sanctions against the Iranian regime. The United States, determined to pursue coercive solution, said it would impose sanctions if EU talks on the matter do not lead to a consensus. Yet some alternative solutions exist, such as a proposed foreign investment in Iran's atomic industry, enabling international supervision of Tehran's work. (Reuters)

As some UN Security Council members threaten to enforce sanctions on Iran, analysts worry about the adverse political and economic effects these sanctions could have on neighboring Afghanistan. This Institute for War and Peace Reporting article warns that sanctions would have a major impact on the Afghan economy, which shares close economic ties with its western neighbor. Also, some experts fear that Iranians might support Afghan insurgent groups as a way of retaliating against the US-led call for sanctions against the Tehran regime.

This World Public Opinion article presents figures from a poll conducted by GlobeScan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes. The poll shows that overall world opinion would rather see the Iranian nuclear issue resolved diplomatically instead of militarily. Moreover, the poll illustrates that the majority of people wish the UN would take on a larger role in preventing countries from obtaining and developing nuclear technology, which demonstrates a faith in the UN to effectively manage and control nuclear conflicts.

Washington has long used sanctions as a tool in its foreign policy. As the US pushes for UN sanctions against the Iranian regime, the Jordan Times looks back at past experiences and concludes that sanctions have often proven ineffective in achieving their initial purposes and have generated drastic consequences on civilian populations. This analysis questions whether imposing sanctions on Iran will only strengthen Tehran's authority over its military resources and increase tensions between the US and the Iranian regime

With Iran refusing to accept UN Security Council demands that it halt its enrichment of uranium, again asserting its legal rights under the Non Proliferation Treaty, Washington has started drafting sanctions it will seek to have adopted by the Security Council. However the opposition of China and Russia to punishing Tehran will continue to prove an obstacle, with the International Atomic Energy Agency expected to report slow progress by Iran in developing nuclear fuel. (New York Times)

France, the UK and Germany have a dilemma as the Security Council deadline of August 31, 2006 approaches, requesting that Iran suspends all uranium enrichment activities. Rejecting Iran's offer of talks means the imposition of sanctions and clears the way for the next phase of the stand-off – the military approach that Europe remains loath to take. With Washington insistent on maintaining its hawkish approach, this Inter Press Service article argues that political pressures may force Europe to forgo negotiations with Tehran and follow the US towards sanctions and possibly war.

Considering Iran's proposal of "serious" talks over the future of its nuclear program, France emphasized the need for a suspension of uranium enrichment as a prelude to any discussions between Tehran, the Permanent Members of the Security Council and Germany. Despite a Security Council imposed August 31 deadline for freezing enrichment, Iran has given no sign it will change its policy. While France and the EU stressed the need for careful analysis and Russia reiterated its desire for a negotiated solution, US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton promised to push for sanctions should Tehran not fully comply. (Reuters)

Iran rejected the UN Security Council resolution setting an August 31 deadline for Iran to halt nuclear enrichment activities or face sanctions. Tehran called the resolution illegal, as Iran operates within the constrains of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani announced Iran would expand its nuclear energy program but temporarily decrease activity on larger projects to "ease tensions." All Iranian nuclear activities would remain under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, he added. (Associated Press)

The Security Council has passed Resolution 1696, giving Tehran until August 31 to cease uranium enrichment or face sanctions. The Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy describes this as an impatient move, the "first casualty of which is the June proposal" of incentives for halting enrichment. The authors warn that the Council, at the behest of the United States, may have destroyed the last chance at a negotiated solution.

The Security Council has resumed negotiations on a resolution, after Iran refused to respond to offers of a package of incentives in exchange for an enrichment freeze and other nuclear concessions. Under Article 41 of the UN Charter, the text drafted by France and Britain calls for mandatory measures that do not involve the use of force, including sanctions. But Russia remains wary of allowing the standoff to escalate and fears Iran's rejection of the resolution would lead some Council members to call for the use of force against Tehran. (Associated Press)

Russia and China have ended their long opposition to a UN Security Council resolution demanding that Iran halt its nuclear program. The two states, both with large oil interests in Iran, agreed to join the US and Europe over increasing concern at Iran's refusal to announce whether it will accept the economic incentives package offered in return for a cessation of its development of enriched uranium. While the nature of the sanctions to be imposed could split the shaky alliance at the Council, China and Russia's agreement marks a major turning point in the dispute. (New York Times)

The five members of the UN Security Council together with representatives from Germany and the European Union agreed on a package of incentives and "disincentives" for Tehran. The seven powers demand that Iran abolish nuclear activities in exchange for permission to upgrade its civilian air fleet and renewed communications with the US. The "disincentives" could result in the international community freezing Iran's abroad assets. (New York Times)

The United States has offered to join Britain, France and Germany in the multilateral talks with Iran on its nuclear programs, on the condition that Tehran suspend enrichment and allow inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. While the "EU Troika" would negotiate a political, trade, security, and nuclear package, the UN Security Council would adopt a binding resolution obliging Iran to suspend enrichment, and imposing sanctions if Tehran failed to agree on the deal. At Russia's request, the draft text avoids any reference to possible military action. (Guardian)

Russia and China object to the draft resolution tabled by the US, UK, and France calling Iran's nuclear program "a threat to international peace and security" under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Moscow opposes the reference to Chapter VII - which allows for possible sanctions and military enforcement - because it evokes memories of past UN resolutions on Yugoslavia and Iraq that led to unauthorized US-led military action. US Ambassador John Bolton asked the two countries to come up with an alternative way of making the resolution's demands mandatory. (Independent)

This Asia Times article argues that the Security Council lacks a legal basis for imposing sanctions against Iran. At this stage, Tehran's nuclear activities do not pose a "threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and Iran's lack of voluntary measures "hardly reinforces the momentum toward sanctions." The article warns that US and European attempts to invoke Chapter VII threaten the reputation of the Security Council, and it concludes that the dispute should be removed from the legal arena and returned to the realm of diplomacy.

Iranian Ambassador to the UN Javad Zarif argues in this New York Times op-ed that "there need not be a crisis" over Tehran's nuclear program. Since 2003, Zarif argues, Iran has adopted "extensive and costly confidence-building measures" to prove the peaceful nature of Tehran's nuclear program. Under pressure from the US, France, Germany and the UK, Iran suspended its enrichment activities for two years to allow the IAEA to inspect military sites and take environmental samples. The nuclear agency concluded time and again that no evidence exists of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Security Council, Zarif asserts, should not allow the controversy and rhetoric surrounding Iran's nuclear program to obscure this fundamental point.

Following three weeks of bruising negotiations, the Security Council unanimously adopted a presidential statement asking Iran to suspend its uranium-enrichment activities. But to secure Russian and Chinese support, the US, Britain, and France softened the tone of the statement by eliminating language suggesting that Iran's nuclear program constitutes a "threat to international peace and security." The Council also extended the deadline for Iranian compliance from 14 to 30 days and gave the International Atomic Energy Agency continuing shared authority over the Iran issue. According to Russian Ambassador Andrei Denisov, the text changes were necessary: "Any ideas involving the use of force or pressure in resolving the issue are counterproductive and could not be supported." (Washington Post)

The Security Council is under intense pressure from the US to adopt a statement that will allow aggressive action against Iran. In language that recalls the period before the US invasion of Iraq, US Ambassador John Bolton warned that Washington's patience was running out and that the "negotiating process was not indefinite." Bolton also questioned the legitimacy and authority of the world body, declaring that "if the Security Council cannot deal with the greatest threat we have with a country like Iran, you have a real question of what it can deal with." (World Socialist)

Why did the US take the case of Iran's nuclear program to the Security Council if Washington knew that the five veto-holding powers would not reach consensus on sanctions against Tehran? According to this Uruknet article, the Bush administration's intention was to increase suspicion about Iran's nuclear program and mobilize public support for a war. The author warns that if the Security Council issues a presidential statement accusing Iran of developing a nuclear weapons program – even though there is "no evidence" of such program according to the IAEA – it will only strengthen Washington's plans to attack Iran. Instead, the Council should take positive steps to diffuse the crisis, starting by supporting Iran's rights under the Non Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium under the strict supervision of the IAEA.

Russia and China have agreed to back the US, Britain, France, and Germany in having the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reporting Iran's nuclear activities to the Security Council, but only with the guarantee that the Council will not take up the matter until after the IAEA holds its meeting in March 2006. The move stops short of the formal referral urged by the US, Britain and France which could have opened the door for Security Council action against Tehran. Iran, which insists that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful, has warned that sending the case to the Council would mark the "end of diplomacy." (BBC)

If the Security Council sanctions Iran over its nuclear program, Tehran may retaliate by curbing its oil exports, possibly causing oil prices to soar past $100 a barrel. Some experts fear that a sharp global economic slowdown could follow. Others, however, argue that Iran's "economic blackmail" would hurt Tehran more than it would hurt the world economy, as the US and other members of the International Energy Agency could compensate with their own oil reserves as well as with crude from Saudi Arabia and Russia. (Associated Press)

The US is selective when it comes to condemning countries for violating the nuclear non-proliferation policy, Philip Bowring argues in this International Herald Tribune commentary. On the one hand, Washington aligns with nuclear countries such as Israel, Pakistan and India. On the other hand, the US condemns Iran's resumption of nuclear activities, calling it a grand threat to the Middle East and the world. By bullying Iran, the US may shoot itself in the foot and give Tehran the incentive to develop nuclear technology.

Russia will abstain, rather than vote against US efforts to move Iran's nuclear case from the International Atomic Energy Agency to the Security Council. However, it is uncertain as to how veto-wielding Russia, a traditional ally of Iran, will react once the issue gets on the Security Council agenda. US Ambassador John R. Bolton hopes to draw on his presidency of the Security Council in February to push for sanctions against Tehran. (Washington Post)

If the Security Council fails to put the Iranian nuclear issue on the agenda by the end of March 2006, Israel, backed by the US, declared it will attack secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran. Israel fears that by April 2006, Iran will have the technical expertise to enrich uranium in sufficient quantities to build a nuclear warhead. (Sunday Times)

According to the Telegraph, the Security Council has failed to take proper action concerning Iran's nuclear ambitions, especially since Tehran has taken an indifferent attitude to repeated resolutions by the International Atomic Energy Agency. If the Security Council does not sanction Iran following President Ahmadinejad's call that Israel should be "wiped off the map," the Security Council "does not deserve its name," argues this article.

Is the US threat to go to war with Iran real or is it just a scare tactic to get Iran to halt its nuclear program? Dan Plesch writes in the Guardian that Washington regards Iran as enough of a critical threat to warrant an attack. Indeed, US intelligence considers that while Iran is years from a nuclear weapons capability, "the technological point of no return is now imminent." US Ambassador John Bolton warned that if the Security Council failed to deal with Iran's alleged breach of its commitments on nuclear proliferation, "the US would solve the problem on its own."

Iran's failure to comply with its International Atomic Energy Agency commitments on nuclear proliferation does not indicate a more sinister motive to subvert its neighbors and export its Islamic revolution, reports the Christian Science Monitor. The US and European Union notion that Iran's foreign policy is entering a new radical phase misreads modern Iranian politics and national interest. The days when Iran sought to undermine established authority in the name of Islamic salvation are over.

Expressions of outrage came from Tehran officials following the adoption of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) resolution against Iran's nuclear program. Calling the resolution "illegal, unfair and completely unacceptable," the legislature retaliated by preparing a bill that would suspend the implementation of the Additional Protocol of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) within a week of a Security Council referral. (RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty)

The Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) adopted a resolution that calls on Iran to halt its nuclear program within two months and cooperate fully with UN inspectors. The resolution, tabled by Britain, France and Germany (the EU-3), was approved by a vote of 22 in favor, 1 against (Venezuela), and 12 abstentions. The Islamic Republic News published the integral text of the resolution.

At a meeting of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Britain, France and Germany (the EU-3) withdrew their proposal, which had called for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. Instead, they presented a softer version of their proposal, accusing Iran of "various failures and breaches" of its obligations to the IAEA. The EU-3 took this decision after intense opposition from veto-wielding Russia and China, who are eager to maintain or build energy ties with Iran. (RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty)

Iran resumed uranium enrichment at one of its plants despite the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) resolution calling on the country to halt its uranium conversion work. Then the European Union threatened at an IAEA meeting to refer Iran to the UN Security Council . Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, met the IAEA's chief Mohamed ElBaradei in Vienna in an attempt to forestall the EU's efforts. (Reuters)

An international scientific panel put together by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has concluded that bomb-grade uranium found in Iran matches that of contaminated equipment from Pakistan. The IAEA data eliminates the "smoking gun" theory that Iran is trying to gain nuclear weapons capabilities. Though the panel included US government experts, the Bush administration still denies the conclusion and instead continues to push for international pressure and UN sanctions against Iran. (Washington Post)

Iran, OPEC's second largest oil producer, uses its influence on the world's economy to forestall the US and EU efforts to bring Tehran's nuclear program to the Security Council agenda. As eager customers for Iran's oil and gas, energy hungry powers such as Russia, Japan, China and India have vested interests in not seeing the nuclear issue escalate, via the Security Council, into an energy crisis. This, in turn, makes the prospect of UN sanctions very unlikely. (Baltimore Sun)

The Asia Times warns of an international crisis, as Iran resumes its nuclear program. If the US and its European allies propose UN sanctions against Teheran, the Security Council may face a deadlock: Russia or China may impose their veto and the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will have to establish that Iran is in "material breach" of its obligations toward the non-proliferation regime.

EU foreign ministers worked to persuade Tehran to suspend its uranium enrichment program, amid continued pressure from the US to impose UN economic sanctions on Iran. The EU previously sought to avoid sanctions but, if the talks fail, EU members will probably move "towards the US position" to bring Iran before the Security Council. However, the Associated Press questions the effectiveness of strong sanctions, warning that they would likely cause oil prices to rise.

As representatives from 180 nations gather at the UN to review the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), Iran prepares to defend its nuclear weapons program and will insist on the same rights as those given to all other NPT members. Under the treaty, members gain access to nuclear technology in return for a pledge to abandon nuclear arms. But the right to leave the NPT at any time has given rise to fears over Iran and North Korea's nuclear program. US concern over both countries' uranium enrichment programs and attempts to bring the matter before the Security Council will likely dominate the conference. (Washington Post)

Former UN Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter warns of a US attack against Iran in June 2005 at the earliest when, according to the Pentagon, the country will have completed its uranium enrichment program. Senior Israeli officials have said they will not tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, and expect the US to take the matter to the UN. Israel and the US want UN sanctions, which would force an Iranian regime change and abandonment of its nuclear weapons program. But a consensus on sanctions in the Security Council seems unlikely as veto-holding Russia supports and supplies Iran's uranium enrichment program. (AlJazeera)

Washington has urged the International Atomic Agency (IAEA) to bring Iran before the Security Council and impose sanctions on Tehran, which the US argues is "in clear violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." The calls echo previous US demands that Iraq comply with weapons inspections, and foreshadow a repeat of the 2003 Iraq invasion. Iranian officials suspect the US wants to put the matter on the Security Council agenda so that the White House can exercise its authority and influence in the Council, rather than address the matter from its isolated position in the IAEA. (Daily Star-Lebanon)

International Atomic Energy Agency Chief Mohamed ElBaradei has said there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear arms and condemned Washington's inconsistent policies with respect to Iran and North Korea. In his latest report ElBaradei finds a greater Iranian willingness to cooperate with inspections, but White House officials maintain ElBaradei favors blocking US policies over halting Iran's nuclear weapon's program. (Washington Post)

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned Tehran that it must halt its nuclear weapons program and cooperate with European nations to resolve the nuclear issue. Rice said the Iranians "will have to live up to their international obligations" if they want to avoid Security Council referral and possible sanctions. France, Germany and Britain are reluctant to bring the matter before the Council, emphasizing they are "committed to letting the diplomacy run its course." (Associated Press)

In his speech at the World Economic Forum, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohammed ElBaradei announced a proposal for a five-year moratorium on building uranium-enrichment facilities to prevent Iran and other countries from developing nuclear weapons. ElBaradei called for Security Council involvement during the five-year ban, which he sees as an opportunity for the world to review the laws governing the transfer of nuclear technology and material. Despite similarities with US President George Bush's anti-proliferation initiative, the White House has labeled ElBaradei "soft on so-called rogue countries" and has lobbied other IAEA members to deny him a third term. (New York Times)

The Wall Street Journal has "substantial reservations and doubts about Iran's good faith" with respect to the country's pledge to cease its uranium enrichment program. This article argues that Iran avoided Security Council referral by "negotiating a departure from the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) normal safeguards standards" and warns that this may set a precedent for further IAEA inspections. Conservative criticism aimed at the IAEA echoes US justification to invade Iraq and could serve as propaganda to legitimize US action against Iran.

Denying Seymour Hersh's article on covert US military operations in Iran, Vice President Dick Cheney said the Bush administration plans to "pursue diplomacy first" and propose UN Security Council sanctions if diplomacy fails. But Cheney warned that "all options are on the table," and that Israel "might well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess." (Washington Post)

Oil services company Halliburton has managed to circumvent US sanctions on Iran and has won a major contract in one of the world's largest natural gas fields, "offering its services via [subcontractor] Oriental Kish." Under federal law, US companies are prohibited from doing business with the "axis of evil," but can maneuver their way around trade laws by working with "a foreign entity." The deal will however diminish US credibility when pressing for UN sanctions on Iran. (Houston Chronicle)

This article, written by former Canadian and European Foreign Ministers and former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, stresses the need for transatlantic cooperation in dealing with a nuclear Iran. The authors urge the US to support diplomatic European efforts and the EU to ready itself for stronger actions, including Security Council intervention, should diplomacy fail. They advocate a solution that allows Iran to pursue a civilian nuclear program as long as the international community gets "the insurance it needs." (Toronto Star)

Iran, Britain, France and Germany have begun negotiations for a long-term agreement on nuclear, economic and security cooperation. Talks will follow "two tracks, one to make the freeze permanent, another to explore concrete ways to reward Iran if it does so." The US could block any agreement Tehran may reach with the Europeans because it holds the power to block incentives Europe hopes to offer. (New York Times)

This International Herald Tribune article challenges the US and EU assumption that they cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran, saying "if the price for a democratic Iran is Tehran's being allowed to develop limited nuclear capabilities, then so be it." The author argues against military action, citing the proven inefficiency of a top-down approach to democracy, and claiming that military strikes would only enrage Islamists and isolate reformists. He also rules out the possibility of sanctions, saying that the world economy needs Iran's oil, and, as with military action, veto-wielding Security Council members would be unlikely to authorize them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution welcoming Iran's agreement with Britain, France, and Germany to suspend its uranium enrichment activities. The resolution's language was weaker than Washington would have liked, and the US remains skeptical that the deal will hold. The situation remains tenuous and some see it as a challenge between European multilateralism and diplomacy, and more "muscular" and "aggressive" US tactics. Observers say diplomacy will only succeed with the US on board. (Christian Science Monitor)

Iran narrowly met the deadline to freeze uranium enrichment activities as agreed in a deal with the EU. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that Tehran has stopped uranium activities but asserted that the government had rushed to process uranium concentrate before the deadline. The EU will draft a resolution at the IAEA meeting in Vienna stipulating a course of action should Iran breach the terms of the agreement. The US and UK are pushing for a harder line which would automatically refer the issue to the Security Council while Germany advocates a "milder tone." (Guardian)

The International Atomic Energy Agency says inspectors have found no new evidence of nuclear activities or an atomic weapons program in Iran, though they remain alert and cannot conclude that Iran does not have covert activities. The report, coupled with Iran's agreement with European negotiators to suspend uranium enrichment, will likely stave off Security Council action. Washington is still pushing to refer Iran to the Council. (Los Angeles Times)

China's "booming" economy means greater energy needs, and oil imports have doubled in the past five years. Beijing seeks energy agreements with Tehran, in part to "ease its dependence on relatively pro-American governments" in the Middle East. Iran needs both foreign investment and a political ally in its battle with Washington over nuclear development. China is a veto-wielding member of the Security Council, and after signing oil and gas agreements with Tehran, has spoken against bringing Iran to the Security Council over its uranium enrichment program. (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty)

Tehran pledged to halt its uranium enrichment program in talks with the UK, France and Germany until Iran and the EU strike a "final bargain." The tentative agreement could stop the International Atomic Energy Agency from bringing the issue before the Security Council, but observers warn talks could fall apart. China, a veto-wielding member of the Council with oil and gas interests in Iran, has assured Tehran that it will block any move to refer Iran's case to the Security Council. (Guardian)

G-8 nations are meeting to discuss a plan drafted by European members to stop Iran from developing a nuclear arms program. The G-8 says that if Iran fails to comply with calls to cease its uranium-enrichment efforts, it will bring the issue before the Security Council and seek international punitive measures. (Washington Post)

Iran is pushing for Europe to create "new mechanisms" to verify that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons in an attempt to prevent the issue from coming before the Security Council. Iran maintains it has a right to use nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes, but the US and independent experts suspect Iran may be trying to develop nuclear capabilities. Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said the "new mechanism" would continue inside the UN nuclear monitoring body, the IAEA. (Los Angeles Times)

The International Atomic Energy Agency issued a resolution on September 18 demanding that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment activities. Iran, however, has rejected the order, claiming it has only good intentions. The US hopes to bring the issue before the Security Council but Teheran says it will drop out of the nonproliferation treaty should this occur. (New York Times)

The US has abandoned a draft resolution accusing Iran of "non-compliance" of UN nuclear regulations. The draft, circulated among members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), received little support for its lack of specific charges. (Reuters)

The Iranian air industry is suffering from US sanctions on the purchase of US-made planes. Other air disasters may happen if the trade ban is not lifted. Iran's fleet has "reached a crisis point," says Tehran's Transportation Minister. (Associated Press)

The US is revising its sanction regime not only on Iraq, but also on Iran and Libya in order to meet energy needs in the country. (Washington Post)

The United States has lifted its ban on the sale of food items and carpets from Iran as a response to election successes by reformists in Iran. The US administration wishes to undermine the power base of conservatives who are more hostile to 'the American lifestyle' over time. (BBC World Service)

Iran's foreign minister speaks of Iran's desire for better trade relations with the US, particularly the lifting of sanctions on Iranian goods. (Nando Media)

After intense lobbying by the European Union, the United States has permitted three energy companies from different countries to operate in Iran without facing punishments for this. (The New York Times)

Testimony by Jeffrey J. Schott, Senior Fellow, Institute for International Economics before the Committee on International Relations, US House of Representatives.

A link to the text of HR 3107, an act that was enacted August 6, 1996.

White House fact sheet on Iranian and Libyan Sanctions for 1996.