A nuclear Iran would endanger world stability

[Michelle]

So you admit you have no understanding of America's involvement? How was present day Israel established?

The British mandate...

[The Silver Thong]

Where do you see the discussion??? With the same success you could be asking who chilled down Gulf Stream and refusing to have any other answers than Iran.

However in your refuse to even mention USA in this so-called "discussion", I can see now some new sense. Aren't you by chance spinning with the target to initiate a sole Israeli attack on Iran with USA being not involved? As soon as you dont say you are an Israeli, but an American, then this apparently must work to American interests, am I right? Is the plan to have Israel wiped off and thus save US budget from the regular payouts to it? And the second goal of course is a final demonization of Iran - barbarians, terrorists, destroyed an innocent country for just a little bombardment of illegal nuclear sites! And then Iran would have no more nukes and US can take it with bare hands, 4 million barrels per day is not some lousy 2 million of Saddam! Am I correct?

You do qualify as you are most likely right. However a religious war might make as much sense.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

So you admit you have no understanding of America's involvement? How was present day Israel established?

Again, what does America have to do with this?

Fact: Iran began supporting, arming, funding and training enemies of Israel. Israel hadn't attacked Iran or anything. Iran started the conflict (between Iran and Israel, not the Arab-Israeli Conflict).

This isn't to justify an attack on Iran or anything. I'm simply asking you to prove that Iran did not initiate the conflict with Israel. Is it so much to ask someone to back up their claim that Iran has never initiated a conflict/war?

Marabod sure loves to paint me as a nationalist American, when he won't even admit that his Iranian masters have done anything wrong. I don't know whether that's ironic or hypocritical, but it sure is something.

[MARAB0D]

The British mandate...

And this is all? Why then this British mandate did not allow the International Man of Mystery, Adolf Hitler, to resettle the Jews on the mandated lands in 1937-1938? I heard from one rabbi (in a written form of course, as he was a Chief Rabbi of New York) about some settlers' ships torpedoed in Mediterranean by British subs... Some few thousand dead Jews on the way to Palestine... Happy Arabs clapping the hands... BP makes fireworks to celebrate...

[The Silver Thong]

The British mandate...

The UN, an American puppet organization, oh and yes the Brits The question still stands hun. The U.S. and Israel are in bed together, or do you think otherwise? The British mandate is also yours

[ninjadude]

Again, what does America have to do with this?

Israel would not exist without our support and dollars.

[MARAB0D]

You do qualify as you are most likely right. However a religious war might make as much sense.

Did you see the Sherlock answer from Dr Spinman?

[The Silver Thong]

Again, what does America have to do with this?

If you don't know then why post? America made Israel what it is, how simple is that? The creation of modern day Israel is a direct result of the conflicts in the ME and the world.

[The Silver Thong]

Did you see the Sherlock answer from Dr Spinman?

The Spinman is the boss and Sherlock is the dupe

Why do people want to spin doctor this is the question really.

Edited March 2, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[MARAB0D]

If you don't know then why post? America made Israel what it is, how simple is that? The creation of modern day Israel is a direct result of the conflicts in the ME and the world.

Its even funnier, as Israel at the moment is 50% Russia-oriented. Same as Iran - so you allow another few years, and Israel may start supplying Iran with nuclear components... It already supplies Russia with hundreds of those drones, has a no-visa regime with it and imports from there pork products. Also Israel talks about ditching Microsoft and setting up the country computers on Linux, which your humble servant did few years ago. It maybe a right time for US to make a sacrifice of such "friend" before it is too late.

[Runa86]

If Iran's excuse for its grudge against Israel is the Palestinians, then Israel should solve the root of the problem. I really don't get why the Israelis are outraged over what Iran proposes when what the Iranians say they want it's already under motion in Israel (the Palestinian minority is increasing). It's only that Iran wants it faster. So the Isralies worry about WMD and spend God knows how much money on their military when they should spending that money on subsidies for Palestinians to move a couple of miles into the Arab country of their preference.

[The Silver Thong]

Its even funnier, as Israel at the moment is 50% Russia-oriented. Same as Iran - so you allow another few years, and Israel may start supplying Iran with nuclear components... It already supplies Russia with hundreds of those drones, has a no-visa regime with it and imports from there pork products. Also Israel talks about ditching Microsoft and setting up the country computers on Linux, which your humble servant did few years ago. It maybe a right time for US to make a sacrifice of such "friend" before it is too late.

So that would mean the U.S. only controls or funds 50% of Israels defense budget. Meaning Israel is stealing billions from the American tax payer thinking that the American's have a say in what Israel does? LOL To me Israel is a double agent and milking more cows then one should be allow. Why does America put up with it? Could it be religious aka holy ground? Just asking as I don't have a freakin clue to this mess. One of two things war for profit or religion. Not much difference but should we know?

[MARAB0D]

If Iran's excuse for its grudge against Israel is the Palestinians, then Israel should solve the root of the problem. I really don't get why the Israelis are outraged over what Iran proposes when what the Iranians say they want it's already under motion in Israel (the Palestinian minority is increasing). It's only that Iran wants it faster. So the Isralies worry about WMD and spend God knows how much money on their military when they should spending that money on subsidies for Palestinians to move a couple of miles into the Arab country of their preference.

The impression is that Israel and Palestinians are an inch away from sorting all their problems out - Westbank is almost OK, only Hamas left; if this happens Iran and Israel may start to co-operate under Moscow auspices (as Hamas leaders fly to Kremlin every month to attend a new session of brainwashing). If Iran and Israel start to co-operate, then they two would control the entire Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Kuwait, Emirates and possibly Afghanistan or its major part at least. If this happens, then Saudi Arabs may start asking Moscow and Beijing for permission to sell oil to USA, while so-called Al Qaeda or whatever would be completely weeded out and half of CIA would lose the jobs amid the crisis. Also such control may badly affect opium harvest in Eastern Afghanistan. This may completely change the world! Of course there are forces which prefer Israel to attack Iran!

[Karlis]

What does that have to do with anything? Let me put it simply:

- Israel does not attack Iran in any way.

- Iran decides to support, arm, fund and train Israel's enemies.

Who is the aggressor here? Who initiated the conflict between Iran and Israel? And no, no amount of blaming America will answer that question.

Here is an answer in a nutshell, so to speak, to your question Pseudo:

From 1948 till 1979 Israel and Iran had close ties. In 1980 Mohammad Khatami came to power and declared Israel to be an “enemy of Islam”. The now historically well-known proclamation that “Israel must be wiped off the map” has been attributed to him.

Mohammad Khatami was elected President of Iran in 1997. It then seemed that there was a possibility that neutrality between Israel and Iran could be achieved, but this did not eventuate.

In 2005 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became President and established an extreme anti-Israel policy.

Karlis

[MARAB0D]

So that would mean the U.S. only controls or funds 50% of Israels defense budget. Meaning Israel is stealing billions from the American tax payer thinking that the American's have a say in what Israel does? LOL To me Israel is a double agent and milking more cows then one should be allow. Why does America put up with it? Could it be religious aka holy ground? Just asking as I don't have a freakin clue to this mess. One of two things war for profit or religion. Not much difference but should we know?

As soon as USSR collapsed, millions of Jews went to Israel. Years after arrival they started missing USSR - treyf foods, harsh drinks, lifestyle, society, "kultura" etc. As a result they (who are now almost 40% of Israeli population) feel more Russians than Jews - they have Russian radio stations, TV channels, newspapers, special treyf shops, and what is important own political party. This party is tough with the Arabs, but soft on Russia, hence co-operation and visa-free regime. Most of them have relatives in Russia, or at least close friends, and keep Russian passports too, so Israel slowly becomes yet another republic of virtual USSR (which causes horror of the rabbis passing the windows of the shops with exposed raw salted pig fat in them )

Israel greatly changed in the last 20 years, also Palestinian population in it increased as they outbreed the Jews, so the two nations started talking. But of course, no one would refuse to take the money, so Israel continues milking USA the same time, and US for this money demands some bizarre services, like to bomb Iran for example. Jews in USSR, as far as I remember, were the smartest of all other minorities, and certainly smarter than the actual Russians - if my memories are correct, US has little to fish for in that pond. But it takes a Jew to explain this to US administration!

Edited March 2, 2010 by MARAB0D

[Karlis]

Its even funnier, as Israel at the moment is 50% Russia-oriented. Same as Iran - so you allow another few years, and Israel may start supplying Iran with nuclear components... It already supplies Russia with hundreds of those drones, has a no-visa regime with it and imports from there pork products. Also Israel talks about ditching Microsoft and setting up the country computers on Linux, which your humble servant did few years ago. It maybe a right time for US to make a sacrifice of such "friend" before it is too late.

Marabod, your statement, "allow another few years, and Israel may start supplying Iran with nuclear components" does sound far-fetched today, but history could repeat itself. We do live in a crazy, mixed-up world.

Karlis

In 18 July 1977, Iranian Vice Minister of War General Hassan Toufanian (died 1998) traveled to Israel and met with Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan and Minister of Defense Ezer Weizmann. Among a number of joint Israeli-Iranian military projects discussed at these meetings was "Project Flower." This project was focused on the development of a longer ranged (150-200km) and more heavily armed version of the Israeli Gabriel anti-ship missile (not as sometimes reported with the development of a ballistic missile based upon Israeli Jericho surface-to-surface missile technology). It is possible, however, that this subject was discussed, since General Toufanian apparently attended a test-launch of a Jericho missile. Also discussed at these meetings was an Iranian interest in extending Project Flower to include a future submarine launched variant and Iranian concerns over missile and nuclear developments in India and Pakistan [1].

The following year, Iran made a down payment for Project Flower by providing Israel with $280 million worth of oil. To support this project, a team of Iranian experts began construction of a missile assembly facility near Sirjan, in south central Iran, and a missile test range near Rafsanjan [2].

During February 1979, the Monarchy of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi collapsed amidst the Iranian Revolution, and along with it died Project Flower. All the Israeli engineers and those involved with the defense cooperation with Iran were flown back to Israel and all the blueprints and diagrams of the weapons systems involved were returned to Israel via a well-protected diplomatic courier [3] Link

[MARAB0D]

Marabod, your statement, "allow another few years, and Israel may start supplying Iran with nuclear components" does sound far-fetched today, but history could repeat itself. We do live in a crazy, mixed-up world.

Karlis

Yes, Karlis, I am aware of that - not of the details you posted, but of the friendship between the Shah government and Israel. Israel and Iran have heaps of common geopolitical interests, and actually they are both inclined to rely on USA, but at the moment USA has spoiled the relationships with Iran and is spoiling them with Israel, by pushing it into a war with Iran. This again may bring them together - at the moment only ambitions of the religious government in Iran prevent this happening, but this government would be dead in one day with Ayatollah Khamenei... It is interesting to notice, that Israel is now in good stand not with Russia only, but with China too! While Iran is a Chinese backyard in much greater degree than a Russia's ally, China invested there over $100 billions in the last year (together with Indian participation), and them two buy all Iranian oil - we here in NZ are driving our cars on it, as we buy it from China...

[stevewinn]

Hi stevewinn, good result against the new Barcelona at the weekend.

Had to hold on for the last 10 mins. but a vital win. there is no love lost between Rafa and meat head allardyce. but i thought rafas little dig and Blackburn being the new Barcelona was good.

In response to the news articles that you posted, I wonder if you could address the below. I posted it on another thread but no one seemed to have an answer……Let’s start with the situation ‘on the ground’: -

“The conclusion that no diversion has occurred 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 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.”

Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy – May, 2006

“We have not been denied access [to Iran’s enrichment facilities] 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.”

IAEA spokesperson – May, 2007

“You know, Iran is not on the threshold of having a nuclear weapon tomorrow. They are now having a substantive amount of low enriched uranium. But that doesn't mean that they are going tomorrow to have nuclear weapons, because as long as they are under IAEA verification, as long as they are not weaponizing, you know.”

El Baradei, former head of IAEA - February, 2009

“I don't see any evidence [that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons] in IAEA official documents about this.”

Yukiya Amano, current head of the IAEA – July, 2009

These quotes can all be found in the article here.So bearing the above in mind, one would ask how it is that Europe, Israel and the U.S. are not satisfied with the situation. The answer, those countries say, is that Iran has not proven its peaceful intentions – in other words, Iran are being asked to prove a negative; the non-existence of a weapons programme that we have just seen there is no evidence for in the first place.Iran is currently meeting obligations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Previously Iran suspended their enrichment process whilst discussions took place and went so far as to implement additional protocols beyond the standard commitment to the NPT. Throughout this, the circumstances dictated that Iran must prove a negative have persisted.My question is this – reasonably, what can Iran do to prove the peaceful intentions of their nuclear programme? The conclusion I have come to is that Iran has been put in an impossible situation that has been engineered and exploited by the West.

all i can answer for the above is to read not just quotes, but read the full IAEA reports. which gives you the whole picture, i've been reading them since about 2007 to the present day and the only conclusion can be - Iran is dragging its feet, and while this is happening Iran's nuclear programme gathers pace.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/iaea_reports.shtml

Iran could reassure the IAEA by allowing unlimited access to any nuclear facilities and workers. for example in 2008? they totally blocked the IAEA from attending a nuclear site and the IAEA were reliant on US satellite images. once you read the reports you'll see its like this all the time. start at 2003 and read up to date.

[.AKUMA.]

Again, what does America have to do with this?

Fact: Iran began supporting, arming, funding and training enemies of Israel. Israel hadn't attacked Iran or anything. Iran started the conflict (between Iran and Israel, not the Arab-Israeli Conflict).

This isn't to justify an attack on Iran or anything. I'm simply asking you to prove that Iran did not initiate the conflict with Israel. Is it so much to ask someone to back up their claim that Iran has never initiated a conflict/war?

Marabod sure loves to paint me as a nationalist American, when he won't even admit that his Iranian masters have done anything wrong. I don't know whether that's ironic or hypocritical, but it sure is something.

What you just said can go two ways.

What does America have to do with this?

Fact: America began supporting, arming, funding and training enemies of Palestine. the Palestinians hadn't attacked America or anything.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Okay, how does that mean Iran didn't start their conflict with Israel?

[Runa86]

It is interesting to notice, that Israel is now in good stand not with Russia only, but with China too! While Iran is a Chinese backyard in much greater degree than a Russia's ally, China invested there over $100 billions in the last year (together with Indian participation), and them two buy all Iranian oil - we here in NZ are driving our cars on it, as we buy it from China...

Interesting. In light of this, would you say that America may put pressure on Israel to enter the EU since it's become folklore that the US uses the EU to woo countries away from Russia?

[Q24]

all i can answer for the above is to read not just quotes, but read the full IAEA reports. which gives you the whole picture, i've been reading them since about 2007 to the present day and the only conclusion can be - Iran is dragging its feet, and while this is happening Iran's nuclear programme gathers pace.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/iaea_reports.shtml

Iran could reassure the IAEA by allowing unlimited access to any nuclear facilities and workers. for example in 2008? they totally blocked the IAEA from attending a nuclear site and the IAEA were reliant on US satellite images. once you read the reports you'll see its like this all the time. start at 2003 and read up to date.

I have read a number of the IAEA reports and religiously followed news coverage of Iran’s nuclear programme since late 2005. I have researched the period prior to that in some detail and am extremely aware of the big picture, of which the nuclear issue is not much more than a side-note.

Your conclusion that Iran is “dragging its feet” is a misconstrual of the facts. I can only assume that you are referring to limitations which Iran has indeed placed on IAEA inspections and the lack of response to non-credible evidence of a weapons programme.

Regarding limitations of inspections (including the still under-construction IR-40 heavy water reactor at Arak which you reference), this is due only to Iranian revoking of additional safeguard protocol over and above standard commitment to the NPT (i.e. Iran are complying with the NPT at the basic level). Regarding documents allegedly detailing Iranian nuclear weaponisation studies, these were provided by U.S. sources and there is doubt as to their authenticity – also, quite curiously, the IAEA have refused to present these documents to Iran.

Iran have openly stated their position on the above issues and provided their reasoning; Iran is not “dragging its feet” but has firmly “planted its feet” in defence of its rights. The additional safeguard protocol has been revoked (more about this below) and evidence regarding a nuclear weaponisation programme is not forthcoming - there is no case to answer for.

I really hope that people with a genuine interest in the subject take the time to thoroughly read the below because it explains how the facts are coming to be misconstrued and how we have arrived at the present day situation regarding Iran’s nuclear programme…

On the surface, what appears to be a very reasonable suggestion is raised – “Iran could reassure the IAEA by allowing unlimited access to any nuclear facilities and workers.” So why don’t they then and how have we come to this situation where Iran is limiting inspections only to meet base requirements of the NPT? The answer is that Iran have tried this approach and it simply did not work – unjust pressure from the U.S. and certain EU states continued completely unabated thus resulting in the current state of affairs…

In 2002 Iran disclosed the construction of nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak prior to the introduction of nuclear materials, in full accordance with their standing safeguard agreement. IAEA inspectors were permitted access to these facilities and in 2003 the agency declared that Iran had provided a “comprehensive” declaration of its nuclear activities, that there was “no evidence” of attempts to build nuclear weapons and at that time did not declare Iran in non-compliance with the NPT.

For whatever reason, the U.S. were not satisfied with this outcome and President Bush declared the conclusion of the IAEA, “impossible to believe”. Pressure was brought from the West for the case to be referred to the U.N. Security Council due to the concern that Iran had not declared research work or construction of those aforementioned nuclear facilities prior to 2002 to the IAEA (something that was outside of Iran’s safeguard agreement at the time in any case).

Iran’s response to this concern – they agreed to additional safeguard protocol, allowing expanded and intensified IAEA inspections, along with a complete suspension of uranium enrichment whilst negotiations took place. At the same time, Iran warned that should their nuclear programme still be referred to the Security Council despite this increased level of co-operation, then the additional safeguard protocol would be withdrawn.

So from October 2003 for nearly two years, happy days – Iran has suspended uranium enrichment, negotiations are ongoing and IAEA inspections are unobstructed. What went wrong? Well, the Western powers were still not happy and in August 2005 the EU-3 proposed to Iran that uranium enrichment should be permanently suspended. Quite within their rights, Iran rejects the proposal and in January 2006 made their own offer to suspend enrichment for a further two years (whilst still adhering to the additional safeguard protocol). This offer was rejected out of hand by the EU-3 and the following month Iran was reported to the U.N. Security Council on the basis of the undeclared research work and construction of nuclear facilities prior to 2002 that I mentioned above (you know, those issues that were outside of Iran’s safeguard agreement at the time in any case).

Oh dear, we know what happens next – Iran, true to their word, revoke the additional safeguard protocol and recommence uranium enrichment… and can you blame them after reasonable attempts to appease the West had got them precisely nowhere? The situation has continued to escalate with each new round of U.N. Security Council sanctions resulting in Iran placing ever further limitations on co-operation with the IAEA. And this brings us up to the current day where Iran are not complying with the IAEA as much as they could but are still meeting the basic obligations of the NPT.

Of course all of the above gives people with an axe to grind, and those that would follow the line reported by the Western media, ammunition to claim that “Iran are not complying with weapons inspectors”. I ask those people to stop for a moment and seriously consider not only where full compliance got Iran but how, what and who exactly forced Iran into their current position.

It is undeniable, as I said previously, that Iran has been put in an impossible position, engineered and exploited by the West.

[MARAB0D]

Interesting. In light of this, would you say that America may put pressure on Israel to enter the EU since it's become folklore that the US uses the EU to woo countries away from Russia?

But how can Israel enter EU? EU cannot accept a country with unsettled territorial claims, and Israel is not in Europe. Despite in todays circumstances membership in EU is rather a punishment than a reward.

[MasterAdam]

Nuclear capability is a privelage, not a right because when you are making weapons that wipe out cities and you and your government aren't exactly friendly, you know something's going on. Especially when your leader says he wants to wipe out the neighboring country.

[stevewinn]

I have read a number of the IAEA reports and religiously followed news coverage of Iran’s nuclear programme since late 2005. I have researched the period prior to that in some detail and am extremely aware of the big picture, of which the nuclear issue is not much more than a side-note.Your conclusion that Iran is “dragging its feet” is a misconstrual of the facts. I can only assume that you are referring to limitations which Iran has indeed placed on IAEA inspections and the lack of response to non-credible evidence of a weapons programme.Regarding limitations of inspections (including the still under-construction IR-40 heavy water reactor at Arak which you reference), this is due only to Iranian revoking of additional safeguard protocol over and above standard commitment to the NPT (i.e. Iran are complying with the NPT at the basic level). Regarding documents allegedly detailing Iranian nuclear weaponisation studies, these were provided by U.S. sources and there is doubt as to their authenticity – also, quite curiously, the IAEA have refused to present these documents to Iran.Iran have openly stated their position on the above issues and provided their reasoning; Iran is not “dragging its feet” but has firmly “planted its feet” in defence of its rights. The additional safeguard protocol has been revoked (more about this below) and evidence regarding a nuclear weaponisation programme is not forthcoming - there is no case to answer for.I really hope that people with a genuine interest in the subject take the time to thoroughly read the below because it explains how the facts are coming to be misconstrued and how we have arrived at the present day situation regarding Iran’s nuclear programme…On the surface, what appears to be a very reasonable suggestion is raised – “Iran could reassure the IAEA by allowing unlimited access to any nuclear facilities and workers.” So why don’t they then and how have we come to this situation where Iran is limiting inspections only to meet base requirements of the NPT? The answer is that Iran have tried this approach and it simply did not work – unjust pressure from the U.S. and certain EU states continued completely unabated thus resulting in the current state of affairs…In 2002 Iran disclosed the construction of nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak prior to the introduction of nuclear materials, in full accordance with their standing safeguard agreement. IAEA inspectors were permitted access to these facilities and in 2003 the agency declared that Iran had provided a “comprehensive” declaration of its nuclear activities, that there was “no evidence” of attempts to build nuclear weapons and at that time did not declare Iran in non-compliance with the NPT.For whatever reason, the U.S. were not satisfied with this outcome and President Bush declared the conclusion of the IAEA, “impossible to believe”. Pressure was brought from the West for the case to be referred to the U.N. Security Council due to the concern that Iran had not declared research work or construction of those aforementioned nuclear facilities prior to 2002 to the IAEA (something that was outside of Iran’s safeguard agreement at the time in any case).Iran’s response to this concern – they agreed to additional safeguard protocol, allowing expanded and intensified IAEA inspections, along with a complete suspension of uranium enrichment whilst negotiations took place. At the same time, Iran warned that should their nuclear programme still be referred to the Security Council despite this increased level of co-operation, then the additional safeguard protocol would be withdrawn.So from October 2003 for nearly two years, happy days – Iran has suspended uranium enrichment, negotiations are ongoing and IAEA inspections are unobstructed. What went wrong? Well, the Western powers were still not happy and in August 2005 the EU-3 proposed to Iran that uranium enrichment should be permanently suspended. Quite within their rights, Iran rejects the proposal and in January 2006 made their own offer to suspend enrichment for a further two years (whilst still adhering to the additional safeguard protocol). This offer was rejected out of hand by the EU-3 and the following month Iran was reported to the U.N. Security Council on the basis of the undeclared research work and construction of nuclear facilities prior to 2002 that I mentioned above (you know, those issues that were outside of Iran’s safeguard agreement at the time in any case).Oh dear, we know what happens next – Iran, true to their word, revoke the additional safeguard protocol and recommence uranium enrichment… and can you blame them after reasonable attempts to appease the West had got them precisely nowhere? The situation has continued to escalate with each new round of U.N. Security Council sanctions resulting in Iran placing ever further limitations on co-operation with the IAEA. And this brings us up to the current day where Iran are not complying with the IAEA as much as they could but are still meeting the basic obligations of the NPT.Of course all of the above gives people with an axe to grind, and those that would follow the line reported by the Western media, ammunition to claim that “Iran are not complying with weapons inspectors”. I ask those people to stop for a moment and seriously consider not only where full compliance got Iran but how, what and who exactly forced Iran into their current position. It is undeniable, as I said previously, that Iran has been put in an impossible position, engineered and exploited by the West.

After reading that am still of the opinion Iran is to blame for a lot of what's going on between it and the IAEA.

my initial reply back on a earlier page was to this part of your post, (below)

My question is this – reasonably, what can Iran do to prove the peaceful intentions of their nuclear programme? The conclusion I have come to is that Iran has been put in an impossible situation that has been engineered and exploited by the West.

in answer to that question - Iran should allow unlimited access and fully comply with the IAEA. i cant accept the logic of Iran was cooperating but the west still pushed for more - so now Iran doesn't fully cooperate or does the bare minimum required.

The question needed to be asked is, why doesn't Iran go one better, put two fingers up to the west and go above and beyond what the IAEA want. that to me would be Iran's trump card, and who could argue with that?