Britain questioned the sincerity of the offer, made by Javad Vaeedi, deputy head of the Iran's Supreme National Security Council in a letter.

A senior British official, asking not to be named, dismissed it as "vacuous", saying that "our ministers have been quite clear that we now need to engage the Security Council."

"We're drafting a resolution, but we've not yet circulated it" beyond the governments of Britain, France and Germany, said the official.

Belgium has agreed to refer the Iran nuclear issue to the UN Security Council and supported the convening of an extraordinary meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Feb. 2 and Feb. 3.

Belgium "agrees with the European Trio and the European Union that the time has come for the UN Security Council to become involved and to use all the potential of its diplomacy," Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht conveyed the message in a written statement.

Meanwhile, Israel also vowed not to let the Iranians develop nuclear weapons. Israeli Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Tuesday that the Jewish state could not reconcile itself to the threat of a nuclear Iran.

"Under no circumstances, and at no point, can Israel allow anyone with these kinds of malicious designs against us, to have control of weapons of destruction that can threaten our existence," Olmert told a joint news conference with Israeli President Moshe Katsav.

"The state of Israel cannot reconcile itself to a situation in which there is a threat against us, just as, in my view, the nations of Europe and the United States cannot reconcile themselves," he said.

"Israel had acted and would continue to act in full consultation with these international elements," he said when asked the possibility of Israel's military intervention.

Comment: Except when it comes to its own nuclear arsenal...

Earlier on Tuesday, an Israeli delegation left for Moscow, Russia, to discuss Israel's concerns over Iran's nuclear armament plans.

Russia on Tuesday cautioned against imposing sanctions on Iran in the intensified dispute over its nuclear program.

"Sanctions are in no way the best or the only way to solve the problem," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told a press conference, adding the question of sanctions is "placing the cart in front of the horse."

But he again said the nuclear talks can only resume if Tehran reintroduces its moratorium on nuclear research.

"It is our common goal -- and I am convinced that it is the goal of any country concerned about security issues -- to guarantee the inviolability of the nuclear nonproliferation regime," Lavrov said.

Russia's stances over the issue were echoed by China and the Chinese Foreign Ministry said it was a "good option" to solve the Iran nuclear dispute by diplomatic means.

This accords with the interests of all parties, said Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Kong Quan at a regular press conference in Beijing.

Amid heightened pressures, Iran on Tuesday urged the IAEA to keep the Iranian nuclear case in the technical domain and free from political influences.

Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh, Iran's representative to the Vienna-based IAEA, made the call during his meeting with IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

Alaeddin Borujerdi, chairman of Iran's Majlis ( parliament) National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, also urged ElBaradei to make technical evaluation which is in line with the IAEA mandate rather than political statements on Iran's nuclear program.

"According to international law, Iran's nuclear dossier should not be referred to the UN Security Council," Borujerdi was quoted by the semi-official Mehr news agency as saying.

The Iranian calls came one day after officials of the European trio of Britain, France and Germany as well as the United States, Russia and China held a closed-door meeting in London to discuss the Iranian nuclear issue.

At the London meeting, the European trio informed the other participants of their intention to call for an emergency IAEA board of governors meeting on Feb. 2-3.

In President Bush's first State of the Union message, he essentially accused North Korea, Iran and Iraq of having clandestine nuke programs:

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.

I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

But – at that time – North Korea, Iran and Iraq were signatories to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and had their nuclear materials, facilities and activities subject to IAEA periodic inspection.

As for North Korea, under the so-called Agreed Framework, all existing "nuclear" activities had been "frozen" – under IAEA lock and seal – in return for a promise by the United States of alternative energy supplies.

Now, were ever the IAEA were to determine that a) Iraq was not in compliance with Gulf War Security Council resolutions, or that b) North Korea was not in compliance with the Agreed Framework, or that c) Iran was not in compliance with its Safeguards Agreement, it could ask the U.N. Security Council to impose "sanctions," which could – under the U.N. Charter – include the use of military force.

However, until the IAEA made such a determination and until the Security Council authorized the use of force, Bush would have to "stand by."

So, Bush announced his own National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction in late 2002, launched an unsanctioned pre-emptive attack on Iraq in March (to remove an imaginary nuke threat) and announced ad hoc his Proliferation Security Initiative, whose stated objective was to create a web of international "counter-proliferation partnerships" to prevent "proliferators" from "carrying out their trade in WMD and missile-related technology."

The PSI was "necessary" because "proliferators and those facilitating the procurement of deadly capabilities are circumventing existing laws, treaties and controls against WMD proliferation."

That is, the PSI supersedes existing treaties – including the NPT – and international law, itself.

That's why, at the Seventh NPT Review Conference last year, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi pleaded with the delegates to strengthen the three "pillars" of the treaty: a) nonproliferation, b) peaceful use of nuclear energy, and c) disarmament.

In particular:

Mr. President, the "inalienable right" of the states to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes emanates from the universally accepted proposition that scientific and technological achievements are the common heritage of mankind.

The promotion of the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes has been, therefore, one of the main pillars of the NPT and the main statutory objective of the IAEA.

It is unacceptable that "some" intend to limit the access to peaceful nuclear technology to an exclusive club of technologically advanced states under the pretext of "nonproliferation." This attitude is in clear violation of the letter and spirit of the treaty and destroys the fundamental balance which exists between the rights and obligations in the treaty.

Iran, for its part, is determined to pursue all legal areas of nuclear technology, including enrichment, exclusively for peaceful purposes and has been eager to offer assurances and guarantees that they remain permanently peaceful.

In fact, the previous November, Iran had agreed to negotiate with the Brits-French-Germans on a mutually acceptable agreement that "will provide objective guarantees" to the European Union that Iran's safeguarded nuclear program – explicitly to include uranium-enrichment activities voluntarily suspended for the duration – is exclusively for "peaceful purposes."

But, when the Brits-French-Germans finally got around to submitting their proposal, it explicitly required Iran "not to pursue fuel-cycle activities other than the construction and operation of light-water power and research reactors" – in complete violation of the spirit and letter of the so-called Paris Agreement.

Now, the IAEA was not a party to the negotiations. Nevertheless, under extreme U.S. pressure, the IAEA Board "urged" Iran to accept the offer even though, thereby, they would essentially be requiring Iran to forfeit its "inalienable" rights guaranteed by the NPT and the Iranian Safeguards Agreement.

Well, Iran didn't and has since resumed some of the Safeguarded activities they had voluntarily suspended.

The reaction of our secretary of state?

We agree that the Iranian regime's defiant resumption of uranium-enrichment work leaves the EU with no choice but to request an emergency meeting of the IAEA board of governors … to report Iran's noncompliance with its safeguards obligations to the U.N. Security Council.

What "noncompliance"?

And defying whom?


Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.

Putin, speaking after a meeting with German chancellor Angela Merkel, said "one of the main problems is the enrichment of uranium. We proposed to our Iranian partners to set up a joint enrichment venture on Russian territory. We have heard various opinions from our Iranian partners on that issue. One of them has come from the Foreign Ministry - our partners told us they did not exclude the implementation of our proposal."

Israel and the United States are seeking international action — probably sanctions — against Iran because of its nuclear program.

Iran’s extremist regime is believed to be using a civilian nuclear power program as a cover to develop atomic weapons. Iran denies the charge.

The EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany) admitted last week that two years of negotiating with Iran had ended in failure. The EU-3 has now joined the U.S. is calling for Iran’s referral to the United Nations Security Council.

International tensions heightened last week after Iran broke the seals on nuclear facilities and announced it would resume research on uranium enrichment, a process that produces nuclear fuel for reactors or can be used to make an atomic bomb.

Israel dispatched a high-level delegation to Moscow on Tuesday to express Israel’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. The trip reportedly was planned a month ago.

The delegation, headed by National Security Council chief Giora Eiland and the director general of Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission, Gideon Frank, will try to persuade Russia to refer Iran to the Security Council, media reports said.

The support of Russia and China is crucial since they are permanent, veto-wielding members of the Security Council, and thus could scuttle any effort to impose sanctions or other punitive measures on Iran.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev would not confirm media reports about the trip to Russia, but he said that Israel is eager to see the issue of Iran referred to the U.N. Security Council.

“We hope that the organized international community will, through the vehicle of the Security Council, present the extremist regime in Tehran with a clear dilemma. Either they totally cease their nuclear weapons development program or they seriously endanger their relationship with the community of nations,” Regev said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is pressing for Iran to agree to a proposal in which Iranian uranium would be enriched in Russia — under Russian supervision. Iran has said it is studying the proposal.

Acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Tuesday that Israel could not allow “anyone with these kinds of malicious designs against us, to have control of weapons of destruction that can threaten our existence.”

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Ahmadinejad also has called the Holocaust a myth and suggested that the Jewish State be relocated in Europe. Iran is planning to host a conference of Holocaust deniers soon.

On Monday Iran's culture ministry had issued the ban: "Taking into account CNN's actions contrary to professional ethics in the past years and their distortion of the president's comments during his press conference on Saturday, the activities of the CNN journalist in Tehran will end and no journalists from CNN will be authorised to come to Iran," the ministry said in a statement.

CNN said it was "very disappointed" by the ban, which it admitted was due to a translation error.

"CNN apologized on all its platforms which included the translation error, including CNN International, CNNUSA and CNN.com and also expressed its regrets to the Iranian Government and the Iranian ambassador to the UN," Nigel Pritchard, a spokesman for the company, said in a statement Monday from Atlanta, where CNN is based.

President Ahmadinejad wasted little time in accepting the apology.

"Taking into account the channel's apology, we are asking that the channel be authorised to resume its activities," he wrote in a letter to the culture minister.

Iran is facing the threat of being referred to the UN Security Council for resuming sensitive nuclear fuel research work which the West fears would give the regime the know-how to build a bomb.

Iran insists such work is entirely legal given it has signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has branded nuclear weapons "un-Islamic".

CNN does not have a permanent correspondent based in Tehran due to previous problems with Iranian authorities, notably several years ago when it broadcast images of an illegal party in Tehran where young people flouted regulations on dress and mixed with the opposite sex.

The channel's chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, was in Iran Monday for a short visit. But the mere fact she was granted a visa drew complaints from some hardline newspapers.

One newspaper also accused her of not adequately covering her head.

In April 2005, the Qatar-based Arabic language news channel Al-Jazeera was thrown out of Iran on accusations it was stirring up ethnic violence in its coverage of clashes between ethnic Arabs and security forces in southwestern Iran.

Article IV of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force on March 5, 1970, states:

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Thus, not only does Iran have an "inalienable right" to use nuclear energy for electricity, the NPT obligates the nuclear powers to "further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." Iran has gone beyond its obligations under the NPT to assure others of it's peaceful intentions.

According to Dr. Gordon Prather, a nuclear physicist who was the top scientist for the army in the Reagan years, in December, 2003, Iran had signed an Additional Protocol to its Safeguards Agreement and had volunteered to cooperate with the IAEA - pending ratification by the Iranian Parliament - as if the Additional Protocol were actually "in force."

Iran also offered, says Dr. Prather, "to voluntarily forego a complete fuel cycle . . . if the Europeans would get the United States to reverse the campaign of denial, obstruction, intervention, and misinformation."

Iran had already offered on March 23, 2005 a package of "objective guarantees" (developed by an international panel of experts) that met most of the demands later made by the conservative, Washington based Heritage foundation says Dr. Prather.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has found no "smoking gun" in Iran that would indicate a nuclear weapons program, says Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the IAEA.

Thirty years ago, Iran developing a nuclear capacity "caused no problems for the Americans because, at that time, the Shah was seen as a strong ally, and had indeed been put on the throne with American help", says Tony Benn, Britain's secretary of state for energy from 1975-79.

With world oil production approaching a peak it makes sense for Iran to look toward alternative means for generating electricity, and to reserve its oil supply for other purposes including increasing revenues from the export of the additional oil not used for electricity production.

A major reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "to install a pro-U.S. government in Iraq, establish multiple U.S. military bases before the onset of global Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency."

Iran is about to commit a far greater "offense" than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro for Iraq's oil exports in the fall of 2000. Beginning in March 2006, the Tehran government has plans to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-based international oil-trading mechanism," writes William R. Clark the author Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar.

According to Toni Straka, a Vienna, Austria-based financial analyst who runs a blog, The Prudent Investor, Iran's "proposal to set up a petroleum bourse was first voiced in Iran's development plan for 2000-2005. . . . Cheaper nuclear energy and increases in oil exports from the current level of roughly 2.5 million barrels a day will result in a profitable equation for Iran.

"Only one major actor stands to lose from a change in the current status quo: the US" says Toni Straka, "which with less than 5% of the global population, consumes roughly one third of global oil production."

"There could hardly be a clearer example of double standards than this, and it fits in with the arming of Saddam to attack Iran after the Shah had been toppled, and the complete silence over Israel's huge nuclear armoury," says Tony Benn.

Yes, given the technology and knowledge Iran could develop a nuclear weapon. But "under the current regime, there is nothing illicit for a non-nuclear state to conduct uranium-enriching activities . . . or even to possess military-grade nuclear material," says ElBaradei. Thirty-five to forty countries possess this capability.

Israel - not a signatory to the NPT - has had this capability for years, is believed to have several hundred nuclear bombs, the missiles to deliver them to Iran, and it is no secret that it has been threatening strikes on Iran's Bushehr nuclear electric power plant - just as it launched an unprovoked and illegal attack on Iraq's, Osirak nuclear electric power plant in 1981.

U.S. news media's timidity was a significant factor in the launching of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. This invasion has claimed the lives of over 2000 U.S. soldiers and over 180,000 Iraqis. It has left uncounted others wounded and maimed, it has destroyed much of Iraq's - indeed the world's - cultural heritage, and is likely to cost U.S. taxpayers "between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, up to 10 times more than previously thought," according to a report written by Joseph Stiglitz - recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics.

John Ward Anderson of the Washington Post wrote on January 13: "The foreign ministers of Britain, Germany and France called Thursday for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council for violating its nuclear treaty obligations." Neither he nor the editors or ombudsman at the Post have responded to our request to identify which "nuclear treaty obligations" is Iran violating.

Writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jack Boureston and Charles D. Ferguson say, "In pursuing a civilian nuclear program, Iran has international law on its side. . . . The best way to know the full extent of Iran's nuclear doings is to offer it help."

In fact, there are a lot of parallels between Ahmadinejad and the Christian right in the US. Just as the Republicans have succeeded in deflecting the anger and anxieties of many working class Americans onto “cultural” issues such as abortion and stem-cell research, so Ahmadinejad won last year’s presidential elections by presenting himself as the champion of Iran’s poor.

Strategy

Ahmadinejad targeted the Iranian establishment, symbolised by his main rival, ex-president Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, for getting rich from the country’s oil revenues.

In any case, it isn’t Ahmadinejad who is calling the shots in Iran. The Iranian regime’s strategy of gradually resuming its uranium enrichment programme has been run by Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.

The Financial Times (FT) reports, “Officials in Iran make clear this strategy is approved by the leadership as a whole, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, who holds the last word on matters of state. A well-placed senior official told the FT last month that Mr Larijani answered to Ayatollah Khamanei, and not Mr Ahmadinejad, who had ‘no role’ in security policy.”

My guess is that the top Iranian leaders do intend to develop a nuclear capability. The contrast between the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, who had no weapons of mass destruction, and the impunity enjoyed by the North Korean regime, which almost certainly has some nuclear warheads, gives them a strong incentive to copy the latter.

Whether or not this assessment is correct, the interesting question is what the US and its allies can do to punish Iran’s defiance. The invasion of Iraq has strengthened Iran’s hand by making a military attack on it much more difficult.

Not only are the Pentagon’s forces bogged down in Iraq, but the most powerful political force in the country, the Shia establishment in the south, is closely aligned to Iran. Bush and the Europeans are now talking about imposing UN sanctions on Iran, but it’s hard to see how this can have much effect.

To quote the Financial Times again, “Iran has worked hard to diversify suppliers and encourage self-sufficiency during a 26 year embargo. And with oil past $60 a barrel and rising, Iranian officials doubt that the West—much less energy hungry Asia — will block exports from the world’s fourth biggest supplier.”

This doesn’t mean that the US, or its Israeli proxy, won’t attack Iran. Iraq has shown there are almost no limits to the stupidity and arrogance of the Bush administration. But the results are likely, once again, to demonstrate the limits of US power.

After seven hours of talks Britain, France and Germany announced they are to seek Iran's referral to the security council at a meeting on February 2 and 3 of the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Javier Solana, the EU foreign affairs chief, said he was "confident" Russia and China will back the referral.

But both countries expressed serious reservations about future handling of the crisis, in particular the prospect of the security council imposing sanctions on Iran.

Russia, though slowly shifting towards the west's position, is still holding out hope that Tehran may yet accept a compromise. China, which has close economic ties with Iran, is the most hardline in opposing tough action against Tehran.

One European diplomat said: "What is really crucial is support from Russia and China. China does not look too good. China is the major obstacle."

He added that China, which has a veto on the security council, felt squeezed between pressure from the west and dependency on Iranian oil.

A British diplomat said: "There was serious concern about Iranian moves to restart enrichment-related activities contrary to the appeals of the international community not to do so." He added that "there was a thorough exchange of views" on the role of the security council.

The crisis escalated last week when Iran broke seals on uranium enrichment equipment. Iran denies that it has a covert nuclear weapons programme.

The London meeting between senior officials from the US, Britain, France, China and Russia - the five permanent members of the UN security council - plus Germany, was held to try to avoid a repetition of the security council divisions that marked the run-up to the war in Iraq. The west's fear is that China could exercise its veto on Iran's behalf.

The Europeans have begun drafting a resolution to put before the IAEA. "It's short. It calls for [IAEA chief Mohamed] ElBaradei to report Iran to the UN security council," one diplomat said. The western nations have a simple majority in favour of referral but are hoping that Russia and China will back it. The US and Europeans are focusing on Russia in the hope that if Moscow backs their approach, then China will also follow.

President Vladimir Putin, after meeting Angela Merkel on her first visit to Moscow as German chancellor, signalled exasperation with Iran's decision to break the seals. Indicating he was moving towards the west's position, he said: "As for Russia, and Germany, and our European partners and the US, we have very close positions on the Iranian problem."

But he cautioned against "abrupt, erroneous steps" and suggested the issue could still be defused without reference to the UN. He said Iran has not excluded the possibility of accepting a Russian compromise in which Tehran would conduct uranium enrichment in Russia rather than Iran. "One of the main problems is the enrichment of uranium. We proposed to our Iranian partners to set up a joint enrichment venture on Russian territory ... our partners told us they did not exclude the implementation of our proposal."

But China, speaking before the London meeting, said resorting to the security council would "complicate the issue", citing Iran's threat to hit back by halting snap UN inspections at its atomic plants.

The Chinese foreign minister said "all relevant sides should remain restrained and stick to solving the Iranian nuclear issue through negotiations".

Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, said that dialogue with Moscow and Beijing was of "crucial importance".

Iran yesterday banned CNN journalists from the country after the broadcaster misquoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying that Iran wanted nuclear weapons, the ISNA students news agency said.

What happens next

Vienna Europeans plan emergency IAEA meeting on February 2. Iran will try to avoid referral to security council by reopening talks with Russia

New York Once before the security council, the resolution could tell Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. If ignored, talks would get tougher as US and Europe sought sanctions

Tehran Iran could then scrap deal on intrusive nuclear checks, and disrupt oil supplies if sanctions imposed

US/Israel Air strikes could begin to delay Iran's work on nuclear weapon.