SHOULD IRAN BE EMANCIPATED FROM WESTERN FEARS

By Julian Sudre

Sanctimonious ballyhoo poured forth; a political stratagem that spouts the equal footing of a nation, which praises to the skies that "sustainable energy that is for the development of Iran and expansion of peace in the world", has extraodinarily pressed for recognition of its production of nuclear fuel on an industrial scale.

But such national declaration, perceived more as a political showmanship than technological progress, has made Iran, since the release of the British Marines, a country, by all accounts, frolicking with the grandees of the West in an attempt to thrust its imminent weight against [sectarian] politics that have been embraced by the Western world.

The riposte voiced by Mr Ahmadinejad on April 9 that the Iranian nation will defend its rights and that its path is irreversible, has exacerbated the United Nations Security Council that passed a resolution on March 24 to expand sanctions on Iran in an effort to curb its nuclear programme.

But so far, journalists who were invited to the main nuclear complex at Natanz were not shown any evidence that enrichment of uranium was under way. Nuclear experts were unclear by what Mr Larijani -- Iran's chief nuclear negotiator -- referred to when he said on Monday, April 9 that Iran injected gas.

According to inspectors, Iran is constructing 3,000 centrifuges as a first step towards 54,000. Although the jury is out when it comes to knowing if Iran has begun enriching uranium at the larger plant due to negotiators - Iranian an European - hammering out ways to resolve the standoff with the Security Council.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has thrown a curve ball to western experts, partly because the underlying question is whether the activity at the desert complex is real or a bluff.
It is believed that Iran is more inclined to score diplomatic points for the moment that to make technical advances.
So after so much razzle dazzle on the part of the Iranian President , defying three UN resolutions and setting his country on a collision course with the US, the question remains to be if the Security Council which gave 60 days (May 23) to Iran to comply with or face "further appropriate measures".

Now Iran argues that it needs nuclear power, and the whole process should be dealt only on a national level without the interference of a "tyrannical" United States. The Iranian President underscores the fact that he is hardly toeing the diplomatic line and further pressure from the US or the UK could get Iran marching along North Korea under the banner of nuclear programmes.
This is where the rub comes in, as under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a country has no rights to enrich its own fuel for civil nuclear power, under IAEA inspectors, and this is what worries the West as Iran could have the option to leave the NPT as North Korea did.

The article 10 gives a member state the right to declare that "extraordinary events" have "jeopardised the supreme interests of the state". It could give then three months notice to quit. This would leave Iran free to do what it wanted.
As a case in point, its parliament threatened to force its government to withdraw if the standoff was not resolved peacefully.

Undeniably the tension, could be cut with an Iranian knife or even anglo-american one in that respect, as critics have condemned the UK and US to have broken the NPT treaty by transferring nuclear technology from one to another. Evidently, both countries snapped back by maintaining that they were not effected by the NPT.

So When Mr Ahmadinejad stated he wanted Israel wiped off the map, and the latter country is known to be not part of the NPT but does have a nuclear bomb and so have India and Pakistan.
I surely can feel the Iranian's President having his blood boil with frustration and unfair treaments and slanted revolts from Western nations.

IS IRAN PLAYING FAST AND LOOSE WITH THE WEST?

By Julian Sudre

A particularly neurotic quid pro quo has triggered international tensions between Iran and Britain but the systematic recrimination has nonetheless added grist for the Iranian government's mill. In what, at root, remains to be an all-round, full-fledged diplomatic issue over the persistent British meddlesome move on Iraqi soil, has categorically infuriated its neighbouring country: Iran.

The captivity of 15 Royal Marines sailors in allegedly Iranian waters perceived as a bold affront to the West shows that nose-thumbing and obstinacy from Iran are only translated into a dish best eaten cold. And for a lack of interpreting Iran's mindset, both Bush and Blair are aptly served some diplomatically cold dishes.
Britain has been denounced for going hurriedly to the UN Security Council for a condemnation of the Iranians, maladroitly reporting the issue with downright boorishness only inflamed diplomatic ties with Tehran.

Iran is cocking a snook at the British government and its tactical propaganda has ridiculed the infantile demeanour of a self-centred, almost immature British Prime Minister.
Blair has reproached Iran of breaking international laws for detaining his sailors but in turn the UK breached the will of the UN when it invaded Iraq. As a result Mr Blair wields very little moral authority when it cites international law and the sabre-rattling of both the US and the UK over Iran's nuclear programme has with no question exacerbated the stakes, too.

The silver line in all of this remains the EU, which has more leverage and diplomatic links with Tehran; the economic leverage is an important asset knowing that the EU is Iran's biggest trading partner accounting for more than 40 per cent of its imports.
Much of this trade is underpinned by export credit gurantees from European governments.

As Robert Frisk put it in The Independent, it is a war of humiliation, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must be sniggering now with delight over a humiliated Blair that voiced he would move to the "next phase" if the Marines are not released.
The bangs and fizzes of Blair theatrical stage have come home to roost because of soit-disant sailors who pen spurious missives to the British goverment for being spotted in faustian Iranian waters in the Persian Gulf 11 days ago have come to demonstrate a follow-the-leader style that soon may have opened the floogates for further misunderstanding of Iran's hard-lined stance over the West.

That said, the political game has been played to fare-thee-well, and the Iranians must have taken a liking to it. Ten of thousand of Iranians were killed in the clutch of Saddam's regime, so perhaps the captivity of 15 British souls may have rendered Blair hot under the collar for having his plans stymied by a contrarian, holocaust-denying President but he should realise now that it is high time he withdrew his troops from Iraq before he falls from graces good and proper.