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.