Bangladesh To Set Up Nuclear Plant

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has provided Bangladesh the assurance to assist in establishing nuclear power station in Rooppur. Recently, IAEA Director General Eukia Amano assured the issue in a meeting with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. It is to mention that the proposal of building nuclear power station in Rooppur was approved in the national parliament on 9 December 2010. Meanwhile during Sheikh Hasina's tour to Russia, a mutual agreement was signed between two countries regarding establishment of nuclear power plant in Bangladesh. According to the source, the proposed power station in Rooppur is expected to produce 1,000 MW of power per year at a cost of 100 billion takas (Tk). It is to be mentioned here that the preliminary estimate of establishing nuclear plants in different countries ends up in few times higher than the projected cost. However, a power station producing 250 MW power costs Tk 12 billion. That means, with Tk 100 billion, eight power stations of this sort can be developed where in aggregate 2,000 MW of power can be generated.
Expensive and Risky Venture
In addition, from the estimate that International Energy Agency (IEA) has given on establishment cost of power stations based on coal, gas, and nuclear materials, it can be assumed that the construction cost of nuclear power stations is much higher. As per the estimates provided by IEA, a 250 MW coal based power station costs Tk 17.75 billion. That means, with Tk 100 billion, six power stations of this sort can be developed where in aggregate 1,400 MW of power can be generated. In addition, as per the IEA's estimates, a 250 MW gas based power station costs Tk 10.65 billion.
So, with the said fund, nine power stations generating 250 MW of power can be established. Besides, the establishment cost for solar and wind based power stations are lesser. Moreover, it has been found in different researches that the management cost of nuclear power station is few times higher than that of the power stations based on oil, coal, gas, water, wind, or solar energy. There is no risk of health hazards. Then why is Bangladesh moving toward this expensive and risky venture?
Matter of Honor for Country
The energy adviser to the prime minister, Tawfiq-E-Elahi Chowdhury said that it was a matter of honor for the nation to build a nuclear power station. In the same week, Yafes Osman state minister for science, information and communication technology, said that although Bangladesh is in earthquake risk zone, the nuclear power station in Rooppur will be built with the capability to persist earthquake measuring up to 10 in Richter Scale. He could not inform anything on whether any research has been conducted regarding the issue or on what scientific basis he provided the information. Normally, question has arisen on the suitability of such project costing Tk 100 billion. Extensive debate on nuclear wastages, and financial and health risk was going on prior to the current debate. Debate was going on over different aspects of profit and loss, excessive operating costs, disposal of nuclear wastages, and health risks associated with this nuclear power plant costing four times higher than the other means of power generation. However, the Bangladesh Government is ignoring the opinions of the specialists and the general people; this is a serious risk not only to the current generation but also to the future generation. The critical picture we find from the history and the present phenomenon tends that one such project is sufficient to destroy Bangladesh.
Dr Mahbub Ullah, professor at Development Studies Department in Dhaka University, said that the burning issue was whether it would be appropriate to carry on the agreement with Russia regarding establishment of nuclear power plant. Bangladesh is a very densely populated country. In such a country, if any explosion happens because of human error or natural calamity, it would be impossible to save people from the radiation that will be generated. In one side, many people will die instantly; on the other hand the curse of radiation is to be carried out for generations. Because of this curse, birth of retarded children and the severity of incurable diseases like cancer will grow to such an extent that it will be impossible for Bangladesh to bear. We must have to be careful after the incidents occurred in Japan and Chernobyl.
Fear of Devastation
Another source says that, taking the issues like Uranium mining, building nuclear reactor, cooling the towers, transportation of nuclear wastages under consideration, there is no doubt among the scientists that nuclear power plant endangers the atmosphere, environment and the animals. Nuclear power plants were excluded from Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Through a research in 2004, John William and Phillip Smith have shown that a nuclear power plant emits one third Green House Gas than a modern natural gas-based power station. In addition to few thousand times harmful Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) is released from the Carbon-Dioxide of nuclear power stations. Alleged for environment pollution, CFC was proscribed internationally in "Montreal Protocol." Although every year the nuclear reactors emit around a trillion Curie (unit of radiation) radio-active isotopes in the atmosphere. Neutral gases such as Krypton, Xenon, and Argon are in the list of those isotopes. These isotopes are dissolvable in the fats and can be transferred into the fatty tissues of the body including the genital organs through inhalation of the people residing in the adjacent areas of a reactor. Moreover, Gamma ray that radiates from the radioactive atoms can create sudden impacts on ovary and the sperm that may cause genetic diseases. There is a hydrogen isotope named Tritium that creates radioactive water after reaction with oxygen. This water may go into the DNA molecules of human body through skins, lungs, and digestive system that may end into disaster.
In 2008, the German Government conducted a research on the children residing in the adjacent areas of 16 of their commercial nuclear power plants. The finding of the research was that the closer you go to the nuclear plant, the higher the risk becomes of children getting attacked in cancer, especially leukemia. The research also shows that the risk of children residing within 5-km circumference of the nuclear power station getting attacked in leukemia is almost double than that of the children living elsewhere. It is found in the research that in the localities adjacent to the nuclear reactor, death rate in breast cancer is 26-28 persons per hundred thousand; whereas the average rate of death in breast cancer is 20-22 persons per hundred thousand. This research has been conducted in the United States that produces the maximum amount of nuclear power in the current age. In the research of Energy Department in the United States, it was found that the death rate in breast cancer has grown 37 percent from 1950-54 to 1985-89 in the areas near to the oldest nuclear plants; whereas throughout America, on an average the same rate increased by only 1 percent.
On 26 April 1986, one of the four reactors exploded in a nuclear power plant in the Chernobyl of Kiev city in former Soviet Union. Radioactive molecules spread out in Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, and many other regions of Eastern Europe. Chernobyl city is abandoned till now. As per the updated information, the overall loss in the Chernobyl accident crossed $100 billion. It took $4 billion only to close down the power plant.
A nuclear accident occurred in Three Mile Island of Pennsylvania in United States on 28 March of 1979. After that accident, the United States has not built any more nuclear power plants till now. Immediately after the Three Mile Island accident demand was raised to ban nuclear power plant in the Sweden Referendum in 1980. After the Chernobyl incident in 1986, everyone thought that the days of nuclear power plants are over. Germany not only stopped making new nuclear power plants but also closing down the expired plants. Belgium, Taiwan, and Japan are also gradually moving away from nuclear power production. Even the people of France that get 77 percent of their power from nuclear power are immensely pressurizing their government to close down their nuclear power stations.
In May 2000, the Aangra-1 nuclear plant of Brazil emitted thousands of gallons of radioactive saline water since their machines frequently used to get out of order and this news has not been published in Brazil. The company in charge of management of the plant did not inform the government. As a result plenty of people were exposed to health risk.
Germany closed down seven of their nuclear plants after the devastation in Japan. However, some other countries including France and the Philippines closed down few nuclear power plants prior to the incident in Japan.
Importing Nuclear Power Plant
When everyone is closing down nuclear plants one after another, the Bangladesh Government is planning to be "honored" by building nuclear power plant. Bangladesh wants to import nuclear power plant of model VVR-1000 from Russia. Russia will only sell reactor and its raw material Uranium. Even if we disregard the overall risk including health and financial aspects, question remains whether Bangladesh has the capability to install, operate, and maintain the nuclear power plant that it is going to purchase from Russia. The source of fuel for producing nuclear power production is Uranium. It is questionable that why Bangladesh is trying to generate nuclear power without having the capability to process the raw material of Uranium.
The one time investment for installing nuclear power plant is huge. Moreover the estimate in the beginning does not remain fixed. The amount of investment increases as the days go by. Bangladesh will have to avail suppliers' credit for the nuclear power plant. Until today, in all countries, including Bangladesh that initiated projects availing suppliers' credit or credits from different banks and donor agencies, the ruler class was benefited; people have become more indebted.
If we see the example of Brazil, the establishment cost of their first nuclear power plant established in Rio de Janeiro in 1970 was $320 million. In 1983, after the installation of the plant, total expenditure stood $2.10 billion. In 1983, the establishment cost of their second nuclear plant was estimated to be $1.60 billion. After 18 years of the stipulated time, its cost became $10 billion. It took $20 billion to finish only 35 percent of the third nuclear plant. Later on, the Brazilian Government adjourned the project.
Possibility of Mass Destruction
It is not possible for a third world country like Bangladesh to check the probable mass destruction arising out of any accidents in the nuclear power plant. A developed country like Japan even fails to avoid the crisis in the nuclear power stations. The bigger accidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island took place in the countries standing in the apex in terms of technological advancement. All these countries developed nuclear power plants based on their own skills. It cannot even be imagined that a sophisticated technology like nuclear power plant will run smoothly in a country like Bangladesh where simple power stations based on water, oil, and gas frequently get out of order and remain unfixed for years.
However, not only the nuclear power stations of Bangladesh, it is also necessary to close down the power stations of India and Pakistan. In India, 4,780 MWs of power is generated in six of their power stations utilizing 20 nuclear reactors. Five more power plants are under construction. There are three nuclear power plants in Pakistan from which 2.4 percent of the total power is produced. The concerned people in India have been protesting for long against their nuclear power plants.

Iran Continues Nuke Program: Threat to World Peace

Iran appears to have worked on designing an atomic bomb and may still be conducting secret research, the UN nuclear watchdog said in a report likely to raise tensions in the Middle East.
Citing what it called "credible" information from member states and elsewhere, the agency listed a series of activities applicable to developing nuclear weapons, such as high explosives testing and development of an atomic bomb trigger.
The report immediately exposed splits among the big powers about how best to handle the row over Iran's nuclear aims: the United States signaled tougher sanctions on Teheran but Russia said the report could hurt chances for diplomacy.
It was preceded by Israeli media speculation that the Jewish state may strike against its arch foe's nuclear sites. But Defence Minister Ehud Barak has recently said that no decision had been made on embarking on a military operation.
Iran, which denies it wants nuclear weapons, condemned the findings of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as "unbalanced" and "politically motivated."
IAEA Chief Yukiya Amano is "playing a very dangerous game," Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador, said.
Teheran's history of hiding sensitive nuclear activity from the IAEA, continued restrictions on IAEA access and its refusal to suspend enrichment, which can yield fuel for atom bombs, have drawn four rounds of U.N. sanctions and separate punitive steps by the United States and European Union.
The report detailed evidence apparently showing concerted, covert efforts to acquire the capability to make atomic bombs. Some of the cited research and development work by Iran have both civilian and military applications, but "others are specific to nuclear weapons," said the report.
Western powers have pressured the major oil producer, which says its nuclear program is aimed at increasing electricity generation, over its record of hiding sensitive nuclear activity and lack of full cooperation with UN inspectors.
The United States will look to put more pressure on Iran if it fails to answer questions raised by the IAEA report, a senior US official said in Washington. "That could include additional sanctions by the United States. It could also include steps that we take together with other nations," the official told reporters.
Russia criticized the report, saying it would dim hopes for dialogue with Teheran on its nuclear ambitions and suggesting it was meant to scuttle chances for a diplomatic solution.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said: "We have serious doubts about the justification for steps to reveal contents of the report to a broad public, primarily because it is precisely now that certain chances for the renewal of dialogue between the 'sextet' of international mediators and Teheran have begun to appear."
Russia and the United States are among the six big powers, also including China, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, which have been involved in stalled attempts to find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear dispute with Iran.
Sanction on Iran’s Energy Sector
The US Government has announced that it will slap sanctions directly on Iran's energy sector and warned the financial firms in the world against dealing with the Islamist state.
"Recent days have brought new evidence that Iran's leaders continue to defy their international obligations and violate international norms," US State Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at the State Department, referring to the recent alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States, and report by the UN nuclear watchdog on Iran's nuclear program.
Iran and its powerful ally Russia have slammed new Western sanctions imposed on Teheran over its suspect nuclear program, saying they were illegal and futile.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry stated that the unilateral measures against Iran's financial, petrochemical and energy sectors announced Monday by the United States, Britain and Canada amounted merely to propaganda and psychological They were "reprehensible" and would prove ineffective, it said.
Russia -- which with China had blocked any possibility of the Western steps going before the UN Security Council for approval -- took a sterner view, saying in a Foreign Ministry statement the sanctions were "unacceptable and against international law."
The declarations set the stage for a hardening of diplomacy over Iran and its nuclear program. The issue has already generated speculation that Israel is mulling air strikes against Iranian nuclear sites.
The country is already subject to four sets of UN sanctions designed to force it to give up uranium enrichment, along with additional, unilateral sanctions by the United States and the European Union (EU).
The latest sanctions put more pressure on Iran's financial sector, with the United States and Britain invoking anti-terrorist laws to target Iran's central bank and other financial institutions.
Rejection of UN Report
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dismissed a report from the United Nations' nuclear agency that highlighted concerns Teheran had worked on designing an atomic bomb, saying it was based on "invalid" information from Washington.
"You should know that this nation will not pull back even a needle's width from the path it is on," he said in a speech carried live on state television.
However, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Iran remains ready to engage in negotiations with world powers concerned about its nuclear program, but only if the other parties show it due respect.
The EU may approve fresh sanctions against Iran within weeks, after a UN agency said Teheran had worked to design nuclear bombs, EU diplomats said.
Iran denies trying to build atom bombs and its Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said any US or Israeli attack on its nuclear sites would be met with 'iron fists'.
The United States and Israel have refused to rule out any option to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear arsenal.
Diplomats in Brussels said preliminary discussions among EU capitals on new measures had begun and plans may be ready for EU foreign ministers in Brussels to approve on December 1.
Iran already faces a wide range of the UN sanctions, as well as some imposed unilaterally by the United States and the EU.
New EU sanctions would be a significant part of Western efforts to ratchet up pressure on Teheran after the UN nuclear watchdog's report this week that laid bare a trove of intelligence suggesting Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
Teheran’s Confidence
Iran’s confidence emanates from the fact that its nuclear facilities are supported by Russia and China. Or is it that Ahmadinejad is sitting on a nuclear weapon facility already? Well, this is unlikely because nuclear weapons and the delivery system cannot be made overnight and in such secrecy.
The point is that Ahmadinejad’s brave anti-US postures must, in the natural course, make those who dream of an end to the US hegemony and those who detest George Bush, the war-monger, look up to him. And in that context express disgust over the Manmohan Singh regime’s decision to kow-tow the United States and its allies.
A generation that grew up detesting the United States and participated in umpteen demonstrations and other kinds of agitation against the successive regimes in the US — the Vietnam War some 40 years ago and against the Invasion of Iraq now — must feel happy that they are not alone.
Other View
Economic sanctions would hurt the West more than Iran. The premise of this argument is that any sanctions imposed on Teheran would result in a dramatic rise in oil prices, hurting the economies of Western countries and undermining public support for the sanctions.
WhileIran holds the world’s second-largest reserves of oil and gas and is the fourth-largest oil producer, it is in fact a net importer of refined oil products, including gasoline. And internal consumption of oil products in Iran is growing by 5.2 percent a year, far faster than its ability to increase refining capacity. This means that the levels of imports necessary to make the Iranian economy function will only increase over time.
Russia and China would never go along with sanctions. While persuading Russia and China to support sanctions might take some time and effort, these countries are unlikely to prove reliable allies for the Iranian regime.
Russia has little strategic interest in supporting the Iranian cause. While it may see Iran as a useful tool for balancing U.S. power in the Middle East, it has far more to fear from Iran’s nuclear program in the long term than does the United States or Europe. Iran’s support of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism across the Middle East and Central Asia is a direct challenge to Russian interests in territories that were part of the old Soviet empire and are still considered by Moscow to be within its sphere of influence.
Iran might respond to sanctions by irrationally lashing out at Israel and other U.S. allies. One of the most dangerous assumptions about Iran is that it is acting irrationally or is led by people who do not calculate the potential costs and benefits of their actions.

Manmohan-Obama Meeting: Efforts To Accelerate Bilateral Ties

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met US President Barack Obama in Bali (Indonesia). The Indian prime minister said that India had gone "some way" to allay the concerns of US firms by notifying rules for nuclear business and any specific grievance would be addressed within the "four corners" of Indian laws.
The issue came up during the over one-hour meeting between Singh and Obama here against the backdrop of apprehensions among US firms that Indian liability laws were not supplier friendly.
"I explained to him (Obama) that we have a law in place. Rules have been formulated. These rules will lie before our Parliament for 30 days. Therefore, we have gone some way to respond to the concerns of US companies and within the four corners of the law of the land we are willing to address any specific grievances," Singh told reporters after his meeting with Obama.
The rules, which were notified on Wednesday, make it clear among other things that there would be no unlimited or unending liability on part of the suppliers.
Obama, a day after India signaled it was willing to meet US and other potential nuclear supplier groups halfway by limiting the suppliers’ liability to a shorter period.
US-India-Australia Trilateral Relationship

Obama, in his opening remarks, with a visibly pleased Singh standing by his side, pointedly said the US would focus on how Washington and Delhi could work together “not only on bilateral issues but also in multilateral fora like the East Asia Summit, which we believe can be the premier arena for us to work together on a wide range of issues such as maritime security or non-proliferation, as well as expand the kind of cooperation on disaster relief and humanitarian aid that’s so important.”His remarks mark the culmination of a series of carefully calibrated statements that have pegged India and Australia as part of an emerging “robust, principled US-India-Australia trilateral relationship” in the Asia-Pacific, where the US has shown renewed interest.The prime minister publicly indicated the liability bill was on the agenda, and said as much to the media after the talks with Obama. “I explained to him we have a law in place and rules have been formulated... These will lie in Parliament for 30 days. We have gone some way to respond to concerns of American companies and within the four corners of the law of the land, we are willing to address any specific grievances.”
The prime minister said he had also told Obama that India was ready to ratify the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC), another issue that the US wants to be done as part of implementation of the civil nuclear deal. "That's where the matter stands," he said.
Sources said the issue came up during the course of review of implementation of decisions taken by the two sides. They claimed that Obama did not respond and merely "noted" the prime minister's statement.
Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act
Under the Rules of Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act, foreign suppliers of nuclear material to Indian nuclear power plants would not be held liable for accidents caused by defective or faulty equipment supplied by them if the accident takes place after a guarantee period specified by them.
During the meeting, the first since Obama visited India last November, the two leaders also talked about strengthening the bonds of strategic ties put in place during the historic visit.
The two leaders also discussed issues related to the region as well as Singh's recent meeting with Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani in Maldives and steps being taken to improve bilateral ties.
In the context of regional situation, the Prime Minister and Obama discussed Afghanistan. He apprised the US President about President Hamid Karzai's visit to India and the Strategic Partnership Agreement signed between the two countries.
Issues related to Iran's nuclear program were also discussed in the backdrop of damning report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director general, with the Prime Minister saying the issue should be dealt with diplomatically.

Indian Nuclear Installations, Reserves Highly Insecure

Recently, India and France signed a nuclear deal, under which France would provide two nuclear plants to India. The increasing Indian nuclear tendency raises several significant questions regarding security of the nuclear program. India has always been censuring Pakistani nuclear program so as to divert the global attention from the threats posed by its own nuclear program.

All Indian nuclear installations are situated in the eastern part of the country, where several separatist movements, including naxalites (Maoist guerrillas), are on their zenith. Similarly the Indian missile installations are situated either in the areas affected by naxalites or in those areas where Hindu extremists are active. Neither is the Indian Government's writ established nor is the Indian law enforced in 90 percent of these areas. The area has, rather become a no-go zone for the Indian Government.

Grim Situation
Koteshwar Rao, a Maoist leader, has recently claimed that they would get independence before 2050. If the naxalites can stop the Indian security forces from coming in any area, they can also blackmail the entire world by occupying the nuclear installations and material. According to the Indian Government sources, Uranium Processing Plant, Uranium Corporation of India Limited, Tiljer Heavy Water Plant, and Institute of Physics Jharkand are situated in the area where naxalites have complete control and their activities are at a premium.

Most of the Indian missiles installations are in Chandigarh, where the Sikh separatists, under the banner of Babar Khalsa are running an independence movement. Similarly, the reserves of Prithvi ballistic missiles are in the disputed valley of Jammu and Kashmir.

Ajit Dowel, former director of the IB [Intelligence Bureau], says that there are strong possibilities that naxalites direct their attention to illegal trade of uranium in order to enhance their resources. There are several people in the circles of the Indian nuclear scientists who are sympathetic to the naxalites, and provide covert support to the naxalites in using and illegal trade of Uranium. M. Mahalingam, scientist at Kaiga Nuclear Power Plant Karnataka, was one of them. Mahalingam mysteriously disappeared in June 2009, and his body was found in a pond a few days later.

It was presumed that he had committed suicide. In fact, RAW (Research and Analysis Wing), the Indian intelligence agency, had arrested Mahalingam for suspected links with the naxalites. However, he died as a result of the third degree torture during interrogation.
Illegal Trade of Nuclear Material
India has made no special security arrangements for its nuclear installations. Therefore, its installations meet accidents every now and then. The incident at Kaiga Nuclear Power Plant is one of these. In this incident, 90 officials fell ill as a result of drinking radiated water. In the nuclear installations throughout the country, 134 untoward incidents occurred during the 1990s. The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board claimed in 1998 that 28 incidents had occurred in nine power stations. However, none of these incidents was of a serious nature.

Nevertheless, the fact is that plants were shut because of fire eruption in five of these incidents. In one of the incidents, a scientist died when poisonous gas spread in a heavy water plant. Atomic pilfering, smuggling of nuclear fuel and mysterious deaths of scientists have become a regular feature of Indian nuclear plants and installations.

The Mumbai police arrested three people with large quantities of uranium on 7 December 2009. Similarly, the Bihar police arrested a group of smugglers near the Nepal's border on 19 February 2008. The police recovered 4-kg of uranium from their custody. The West Bengal police arrested two people and recovered more than 200 gm of semiprocessed uranium on 27 August 2001. The Mumbai police recovered 8.3-kg of uranium on 1 May 2000.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the police arrested eight people on charges of involvement in illegal trade of nuclear material on 13 November 2008. Three uranium rods were also recovered from their custody. According to the IAEA sources, the Indian police recovered 57 pounds of uranium on 7 November 2000, and arrested two people for illegal trade of nuclear material.

All these incidents prove that Indian Nuclear Energy Commission does not have complete control over nuclear material. Moreover, its monitoring system is also quite deficient. As far as smuggling of nuclear material and the relevant resources is concerned, India is not behind any country. According to the CNN report of 26 January 2003, NEC (Naranjo Engineering Consultants) engineers, an Indian company, sent 10 consignments to Iraq, including very sensitive tools for the nuclear plant. Indian nuclear installations are threatened by the terrorists as well.

Security Measures
Fire erupted mysteriously in Bhabha Atomic Research Center on 29 December 2009. Later investigations proved that goons from the racket of Chhota Rajan, a Mumbai underworld don, had set it ablaze in collaboration with some less known serving as well as expelled police officials. Such incidents cast further doubts regarding the Indian nuclear program and nuclear installations. These incidents also raise questions as to how the United States and the Western countries can sign deals with India, in spite of such security arrangements of nuclear program.

These incidents are slap on the face of the Western media persons and governments. These incidents prove that Indian nuclear installations and reserves, rather the entire infrastructure, is highly insecure, and possibilities that extremists might gain access to it are far greater as compared to that of Pakistani nuclear infrastructure. India cannot boast the security measures of its nuclear program and its insecurity is a food for thought for the IAEA and also for the entire world.

Brazil, Turkey Emerge New Diplomatic Powers

By persuading Iran to ship 1,200 kilograms of low enriched uranium out of the country and receive in return high enriched uranium for use in a reactor in Iran, Turkey and Brazil made a meaningful diplomatic achievement by outwitting the efforts of Western powers which are more akin to intimidation and have an undertone of a war threat.

Nuclear Issue
Reaching a solution through negotiation to overcome the deadlock of the issue of Iran's nuclear program is for the interest of regional and global security.

We should praise Brazil and Turkey, two non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for their diplomatic wisdom that they managed to convince Iran to negotiate on the nuclear issue and agree to move away the uranium.

Unfortunately this issue has not won respect or compliment from the Western media, which consider it as too late since the US and Israel have had their strategy in place to attack Iran in the process of imposing more stringent sanctions on Iran.

The President of Brazil, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who will step down this year after holding the post for two terms has successfully led his country towards the status of a big power via this proactive diplomatic approach.

In fact, prior to this, when there was a serious tension between Venezuela, Ecuador and Colombia in 2008, Lula intervened as a neutral mediator crossing the boundaries of political ideology in Latin American countries.

Palestine-Israel Issue
In the endeavor to win a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Lula is also aware that his country should be seen as playing the role of problem solver rather than a symbolic role to show its strengths in terms of economic growth and military power.

He has also made the effort to help resolve the conflict between Israel and Palestine through high-profile diplomatic mission in March this year as a neutral party.

In addition, Lula already gained a status on a par with Middle East Quartet and he proposed a friendly soccer match between the Brazilian national team and the Palestinian-Israeli mixed team. The Quartet is formed by the United States, Russia, the European Union (EU) and UN and involved in mediating the peace process between Palestine and Israel.

Although Turkey is not a developing country growing like Brazil, it is also emerging as a respectful power in Middle East.

Ankara also became the mediator in the negotiation process of Israel-Syria conflict to resolve the old settlements issue between the two countries. Turkey also played a role in easing the tension between Hamas and Fatah. Turkey is in a better position than Egypt to play a diplomatic role in resolving the Palestine-Israel issue.

It seems Brazil and Turkey are portraying themselves as the new actors in international relations particularly in diplomatic efforts.

Resolving Deadlock
Amazingly, within a short period, Brazil and Turkey have successfully resolved the deadlock, which the West, UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had been working on for a long time. More surprisingly, Iran which had been recalcitrant and insistent to enrich the uranium within the country had changed its position because of the persuasion of Brazil and Turkey.

US Persuading China, Russia To Support Sanctions on Iran

Through their diplomacy, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva and Turkish Prime Minister, Tayeb Erdogan have persuaded Iran to hand over half of its semi-enriched uranium to Turkey and in return, it will be given enriched fuel for research and medical requirements for one year. While it will be able to enrich up to 20 percent of the remaining uranium.

Thus, Iran concluded an agreement on seven conditions with Turkey and Brazil. Keeping in view the US campaign to impose sanctions on Iran, the Brazilian president and Turkish prime minister, convinced Iran to abandon its previous stance so that some crisis may not emerge in the Gulf because the US was getting ready to launch a sudden air attack on Iran under the pretext of Iran's nuclear weapons program and was urging the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to impose the stringent sanctions on Iran. So far as Britain and France are concerned, they are bent on dismantling Iran's peaceful nuclear program out of their ethnic and religious prejudice, but Russia and China differed on imposing stringent sanctions on Iran.

Warning and Threats
And the US had overcome these differences by making deals. The US assured that it would not take up the issue of human rights violations in Russia while deferred its demand from China to revise its currency exchange rate. It appears that the US has persuaded Russia for the UN Security Council resolutions against Iran. Its proof is its (Russia's) dissatisfaction over the agreement concluded by Turkey and Brazil. It led to bitterness between Iran and Russia and the Russian foreign policy advisor, responded to the criticism of Russia by Iranian President Ahmedinejad with impoliteness. He warned the Iranian president that no president can retain his power by the force of his rhetoric as, what he said, was clear from 2,500 years of Iranian history.

This comes true in case of Russia that the Soviet Czar and his successor communist rulers failed to rule over Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan for more than 150 years and the local population drove them out and now their leadership is also being removed. In addition to these Turk- origin states, the white-skinned Christian population also came out of its empire. Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania broke away from the Soviet Union and became independent states. Now, Shishtan, Tataristan, and Dagestan are about to get freedom.

We are surprised at the Russian behavior. It does not talk about imposing sanctions on Israel, which has neither signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nor the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), nor Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). However, according to an estimate, it has 200 nuclear bombs while according to CIA estimate this number is 400. It hurls threat every other day to attack Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iran's nuclear program. To US, Russia, France, and Britain, Israel's nuclear stockpiles are not a threat to the world peace while the Iranian peaceful nuclear program is a grave threat for the western states. What sort of logic is this Putin! Medvedev?

Poland has deployed its anti-missile system in Poland adjacent to the Russian border, which Russia considers as a threat to itself. However, the Polish foreign minister has supported the deployment of the US forces in his country. The United States says that the missiles are being deployed to defend Europe from possible missile attack by Iran, and these are not a threat to Russia, but Russia considers them as a threat for its security.

In addition, The US had declared the Russian attack on Georgia on 7 March 2009 as threat to the world peace and expanding North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Now, the number of Atlantic Treaty has increased to 28 from 16 in the wake of the end of cold war. The imperialistic forces will use their collective military power for seizing the natural resources of Afro Asia, and Latin American states. The US influence has reached up to Georgia and Ukraine while is has military bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, where it was hard to imagine during the cold war that the US will dare break into the Soviet Union. However, this is a fact that the United States has completely cornered off both China and Russia.

Blackmailing North Korea
Meanwhile, it is blackmailing North Korea, the old ally of China, to suppress China. It says that North Korea sank a South Korean warship in March. At the same time, it has used the Security Council to impose sanctions on North Korea with a view to destroy its nuclear arsenal and factories.

Hillary Clinton is going from post to pillar from Moscow to Beijing, so that Iran and North Korea may be disarmed to establish the US domination. The newspapers give an impression that China is also vacillating like Russia due to the US pressure.

If the information of the western media is to be believed, it (China) has also agreed to support the US draft resolution to impose sanctions on Iran. If it is correct, it is axing its own feet because China is an important buyer of the Iranian gas while Russia has built nuclear power houses in Iran and it has to work on more projects. If Russia and China supported the fourth US resolution on sanctions on Iran, they will lose the confidence of Afro-Asian and Latin American states.

Trade and Political Interests
Now, that Russia and China are compromising with the US and European Union under the compulsion of their expediency and for the sake of their trade and political interests, Turkey and Brazil have risen against the hegemony of five-member mafia (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) on nuclear energy. This is an important change in the international scenario.

The question is that all these five riders have stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and are threatening and blackmailing other countries on this basis. They have declared themselves exempted from NPT, CTBT, and FMCT, while bullying the other states to follow these treaties. Now if we closely see, these five powers are holding the remaining 187 member states of the UN as hostage while according to the article one of UN Charter, all the member states of the world body have equal rights and independence.

Violation of UN Charter
The NPT is a flagrant violation of the UN charter. Then, why all remaining states should accept it? Now, even if the NPT is accepted in principle, then why it is not being implemented on Israel and India? While both the states have neither sign the treaty nor implemented the same.

Despite this, the 45- member nuclear supplier groups has exempted 35 percent nuclear reactors of India from the inspection of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), under the US pressure, and given free a hand to them to produce nuclear bomb. Because of this, India voted against Iran's nuclear program in the IAEA board of governors and under the US pressure, it quit the Iran- Pakistan-India gas pipeline project.

Enriching Uranium Production
If China and Russia support clamping down of sanctions on Iran, it will be a great injustice with Iran because according to the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) sources themselves, Iran had frozen its nuclear program in 2003 and is not enriching uranium more than 20 percent. It is the clear evidence that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes because 93 percent uranium has to be enriched for production of bombs.

It appears that the days of this five-member mafia in international politics have been numbered and no matter even if these powers get resolution against Iran adopted at the Security Council, they should know that it will have no importance than a mere piece of paper. If the non-aligned countries become active at this juncture, then it will become imperative for the United Nations to cancel Article 27 about the cancellations of rights.

Indonesia Supports Nuclear-Free Zone in Middle East

Indonesia recently took part in two conferences on nuclear weapons in two countries that are in heated opposition -- the first, a nuclear summit in Washington, DC, and the second a nuclear conference held two days later in Tehran, Iran. Indonesian Department of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Teuku Faizahsyah discussed Indonesia's role in both conferences in an interview.

Question: Indonesia was recently involved in conferences on nuclear weapons in Washington and Teheran. What was the motivation behind these two conferences?

Answer: The Nuclear Security Summit in Washington focused more on how to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of irresponsible people and thus endangering international security. So, it focused more on safeguarding nuclear materials. The conference that took place in Tehran focused on attempts to do away with weapons of mass destruction.

Judging from a number of statements that came out of the two conferences, we get the impression of a dispute. On the one hand, the US accuses Iran, and even threatens Iran with nuclear weapons; on the other hand, Iran calls the US a "nuclear criminal."

Question: What actually happened?

Answer: I think that we should not look at it from the perspective of competition or a dispute, but see the two forums as discussing issues of importance to Indonesia: the security of nuclear weapons, and how to create a world that is safe and without nuclear weapons. That is the essence of Indonesia's participation in the two forums. So whoever hosts a forum to discuss ways to create a world that is safe through nuclear disarmament and disarmament of other weapons of mass destruction will certainly attract Indonesia's interest.

Question: What about the several countries that have still not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and still don't want to make public their nuclear arsenals, such as Israel, for instance?

Answer: Our stance is clear, that we ask for compliance with the regime for nuclear weapons disarmament that is included in the NPT, so that Israel's nuclear technology can be evaluated by international bodies, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Thereby security and the whereabouts of materials can be determined. One thing we are pushing for is a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East.

Question: Relating to nuclear weapons in the Middle East, recently a number of Western countries have been competing with each other to sell nuclear technology for energy purposes to a number of Arab countries. Is there concern in the world that this could later lead to the development of nuclear weapons?

Answer: I don't know the technical details, but Indonesia is paying very close attention to the development of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. We see nuclear technology in the framework of three pillars; we reject its spread, support its development for peaceful purposes, and seek nuclear weapons disarmament. Of these three pillars, we still don't know if in the future we will be forced to use nuclear technology for energy purposes or not. That underscores the importance of the role of the IAEA as an international body that can carry out regular checks and assessments, and can evaluate the nuclear energy programs of countries that possess nuclear technology.

Question: Related to the dispute on nuclear issues that led to the trading of threats and counter-threats between Teheran and Washington at the two conferences, what is Indonesia's position?

Answer: Our position is quite well understood by Iran: as long as their development of nuclear energy is for peaceful purposes, we are supportive. But, if they use nuclear materials to develop nuclear weapons, we would be among the first to express our objections. And there is no problem with our expressing that objection to a friendly country.

Question: Has Indonesia's support of Iran's program to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes affected its relations with the US?

Answer: No, in the sense that the US understands our position well and knows how concerned we would be if the use of nuclear energy were to be diverted to developing weapons. And, for example, if Iran develops its nuclear capacities for peaceful purposes, we support them, and if they do not, then certainly Iran, also, would understand Indonesia's objections.

Question: Do you consider appropriate the posture of the US threatening to use its nuclear arsenal to attack Iran?

Answer: We do not comment on the attitude of one government towards another government, for this could cause problems. It could be seen as not conducive. We note that the US's position has changed considerably in its nuclear policies. The United States sees that the world should be free from all nuclear weapons, including what has already been agreed to in the reduction of nuclear weapons. This is a process. So, if there is collective motivation to create a nuclear weapons-free world, we will support it and value it. In other contexts, of course, we hope other countries will take similar steps so that the risks of mass destruction can be avoided by us all.

Teheran International Nuclear Disarmament Conference

Iran organized the first International Conference on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation in Teheran on 18 April in response to the Nuclear Security Summit, held recently in Washington, DC. The members and officials from 60 world countries were in attendance. At the conference, supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei condemned the use of nuclear weapons as 'haram' (illegal) and said that the United States is the 'only country' that has made the 'ultimate nuclear offense' for its atomic attack on Japan.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave a 25-minute opening address at the conference. In his speech, he said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)'failed to exercise its duties' for ensuring disarmament, but said that Iran is willing to engage in 'constructive cooperation in managing global disarmament and formulating new rules.' He also called for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to be reviewed by impartial 'independent states that have no nuclear weapons,' adding that the "presence of those who have nuclear weapons, especially the US Government, is an obstacle to a fair agreement.

Proposed 15-Point Charter for Reforming NPT
Ali Akbar Salehi, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran condemned double standards and discrimination by nuclear powers against NPT member states, and proposed a 15-point charter for reforming the NPT and enhancing the disarmament regime. He went on to outline 15 proposals for establishing trust and promoting nuclear disarmament, as follows:

1. He slammed what he called the exploitative and Machiavellian approach of some countries. He urged a more coherent approach to disarmament.

2. He called for security-military cooperation at an international level and the acceptance of joint responsibilities.

3. He called for destruction of all nuclear weapons.

4. He called for all nuclear countries to remove nuclear weapons from their defense doctrine.

5. He called for the removal of nuclear weapons from countries that are normally nonnuclear powers but whose territory is used to station atomic weapons.

6. He called for agreements by all nations and governments to commit to nonproliferation.

7. He called for a conference to revise the NPT, and urged that the Geneva Conference on disarmament be charged with issuing a binding convention to implement a strong and clear verification regime.

8. He echoed Jalili's remarks made earlier for a deadline imposed on all nuclear powers to eradicate all their nuclear weapons.

9. He called for all-round efforts by NPT members to create a climate for creating a binding accord for disarmament.

10. He called for all nations to be guaranteed the peaceful use of nuclear technology.

11. He called for an all-round increase in possibilities for nuclear technology exchange and transfer between NPT members.

12. He called for a change in the mechanism of budget-setting within the IAEA, allowing all member-states a fair share of this budget.

13. He called for pressure to be increased on those powers which are outside the NPT to join it and become committed to it, singling out the 'Zionist regime' as a case in point.

14. He called for a change in the double-standards approach under the current regime, in which non-NPT members 'such as Israel' are rewarded, while 'committed' members such as the Islamic Republic are punished.

15. He called for regional and international cooperation and for pressure to be exerted on Israel to join the NPT.

IBSA, BRIC Summits Call For Cooperation Between Nations

India on 15 April joined Russia, Brazil, China and South Africa in holding back-to-back summits of IBSA (India-Brazil-South Africa) and BRIC (Brazil-Russia-India-China) that underscore a shared quest for greater collective influence within the changing geometry of the international system.

Building Strong Moral Force
The two groupings -- of which Brazil and India are common members -- were originally meant to meet here over two days in the rising powers' answer to the G7 platform of top industrialized countries. But with China's President Hu Jintao cutting short his visit because of an earthquake in Qinghai, the IBSA forum and the BRIC group both met within hours of each other on April 15.

Calling IBSA "a strong moral force in today's unsettled world," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who arrived here from Washington on 14 April, said the significance of the grouping extended well beyond the bilateral ties between its three members. Among the areas he identified for coordination within IBSA were greater access to developed markets, reform of the United Nations, climate change and terrorism. Brazil was represented at the summit by President Lula da Silva and South Africa by President Jacob Zuma.

Iran's Nuclear Issue
The IBSA nations further advocated a peaceful and negotiated solution to Iran's controversial nuclear programme and asked Tehran to fully cooperate with the IAEA and UN Security Council Resolutions.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh along with Lula and Zuma recognized the right of Iran to develop nuclear programs for peaceful purposes in keeping with its international obligations.

They called upon Iran to fully cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and comply with the relevant UNSC resolutions. They also reiterated the need for a peaceful and negotiated diplomatic solution of the issue.

Coherent International Commitment on Afghanistan
With regard to Afghanistan, the leaders expressed concern at the continuing deterioration of the military and political situation in Afghanistan, the growth of terrorism, including cross-border terrorism promoted by Taliban and Al-Qa'ida, and its links with international terrorism. They reiterated, in this context, that a coherent and a united international commitment, both in its developmental and security/military aspects, remained of paramount importance.

In this context, they also emphasized the need to strengthen the Afghan National Security Forces. They agreed to continue to cooperate and coordinate their efforts to impart greater strength to the process. They reaffirmed their commitment to a democratic, pluralistic and stable Afghanistan. They underlined the centrality of the regional aspect in the reconstruction and development process in Afghanistan.

Nuclear Security Summit Releases Joint Communique

The 47-nation two-day Nuclear Security Summit concluded in Washington on 13 April. The leaders of the Summit to aim to lock down all vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide within four years, as advocated by host US President Barack Obama.

The Summit comes after Obama announced April 6 a new U.S. nuclear strategy that aims to limit the circumstances in which the country would use nuclear weapons, and after the US President and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a landmark strategic nuclear disarmament treaty on 8 April in Prague.

The participants, which include Japan and all five declared nuclear states -- the United Kingdom, China, France, Russia and the United States -- also called for the implementation of 'special precautions' against highly enriched uranium and plutonium that can be diverted to weapons.

Joint Communique
At the end of the Washington Summit the leaders of the participating countries issued a 12-point joint communique. The communique reaffirmed their ''fundamental responsibility'' in ensuring security for all nuclear materials, including those used in weapons and for nuclear facilities. It calls on the nations to fully implement all existing nuclear security commitments' and work toward acceding to those not yet joined, consistent with national laws, policies and procedures.

The countries recognize the need for concerted international efforts to promote capacity building, technological development and effectively prevent and respond to incidents of illicit nuclear trafficking. They agreed to promote the implementation of strong nuclear security practices that will not infringe upon the rights of states to develop and utilize nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and technology and that the related industry, including private firms, should also play a role in keeping nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists.

The nonbiding work plan, which was also issued after the Summit, urges the nations to use low-enriched uranium instead of high-enriched fuel ''where it is technically and economically feasible,'' and consolidate national sites where nuclear materials are held so they can secure thorough control of the materials.

The plan also calls on the participants to build regulatory capacity and ensure sufficiently trained and fully vetted professional nuclear security staff and adequate resources. Among the other participants are India and Pakistan, which possess nuclear weapons but have refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), as well as Israel, the only country in the Middle East suspected of having a nuclear arsenal. Neither North Korea, which quit the NPT in 2003, nor Iran, suspected of developing nuclear weapons, was invited.

The Washington Summit was also aimed at boosting the momentum toward nuclear nonproliferation ahead of a NPT review conference scheduled to be held in May in New York, which is held once every five years.

One of the Summit's surprises is that it won't be a stand-alone event. South Korea has agreed to host the next Summit in 2012.

India's Stand and Offer
With Pakistan obviously on his mind, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has warned of the dangers posed by nuclear explosives falling into the hands of non-state actors posing danger to India and other countries. Addressing the Nuclear Security Summit, he pitched for zero tolerance against individuals and groups which engage in illegal trafficking of atomic explosives and announced India's decision to set up a 'Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnership' for conducting research and development of design systems that are intrinsically safe, secure, proliferation resistant and sustainable.

Nuclear security is one of the foremost challenges we face today, Singh told the Summit of 47 countries which discussed ways to ensure that nuclear material and technology do not fall into the hands of terrorists.

Commenting US President Barack Obama for his initiative in convening the Summit, he said India would like the Summit to lead to concrete outcomes which help make our world a safer place. The danger of nuclear explosives or fissile material and technical know-how falling in to the hands of non-state actors continues to haunt our world, Singh said, adding India is deeply concerned about the danger it faces, as do other states, from this threat.

He regretted that the global non-proliferation regime has failed to prevent nuclear proliferation as clandestine proliferation networks have flourished and led to insecurity for all, including and especially for India.

Singh invited participation in the venture by other countries and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to make the Centre's work a success.

The Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnership will consist of four schools dealing with Advanced Nuclear Energy System Studies, Nuclear Security, Radiation Safety and application of Radioisotopes and Radiation Technology in areas of healthcare, agriculture and food. As soon as the Indian prime minister announced the setting up of the centre, President Obama intervened to welcome it and said: "this will be one more tool to establish best practices" in the quest for nuclear safety.

The Centre is visualized to be a state-of-the-art facility based on international participation from IAEA and other interested foreign partners. It will conduct research and development of design systems that are intrinsically safe, secure, proliferation resistant and sustainable, the prime minister told leaders from 47 countries.

India is continually upgrading technology to develop nuclear systems that are intrinsically safe, secure and proliferation resistant. It recently developed an Advanced Heavy Water Reactor based on Low Enriched Uranium and thorium with new safety and proliferation-resistant features.

As a founder member of the IAEA, India has consistently supported the central role of the UN nuclear watchdog in facilitating national efforts to strengthen nuclear security and in fostering effective international cooperation. India has so far conducted nine Regional Training Courses on Nuclear Security in cooperation with the IAEA.

At the end, the 12-point joint communique states that South Korea will host the next Summit meeting on nuclear terrorism in 2012.

Iranian President Unveils Third Generation Centrifuges

Iran celebrated the Fourth National Nuclear Festival in Teheran on 9 April, attended by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, along with key state and military officials. During the ceremony at Teheran's Milad Tower, Ahmadinejad unveiled the first model of the third generation of machines for uranium enrichment, the so-called third generation centrifuges. The first model of the fuel for Teheran Research Reactor was also unveiled.

Iranian Islamic Republic of Iran News Network Television (IRINN) in Persian began a live relay of a speech by Iranian President Ahmadinejad at a ceremony at Teheran's Milad Tower to celebrate the country's latest achievement in the nuclear sphere. Ahmadinejad said that the third generation of centrifuges is twice as powerful as the existing ones. He also talked in depth about Iran's negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over the supply of fuel for Teheran's nuclear reactor and the 'various Western propaganda' over this issue.

Ahmadinejad said that today Iran has reached a point where no power can stop its progress and deprive the country of using nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Benefits of Nuclear Energy
The Iranian president also talked about the benefits of nuclear energy. He said nuclear energy is a clean, eco-friendly, and cheap energy, which is a good substitute for fossil fuels. Ahmadinejad said that from the beginning the "world powers" monopolized nuclear energy and stopped this energy from being used by other countries for peaceful purposes. Ahmadinejad said: 'The first countries to acquire nuclear energy did so in a bid to dominate other nations and for military purposes. Nuclear energy is a divine blessing. However, from the very beginning the arrogant and selfish countries and those who want to dominate other world countries have adopted a negative and inhumane approach toward this clean and useful energy. The president talked in depth about the reasons behind the nuclear arms races and talked about the reasons why attempts to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons have failed.'

Ahmadinejad asserted: 'For the past 60 years, they have been saying that they want to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. But all the policies they have adopted have helped the spread of these weapons. Is it possible for one to possess nuclear weapons and at the same time invite others to dispose of their own? This is impossible. The stockpiling of nuclear weapons is the biggest incentive behind the spread of nuclear weapons.'

Era of Nuclear Weapons
Ahmadinejad said that those who are trying to acquire nuclear weapons are 'politically retarded' because they will never be able to use such weapons and stressed that the era of nuclear weapons has come to an end.

He also referred to US President Barack Obama's comments, in which he had said that the United States would not use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear country or those countries who are committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and described these comments as a lie, saying: 'Did Japan possess nuclear weapons when you attacked it? Did the Iraqi nation posses nuclear weapons when you used depleted uranium against it? Which one of your promises have you fulfilled which makes it necessary for you to make new promises? Who will believe your promises? No one will.'

Ahmadinejad said that today is the era of culture, rationality, and possession of nuclear weapons does not bring power to any country. President Ahmadinejad reiterated that as far as Iran's nuclear issue is concerned, the country is prepared to interact and negotiate with anyone, but at the same time he stressed that no country will be able to block the country's nuclear progress.

Biased Attitude of IAEA, UN Toward Iran

Recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has accused Iran of developing nuclear missile. The agency confirmed that Iran had started its uranium enriching activity to the stage of producing atomic bombs. Such actions had triggered new tension between Teheran and the IAEA.

Meanwhile, the Director General of IAEA Yukiya Amano also alleged Teheran refused to give commitment to the IAEA officers to inspect Iran's nuclear plant in Qom and claimed that there were a number of facilities and techno plant of nuclear program concealed underground in the mountainous area nearby Shiite holy city, Qom.

Teheran Refutes Allegation
Iran had refuted the allegation of the IAEA director general who took over the task from Mohamed El Baradei since 1 December 2009 by claiming that Amano had presented an inaccurate report and biased against Teheran in the meeting of this United Nations body in Vienna. Iran instead clarified that Teheran had given its commitment to the atom development inspection body to carry out their inspection as scheduled. Yet, why did Iran allege the IAEA as practicing a 'biased' policy in assessing its nuclear development program?

The IAEA was set up in July 1957 with the purpose to act as a responsible body to encourage nuclear development for peace, to control the activity of nuclear development and to check the activity of developing nuclear for military purpose by any country.

In general, the IAEA is an 'ideal' body responsible for preserving world peace and protecting the world from the threat of nuclear. However, in practice, it is not too much to say today that the IAEA can be deemed as the 'Trojan Horse' of the United States which helps the latter to collapse the attempt of any country which tries to strengthen their power in nuclear development.

Thus, Teheran's allegation against the IAEA which claimed that Yukiya Amano's report as a biased and inaccurate report was also influenced by the factor of the IAEA's 'willingness' to become the 'Trojan horse' of the superpower, the United States. We can evaluate the stand and perspective Iran holds toward the IAEA based on the attitude of the agency itself which sees Iran as a 'sinful' country which is doing 'big sins' in nuclear development while there are many other countries developing nuclear arms but not imposed any sanction and pressure.

The reality is that Iran is seen 'victimized' in big powers' maneuver against new countries developing nuclear program. Iran has faced various sorts of sanctions between 1979 and 2010, including the sanctions imposed by the United States and UN. But why does Iran become the only victim?

Whether Iran develops nuclear for the purpose of peace or arms, the international atomic body should evaluate its own shortcomings in carrying out its responsibility worldwide. This is because while the United States tries to act like the 'world police' advocating the effort to bring global peace, the superpower is itself the country having the largest stock of nuclear arms in the world, estimated at more than 11,500 units of nuclear weapons.

In fact, the United States has always invented various versions of nuclear weapons and the objective of developing nuclear weapons is to use them in war. Does the United States invent these nuclear weapons just for fun? This means the United States itself invents new nuclear weapons everyday, so that it can use them in war and kill their enemies. But the United States has not been taken any action by the IAEA and UN, although the weapons they produce are weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that could destroy human civilization.

The IAEA has also failed to check the nuclear development of Russia, which is until today estimated as possessing more than 7,500 units of nuclear weapons. The IAEA has also failed to control Britain, France and China which have so far been "free" to develop their techno plants and nuclear weapons without control from the international atomic body. Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan which was once part of the Soviet Union had also had nuclear weapons before; whereas member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) such as Belgium, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey also have nuclear weapons stationed by the United States.

Worrying About International Sanction
Unfortunately the IAEA has not taken any action against these countries. More unfortunately, the IAEA has failed to control the nuclear development program of India, Pakistan, North Korea and South Africa as well. These countries are 'free' to develop nuclear without having the need to worry about international sanction. Similarly, the IAEA has to date continued to 'keep quiet' and close its eyes on the nuclear program developed by Tel Aviv since as early as 1956. Israel owns 250 to 300 units of nuclear weapons and is one of the countries which have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The nuclear program and weapons of the Jews are no longer a secret, instead countries in the world have known about nuclear weapons owned by Israel. This failure of the IAEA can be seen from the research done by Nuclear Age Peace Foundation which had estimated the number of nuclear weapons at 26,000, of which a majority are owned by the United States and Russia in addition to 40 other countries.

The growth of nuclear arms shows the failure of the IAEA and UN in controlling nuclear proliferation at international level. With this failure, can the IAEA and UN convince Iran to terminate its nuclear program? As a matter of fact, the IAEA only targets at Iran to cover up its own weaknesses.

The Saudi leader, a strong ally of the United States, Prince Saud al-Faisal also voiced out the biased attitude of the IAEA, the UN, and the United States when US State Secretary Hillary Clinton visited the country on 16 February. Prince Saud al-Faisal stressed that the effort to eradicate nuclear arms in West Asia had to include Israel and not only Iran.

Objective of Nuclear Program
Nevertheless, has the action of the United States and IAEA impeded Iran's attempt to achieve the objective of its nuclear development program? Based on the current development of its nuclear program, Iran appears to have made a successful step slowly in its nuclear program, despite the various pressure and sanctions from the international community.

According to the IAEA report, Iran is expected to succeed in its nuclear program by 2011. Under the anarchistic situation facing Iran in the political flow in West Asia and the world at this moment, it has had an influence on Teheran's stand of seeing nuclear as a need to assure its security and to protect other Islamic countries from the threat from Israel and the United States.

This stand of Iran was stated by Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on 19 February 2010 who emphasized Iran's intention to work together with Islamic countries and to help cultivate stability and security in the region. Iran even clarified that it would not be hostile to countries in the same region. On the contrary, the nuclear development program of Teheran should be seen in a positive context in the face of oppressive big powers.

New Tension Between Iran and West

The Iranian situation and the tense developments in the negotiations on Iran's suspect nuclear program are attracting the attention of the international and regional public. Concerned parties have introduced numerous proposals and solutions but have not found a common voice and awareness on Teheran's nuclear program. The fact that the parties still are still pursuing their own agendas is causing public concern.

31st Anniversary of Islamic Revolution Day
Tensions are rising and the atmosphere in the Gulf is heating up after the US decision to install new missile systems and to expand their military presence in countries near Iran. Iran announced breakthroughs in nuclear technology on the occasion of the 31st anniversary of Islamic Revolution Day.

At the anniversary celebration on 11 February in Azadi Square in Teheran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had produced the first batch of 20 percent enriched uranium to be used in their reactor that produces medical isotopes. He announced that now Iran has become a nuclear country.

Installing Advanced Centrifuges
On 16 February, the Iranian president announced that his country is installing more advanced centrifuges in its main uranium enrichment plant in the Natanz nuclear complex. These centrifuges have not yet come into operation, but they are five times more effective than the older ones. At the same time, Iran reported this new development to the IAEA, and asserted that in spite of this, Teheran will be willing to stop its the nuclear enrichment at 20 percent if Iran is provided as much enriched uranium as it needs.

Previously, the director of the Iran Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO), Ali Akbar Salehi, clarified that Iran had begun to enrich uranium to 20 percent at the Natanz nuclear site under the supervision of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran also successfully tested a rocket capable of launching a satellite, and launched a domestically designed and manufactured destroyer. Meanwhile, senior Iranian leaders continue to affirm that their nuclear program serves peaceful purposes, and that they have the same right to develop nuclear technology as other countries. They said they will never give up their nuclear program, regardless of military threats. Iran also affirmed its willingness to cooperate with IAEA and other countries on this issue.

Enriching Uranium
The responses of powerful countries to Iran's nuclear program have come in at different levels, however. Some western countries have persistently rejected Iran's arguments, and accused Iran of enriching uranium in order to produce nuclear warheads. Western countries have increased their pressure and pursued the sanctions and embargoes that the US Government has imposed on Iran for more than 30 years.

The United States is leading the western countries to urge the UN Security Council to impose new sanctions on Iran. On 8 February, The United States and France announced that they will ask the United Nations to impose "tough" new sanctions on Iran. During her visit to the Gulf in mid-February, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that while the United States does not want Iran to become a nuclear power, the United States has no plan to use any means other than sanctions, and that the United States is trying to change Iran's behavior.

On 9 February, China called upon Iran to continue to negotiate on the arrangement to provide nuclear material to Iran, in view of the fact that this Islamic republic country has enhanced its uranium enrichment. China hopes that the relevant parties will strengthen efforts to promote negotiations on this matter. Russia called on Iran to improve its cooperation with IAEA in order to persuade the international community that the Iranian nuclear program serves civilian purposes. Moscow has raised its voice to express its objection to tougher sanctions capable of paralyzing Iran as some other countries have proposed.

Threats of Sanctions and Embargoes
Pressure on Iran has increased after the new director general of IAEA, Y. Amano, issued a report saying that "perhaps Iran is secretly producing nuclear warheads." A new verbal battle has broken out, with the old threats of sanctions and embargoes against Iran. This is not the first time Teheran has had to face unreasonably severe sanctions and embargoes from powerful countries. As Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's envoy to IAEA said, the IAEA report is "unjustified, biased, and, therefore, worthless." Sanctions against Iran are totally ineffective and will cause more difficulties for western countries.

The international community acknowledges that the Iran situation, and shaky relations between Teheran and Western countries, are due mainly to the hegemonic policies and overbearing attitude of the US leaders. That country has carried out a policy of hostility to Iran since the day the Islamic revolution overthrew the pro-imperialist feudal regime in 1979. It is time for all sides to deescalate, to respect each other, and to end negotiations between people who refuse to listen to each other.

Sign of Hope and Change in Egypt

Former International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohammad El Baradi is a sign of hope and change, and his arrival in politics shows the awakening of Egypt. It can be assessed from the fact that thousands of people, despite of warning by security forces, broke the circle of fear and accorded a warm welcome to Mohammad El Baradi at the airport.

The Egyptian people gathered there were not professional politicians; rather, they were men and women from every walk of life. Among them were Christians as well as veiled women. According to a political writer Fehmi Hawedi, El Baradi's reception is a reaction to the autocratic democracy of Egypt.

The Egyptian people are not welcoming him as a politician, rather, because he is not Hosni Mubarak or Jamal Abdul Nassir. President Hosni Mubarak has welcomed the candidature of Mohammad El Baradi for the President ship; although it is being heard in the political quarters of Egypt, that son of Hosni Mubarak is being prepared as new President.

Despair and Deprivation
An end to the rule of President Hosni Mubarak apparently seems difficult, but for the first time, after three decades of his rule, Mohammad El Baradi has emerged as a strong presidential candidate. The Egyptian people, fed up due to monotony, want a change and if given a chance to freely decide, they can bring in a new President.

A leader of Akhwan-ul-Muslameen, Mohammad Habib, referring to the constitutional complexities impeding El Baradi's way, said that according to Egyptian constitution, it is mandatory for a presidential candidate that he should be head of a political party for at least one year and that party should be in existence for a minimum of five years.

On contrary, an independent presidential candidate requires support of at least 250 members of both houses of parliament and municipal councils. President Hosni Mubarak has a strong hold over all those places, at them moment, even then the Egyptian people are taking Mohammad El Baradi as a savior, who can perhaps liberate them from present scenario of hopelessness, despair and deprivation.
Beginning Friction
Friction between Islamic and non-Islamic forces is evident in other Muslim countries too, including Pakistan and Turkey. No one can dare to oppose Islam openly in Pakistan. Political leader here is compelled to refer to Islam because of public trends, but most of the political leaders from treasury and opposition benches follow Islam seldom. Remnants of secular Kamal Ata Turk and Asmat Anono, are finding it hard to tolerate the pro Islam government of Prime Minister Tayyab Ordagan, which came into power after a long time.

Tayyab Ordagan government was established with the support of people, but non religious elements in Judiciary and Army are burning midnight oil in conspiring to bring it to an end. A few days ago, 52 retired and serving officers of Turk Army have been arrested for conspiring against government of Tayyab Ordagan. They were planning to get into power by means of military coup, after proving the failure of government, through carrying out bomb blasts in the mosques.

Supports Secular System
It is made clear here, that secular Turk Army has dethroned four political governments in last 50 years, and is conspiring against incumbent government also. They don't want that Turkey, once a Muslim country, which became a directionless secular country of Europe when their supreme commander Mustafa Kamal Ata Turk ended the Khilafat-e-Usmani from Turkey, to revert to Islam.

Unluckily, the Judiciary of Turkey also, supports the secular system. Anti-Islamic forces fear that Islamic culture can rejuvenate from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt and Turkey, if after the withdrawal of the US forces from Afghanistan, a pro-Islam government is formed there and a real Islamic system is enforced in Pakistan. It seems impossible now, to stop the rising wave of awakening in the people of Muslim world.

Iran Possesses Right To Launch Space Rocket for Peaceful Use

Iran has launched a space rocket capable to send manned satellite to the outer space. Although the Western military experts said the launch of Iran's rocket would not pose security threat to the United States. Washington has already responded negative by calling the launch of rocket by Iran a provocative act.
Many people know that the technology used to launch satellites can be used to carry long-range ballistic missile nuclear warheads. It is no wonder that Washington has all along viewed the research activities of Teheran with suspicion. This is despite the fact that Iran has repeatedly stressed that its research activities are for peaceful use.

Uranium Enrichment Programs
In May 2009, US and Russian experts have estimated that Iran would take at least six to eight years to have the capability to produce ballistic missiles which can carry 1,000 kg weight of nuclear warheads to reach a range of up to 1,000 km. However, the US Pentagon said that Iran has already strengthened its ballistic missile capabilities sufficient enough to threaten US and US allied military troop presence in West Asia. It seems that the US suspicion on Iran's intention to make nuclear weapon has increased with time.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suddenly announced on 1 February that Iran was willing to send its enriched uranium for other countries to handle. This is in fact one of the conditions the six countries' (the five UN Security Council permanent members namely the United States Britain France China and Russia, plus Germany) negotiated solution to settle Iran's uranium enrichment activities. When Iran expressed willingness to send concentrated uranium to other countries to handle, this announcement by the Iranian leader would eliminate one of the western concerns that Iran might produce nuclear weapons.
But the United States still suspects this is Iran's strategy to make such an announcement so that it can buy more time to carry out uranium enrichment programs before the United Nations imposes four sanction resolutions on Iran. The United States believes that if Iran were really sincere, it should inform the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about its decision.

Future Ambitious Plan
All along Washington has the intention to impose more severe sanctions on Iran through the UN Security Council. Bu the United States has been unable to seek the consent of China, the other permanent member to the UN Security Council to pass the resolutions to impose more sanctions on Iran. Now, that President Obama has launched a series of provocative action on China and angered Beijing, it will be difficult for China to support Washington on the Iranian nuclear weapon issue, now.
After the launch of the space rocket, Iranian President Ahmadinejad said that Iran hoped to send a manned satellite to the space. It seems the Iranian leader has great ambition to turn Iran into a great nation. There is nothing wrong for Iran to be ambitious. If Iran really wants to develop nuclear energy for peaceful use, no country including the United States can prevent Iran to do so. Iran has the right to launch space rocket for peaceful use.

Bangladesh Prime Minister Visits India

Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has paid a state visit to India. During her stay, India extended $1-billion Line of Credit (LoC) to Bangladesh as the two countries today took bilateral ties to a new plane, signing five accords to combat terrorism and consolidate trade, economic and cultural links.
This was the highest single LoC pledged by New Delhi to any nation, which would be utilised for development projects, like rail lines, locomotives and supply of buses, official sources said after talks between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and visiting Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

Significant Announcement
Manmohan Singh also announced 250 MW of electricity for Bangladesh from the central grid. Another significant announcement was New Delhi’s approval to allow Bangladesh access to Nepal and Bhutan both by rail and road. The two sides also decided to establish a rail link between Akhaura in Bangladesh and Agartala in India. It was also agreed that Ashuganj in Bangladesh and Silghat in India would be the ports of call between the two countries. India also announced 300 scholarships for Bangladeshi students.
The counter-terror agreements signed by the two countries after the talks between the two prime ministers were on “Mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, transfer of sentenced persons, and combating international terrorism, organised crime and illegal drug trafficking. The two countries also inked a power cooperation agreement and a cultural exchange programme.
India pulled out all stops to accord a grand welcome to Sheikh Hasina as she began her four-day state visit. After she received a ceremonial welcome at the Rashtrapati Bhavan, the visiting leader called on President Pratibha Patil and later held talks with External Affairs Minister SM Krishna.

Range of Bilateral Issues
The two prime ministers held delegation-level talks at which they are learnt to have discussed a wide range of bilateral issues, situation in the region and international developments. Describing Sheikh Hasina’s visit as a milestone, Manmohan Singh said India looked forward to establishing a forward-looking and multifaceted relationship with Bangladesh.
Reiterating their mutual desire to resolve all bilateral issues through negotiations, the two prime ministers decided to establish a mechanism for comprehensive cooperation. Sources said the two sides also discussed the challenges posed to their security by terrorists and insurgents.
It is understood that the two prime ministers discussed sharing of river waters, resolution of the maritime border dispute and the promotion of bilateral trade and connectivity. Manmohan Singh assured Sheikh Hasina that India would not do anything on the controversial Tipahimukh Project that would affect the interests of Bangladesh.

Hasina Gets Indira Gandhi Prize
Sheikh Hasina was conferred the prestigious Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace, Disarmament and Development. The award was introduced by the Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust in 1986, two years after the Indian prime minister was assassinated. Past recipients of the award include former US president Jimmy Carter, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, and Namibia's independence movement hero Sam Nujoma. The last recipient was Mohamed El Baradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The visit of the Bangladesh Premier was a path-breaking one and provided both countries an opportunity to build a new and forward-looking partnership.

International Community Reacts to Iran’s New Nuclear Plant Declaration

The final week of September has been an important one with respect to world politics and the world economy. On 24 September, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) session was held under the leadership of US President Barack Obama. Recently, the G20 Summit was held in the American state of Pittsburgh, which ended on a note similar to the previous conference held in April of this year: with new promises, new undertakings, and new programs.

Some events have emerged for the first time in the final days of September. For example, this is the first time ever that a US President has chaired a Security Council session. Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi has come to the United States for the first time in his forty years in power and he has addressed the United Nations General Assembly for the first time in his life, and has declared the role and performance of the Security Council on world matters as unsatisfactory. It has also been decided for the first time that in future, the G20 will replace G8 after its function ceases. Similarly, it is also during this week that for the first time a relatively severe reaction from world powers is being witnessed at the discovery of Iran's “secret” nuclear plant for uranium enrichment. On 27 September, Iran has also test-fired two short-range missiles about which it is said that this has been done with an aim to further strengthen Iran's defense capability. It is the view of some commentators that the range of these missiles may be as far as Israel and the US bases in the Gulf. Iran's nuclear program issue, therefore, appears to be taking a new turn.

Threat of Nuclear Weapons
To reduce the global threat of nuclear weapons, the 15-member states of the UNSC have agreed on a resolution for a joint strategy. In his presidential address, Obama has stated: "Although we have remained safe from nuclear disasters during the Cold War, we are now faced with a complex situation with regard to nuclear proliferation. It is, therefore, necessary to chart a new plan and strategy." On this occasion, Obama also said that by the use of a single nuclear weapon in a single city, hundreds of thousands of people could be annihilated. This one city could even be New York or Moscow, Tokyo or Beijing, or London or Paris. Referring to a quote by Ronald Reagan, he told the session: "A nuclear war cannot be won [so] it should never be fought."

The voicing of such sentiments by Obama is surely a welcome development. Welcoming the resolution, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that through this, a clear and united message had been conveyed to the world that the leaders of countries with nuclear weapons and of those countries without nuclear weapons were united and unanimous today in ridding the world of the problem of nuclear weapons.

Western Countries Stand
Iran's announcement that it has a second uranium enrichment plant has given various Western countries further cause to put pressure on Iran. Therefore, the chance of positive developments in talks between Germany and five other world powers on 1 October have further reduced. Presently, this situation appears to be taking an increasingly complicated turn, whereby we shall view it in light of a statement made by Teheran according to which Iran will not accept any compromises on the issue of enrichment.

On the occasion of the G20 Summit, Obama, Brown, and Nicolas Sarkozy said in a joint statement that following the revelation of another nuclear plant in Iran, not only had there been increased apprehension, but it had also led to violations by Iran of the UNSC decisions.

Prior to this, the leaders of the United States, France, and the United Kingdom revealed in a joint briefing that they had provided detailed evidence relating to a nuclear plant near the Iranian city of Qum to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Simultaneously, Iran had been warned that if it did not fulfill its international responsibilities, strict economic sanctions could be enforced against it.

New Nuclear Facility
The revelation of Iran's new nuclear facility came when the G20 Summit and the UNSC session ended on one hand, while on the other, as it has been mentioned before, Iran is about to have negotiations with six world powers on the issue of its nuclear program. In one respect, therefore, the apprehensions of the world leaders are not unfounded. Iran has previously been a source of much aggravation for western powers, the United States in particular, so the risk of tensions in bilateral relations after the revelation of the new nuclear plant has increased. In addition, missile tests and the testing of a launcher with the capability to fire more than one missile have also been carried out, which has already heated up relations between the West and Iran.

Israel has also felt the intensity of this heat. The Israeli foreign minister has pleaded with the Western powers that they should adopt a clear and decisive position against this new situation that has developed. He has said that the presence of this uranium enrichment plant proves that Iran definitely wants to build nuclear weapons. He has further stated that they have been saying all along that Iran is speeding up its nuclear activity for military purposes and following the revelation of the nuclear plant, their fears have been vindicated.

Iran's stance, however, is that the purpose of its nuclear program is to produce electricity. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has said that their program was in no way a “secret”; they are ready to have it inspected by the inspectors of the IAEA. Referring to the rules of the IAEA, they have said that it was necessary to inform the mentioned agency six months before beginning the process of uranium enrichment, whereas according to them, they had made the declaration 18 months before hand. The clear implication of this is that there is currently no enrichment taking place at the plant.

If this incidentally is the situation and the IAEA rules are indeed so, the question that arises is: Why do the United States, the West, Israel, and various other powers need to create such uproar about it? One possible reason for this could be that these powers do not believe the statement by the Iranian leadership that Iran has not yet begun the process of enriching uranium. The other possibility is that, in their view, the legal position of Iran is weak. The third and final possibility is that under no circumstance do the world powers wish to view Iran as an emerging state on the world stage, the kind of state that is militarily strong and whose political, economic, social, and cultural foundations are also firm. There is no ambiguity in that a strong Iran is an impediment to the US imperial agenda. The third reason for the hue and cry is, therefore, political, and the truth is that it is also the most important reason.

Subsidiary Arrangement
Here, it is also worth mentioning that in 2003, Iran had consented over the Subsidiary Arrangement in the spirit of which it was mandatory to inform the IAEA at the initial stages of preparing a uranium enrichment plant. It was also in 2003 that Iran signed the Additional Protocol based on which the IAEA was given the authority to inspect the location. Subsequently, however, Iran reneged on both the above-mentioned agreements in 2006 and 2007. Concerning the former agreement, the IAEA states that this kind of unilateral rejection is not legally permissible, but Iran has maintained a single stance for suspending both agreements that permission could not be obtained from the parliament, which is a mandatory condition for international agreements. Moreover, Iran also insists that it will continue to act on the rules and regulations of the NPT and that it is the IAEA's prerogative to delegate itself additional authority. In reality, this is the procedure whereby a politically clear situation appears to be falling victim to legal ambiguity. Iran's belief that demands for halting uranium enrichment through the UNSC resolutions is not a legal, rather a political issue, is a meaningful point. There is no doubt that legal details are not more important than political actions and political considerations.

The Bleak Future Ahead
The revelation of a new nuclear plant can also be seen as an action by Iran against the United States, the West, and Israel. This reaction by Iran, which has remained under constant by the US pressure and its allies since 9/11, was not inconceivable. If Iran adopts an even more severe stance in its reaction, the comprehensive negotiations of 1 October fail, its legal position is also proven weak, and if Iranian President Ahmedinejad adopts an inflexible and uncooperative attitude. Worried by economic restrictions, will they accept some compromise on their nuclear program? Or will the United States or Israel wage war against Iran? In the view of commentators, a war by the United States against Iran is impossibility, although executing an attack through Israel cannot be ruled out.

If a situation to wage war against Iran from anywhere develops [God forbid], the statistics provided by the World Bank on the occasion of the G20 Summit on the political, economic, and social condition of humans inhabiting this earth could become a hundred times more horrendous: "Owing to economic shock, poor and extremely insecure people have reached a most dangerous turn in their lives: many homes have been sacrificed at the altar of poverty and desperation, health care facilities have suffered the most, there has been a decline in the number of children going to school, and the progress cycle in other areas of life has stopped or is moving in reverse."