[continued from previous message] 
  
 had received technological assistance from companies in Russia, China 
 and North Korea in an attempt to develop missiles capable of delivering 
 nuclear weapons. 
  
 Countries that provide Iran such weapons-of-mass-destruction technology 
 "ought to know better," said Bolton, now the American ambassador to the 
 United Nations. If foreign companies aid Iran, the U.S. "will impose 
 economic burdens and brand them as proliferators." 
  
 What Bolton didn't note: America's role in Iran's nuclear program. 
  
 That role has complicated U.S. efforts to gain support for greater 
 restrictions on Iran. For instance, the U.S. wants Russia to take a 
 firmer stance on Iran's nuclear program and has been critical of Russian 
 efforts to help Iran build a nuclear power plant. 
  
 But Russia has noted the U.S. had no problem providing Iran a research 
 reactor and highly enriched uranium when it was politically expedient. 
  
 Those who defend the U.S. say it should not be faulted for aiding Iran 
 in the past. "It's not the international community's fault for helping 
 Iran exercise its rights in the past" to develop nuclear energy for 
 peaceful uses, said Lewis, the Harvard expert. "It's Iran's fault for 
 not living up to its safeguards obligation." 
  
 Iran's nuclear program can be traced to the Cold War era, when the U.S. 
 provided nuclear technology to its allies, including Iran. In 1953, the 
 CIA secretly helped overthrow Iran's democratically elected prime 
 minister and restore the shah of Iran to power. 
  
 In the 1960s, the U.S. provided Iran its first nuclear research reactor. 
 Despite Iran's enormous oil reserves, the shah wanted to build numerous 
 nuclear power reactors, which American and other Western companies 
 planned to supply. 
  
 Yet today, the U.S. argues that Iran does not need to develop nuclear 
 power because of those same petroleum resources. 
  
 In 1979, when the shah was overthrown and U.S. hostages taken, America 
 and Iran became enemies; Iran's nuclear power program stalled. 
  
 The U.S. refused to give Iran any more highly enriched uranium for its 
 reactor, and Iran eventually obtained new fuel from Argentina. This fuel 
 is too low in enrichment to be used in weapons but powerful enough to 
 run the facility. To this day, the reactor runs on this kind of fuel 
 from Argentina. 
  
 In papers filed with the IAEA, Iran states that before the 1979 
 revolution it gave the U.S. $2 million for additional highly enriched 
 uranium fuel for its American-supplied reactor but the U.S. neither 
 provided the fuel nor returned the $2 million. 
  
 In 2003, shortly after IAEA officials inspected the U.S.-supplied 
 reactor, Iran acknowledged it had conducted experiments on uranium in 
 the reactor between 1988 and 1992activities that had not been 
 previously reported to the agency. 
  
 The IAEA rebuked Iran for failing to report these experiments and 
 expressed concern about other activities in the reactor. These included 
 tests involving the production of polonium-210, a radioisotope useful in 
 nuclear batteries but also in nuclear weapons. 
  
 Inspectors also were curious why some uranium was missing from two small 
 cylinders. Iran said the uranium probably leaked when the cylinders were 
 stored under the roof of the research reactor, where heat in the summer 
 reached 131 degrees Fahrenheit. 
  
 When inspectors took samples from under the roof, they indeed found 
 uranium particles. But inspectors did not think Iran's explanation about 
 leaking cylinders was plausible. 
  
 Eventually, Iran acknowledged the missing uranium had been used in key 
 enrichment tests in another facility. 
  
                                  *** 
  
 McClatchy - Aug 24, 2006 
  
 Threat of military action hangs over escalating tensions with Iran 
  
 By Ron Hutcheson 
 McClatchy Newspapers 
  
 WASHINGTON - The escalating confrontation over Iran's nuclear program 
 raises an unsettling question: Is Iran the next target for U.S. military 
 action? 
  
 Some analysts think so. The focus is on diplomacy for now, but President 
 Bush hasn't ruled out the use of force to stop Iran from building a 
 nuclear weapon. Tensions are likely to ratchet up a notch next Friday 
 if, as expected, Iran ignores a U.N. Aug. 31 deadline to abandon its 
 uranium-enrichment program. 
  
 Armed conflict isn't imminent or inevitable, and it wouldn't necessarily 
 take the form of a full-scale invasion. Airstrikes alone might be the 
 choice. But the possibility of military action lurks on the sidelines of 
 the diplomatic dance that will play out over the coming months at the 
 U.N. Security Council. 
  
 "We are creating a situation where everything we're going to try short 
 of military force is going to fail," said Ilan Berman, an Iran expert at 
 the American Foreign Policy Council, which favors an aggressive 
 approach. "By the spring of next year, we're going to be looking at very 
 serious discussions about next steps, including military options." 
  
 The steps to war could follow the same path that led to the invasion of 
 Iraq: The U.N. passes a resolution demanding an end to Iranian 
 nuclear-weapons development, then fails to enforce it. Bush prods the 
 U.N. to support words with action. The U.N. dithers. Bush unleashes the 
 U.S. military. 
  
 "If George Bush is serious about denying Iran nuclear weapons and Iran 
 doesn't respond to our diplomacy, then we're headed to a conflict," said 
 Michael Rubin, an Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a 
 research center with strong ties to the "neo-conservatives" who shaped 
 Iraq policy in the Bush administration. 
  
 However, even if the president is leaning toward military action, he 
 faces several constraints. The military is already strained by Iraq and 
 Afghanistan. Iran could strike U.S. forces in Iraq, incite Shiite Muslim 
 militias there to do it or simply unleash Shiite chaos that ends Bush's 
 dream of a stable, pro-U.S. Iraq. Iran also could encourage Hezbollah 
 attacks on Israel. 
  
 "There exists a very real possibility that, if the U.S. attacks Iran, 
 then Iran will inflict a devastating defeat upon the U.S. in Iraq, and 
 also take the fight to the U.S. across the Middle East," concluded an 
 analysis Wednesday by Chatham House, a respected British research center. 
  
 A unilateral U.S. strike probably would inflame world opinion anew 
 against America. It could send global oil prices over $100 a barrel and 
 tip the world into recession. And U.S. voters weary of war could punish 
 Bush and his Republican Party in 2008 - as might Congress in the 
 meantime if Democrats win control of it in November. 
  
 Some analysts think the risks of war will convince the president to 
 forgo it. 
  
 "When all the political and strategic pros and cons of an American 
 military strike on Iran are taken into account, there is good reason to 
 believe that the U.S. will stick to diplomacy," Philip Gordon, a foreign 
 policy specialist at the Brookings Institution, a center-left research 
 center, concluded in a recent article. "I know of almost no one who ... 
 sees it as anything other than a last resort." 
  
 Still, Gordon added, "it would be foolish" to completely dismiss the 
 idea that "Washington is getting ready to bomb Iran." 
  
 There are other possible scenarios. Iran might cave to international 
 pressure and give up its uranium-enrichment programs. A diplomatic 
 stalemate might leave the issue unresolved through Bush's term. The 
 international community might be able to force Iran's cooperation by 
 imposing tough economic sanctions. 
  
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)