Ali Larijani (in Persian): In the Name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful I would like to begin by expressing my thanks to the organizers of this conference and the Government of Germany for the excellent arrangements made for this conference and the opportunity given to me to attend this gathering.

Serait-ce de nouveau le «divorce» entre Alger et Téhéran? L’annulation, sans la moindre explication convaincante de l’escale du président iranien Mahmoud Ahmadinejad à Alger, le 16 janvier dernier, continue d’alimenter les débats, donnant lieu à des lectures des plus pessimistes.

As Western diplomats debate ways to counter Iran's nuclear program, the strategies they devise must take Iranian motives into account. If Iranian leaders see their nuclear program as essential to defending Iran's existence—as the Israeli and Pakistani governments view their nuclear programs—then economic considerations would make little difference to Iran's calculations. But defense is not the principal factor behind the Iranian nuclear program. Rather, Tehran seeks prestige and influence. Iranian leaders consistently present the nuclear program as an accomplishment of Iranian science and as evidence that Iran is an advanced industrial power. They also argue that international opposition to Iran's nuclear ambitions is motivated by a Western effort to prevent the country from assuming its rightful place as a regional leader.

For more than a decade, Iran has lavished a considerable share of its defense budget on its naval forces (which consist of both regular and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps units), believing that the Persian Gulf will be its front line in the event of a confrontation with the United States. Following a naval war-fighting doctrine that suits its revolutionary ethos, Iran has developed innovative, asymmetric naval warfare tactics that exploit its favorable geographic situation, build on its strengths, and target the vulnerabilities of its enemies.

In its nuclear negotiations with the rest of the world, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been pursuing a strategy of “heads you lose, tails we win.” In its carefully crafted and creatively ambiguous response to UN Security Council Resolution 1696, the Iranian regime claims that it is willing to negotiate on all issues, including suspension of enrichment activities, but will not accept any precondition for such negotiations. Their strategy is clear: delay, obfuscate, and prevaricate to buy time to race ahead with technical efforts to master the complex uranium-enrichment process. At the same time, by appearing flexible, they offer China and Russia enough ammunition to impede the West, the United States in particular, from pursuing any serious coercive action endorsed by the United Nations.

Iran dominates conversations on the Middle East as of late, lying at the center of a spider web of pressing issues: Tehran’s influence in Baghdad, its nuclear policies, and a growing fear of an emerging “Shi‘ite axis” that is purported to link Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Hizballah in Lebanon. The image is designed to stir geopolitical blood and has prompted new debate in Washington and the Middle East about how to treat the nature of this “threat.”

Gauging popular sentiment in Iran is notoriously difficult. Domestically conducted independent opinion polls are rarely allowed, and the results of government-sponsored polls are often, though not always, predictably skewed. In 2003, former revolutionary hostage-taker turned prominent reformist Abbas Abdi conducted an independent poll and found that three-quarters of Iranians favored having relations with the United States.1 He was summarily imprisoned for publishing the results, charged with “collaborat[ing] with U.S. elements and British intelligence” and conducting “psychological warfare” aimed at overthrowing the government. Not guaranteed the “freedom after speech” of open societies, Iranians, although more publicly outspoken than most peoples in the Middle East, are inherently suspicious of formal questioning, making telephone polls conducted from abroad highly unreliable. Moreover, a socially diverse population of nearly 70 million people does not lend itself easily to sweeping generalizations about “what Iranians want.”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's victory in the June 2005 Iranian presidential elections and his confrontational politics highlight two remarkable aspects of Iran's political development.

Only roughly one-half of Iran’s 70 million people are ethnic Persians, the rest being Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Arabs, Turkmen, Baluchis, and Lors. In the eyes of many observers, this unusual diversity makes Iran not so much a nation-state as a multinational empire dominated by Persians, much as the Soviet Union once was dominated by Russians. Iran’s ethnic minorities share a widespread sense of discrimination and deprivation toward the central Tehran government. Tehran’s highly centralized development strategy has resulted in a wide socioeconomic gap between the center and the peripheries, where there is also an uneven distribution of power, socioeconomic resources, and sociocultural status. Fueled by these long-standing economic and cultural grievances against Tehran, unrest among the country’s large groups of ethnic minorities is increasing.

This paper examines Iran’s energy balance and its vulnerability to international energy sanctions. Iran’s warnings that it may stop oil exports are idle threats, because it cannot significantly reduce oil exports without inflicting massive damage on its own economy. By subsidizing all energy products, Iran has artificially boosted demand, while U.S. sanctions limit its ability to increase supply. As a result, Iran has become reliant on imports of gasoline and other products and so is exposed to potential international sanctions. Given sharply rising domestic demand, Iran claims to need nuclear power to generate electricity. The economic justifications for this claim will be examined.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic of Iran has made the destruction of Israel his avowed policy. Ahamadinejad’s declaration in 2005 that “Israel should be wiped off the map” was met by widespread international outcry. Yet, this declaration was not an isolated incident, but the firstofmanyduringthepastyear. Indeed,itisfair to consider the elimination of Israel as Iran’s foremost foreign policy objective, to be facilitated by arming Hizbullah and Hamas, advancing Iran’s rogue nuclear weapons program, and expanding its arsenal of long-range nuclear-capable missiles that can reach anywhere in Israel and Europe.

Students disrupted a speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday at a major university in Tehran, setting fire to photographs of him and throwing firecrackers. The protesters chanted “death to the dictator” and demanded the resignation of Alireza Rahai, a conservative and the chancellor of the institution, Amirkabir University, the Iranian Student News Agency reported.

What to do about Iran? The question has haunted successive administrations in Washington since the raid on the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the seizure of its diplomats in November 1979. In that instance, the initial response of the Carter White House was to treat the newly installed Islamic Republic as a rebellious adolescent who, given sympathy and support, would eventually mend his ways.

There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East. The United States, with Coalition support, has eliminated two of Iran’s regional rival governments –the Taliban in Afghanistan in November 2001 and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in April 2003 –but has failed to replace either with coherent and stable political structures. The outbreak of conflict on two fronts in June–July 2006 between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza, and Israel and Hizbullah in Lebanon has added to the regional dimensions of this instability.

External support continues to help advance Iran’s space effort. Tehran is advancing its space program to satisfy numerous civil and military objectives, including manufacturing satellites to accurately guide its Shahab ballistic missiles. The United States and Israel remain gravely concerned of Iranian efforts to gain more military power. The Iranian space endeavor mimics a disturbing pattern other countries use clandestinely to advance their long-range missile programs. Iran might reengineer the Shahab to carry future satellites and try to obtain significant political rewards from future satellite launches. Exploiting this event would unite Iran politically, complicating Washington’s regional objective, and further destabilizing the region.

When I first traveled to Iran in 2003, the trip happened to coincide with my birthday. Far from home and family, in a land that for an American might have seemed far from friendly, I assumed the date would pass without song or fanfare. In the event, my last three nights in Tehran were taken up with three huge birthday parties, replete with mountainous spreads of rice and kabobs, tasty cakes, and one memorably erotic dance performance in my honor by a teenage Iranian girl in spiky hair and skintight pants. At the last of these occasions, I found myself surrounded by about two-dozen Iranians singing me a spirited “Happy Birthday.” But there was an embarrassed pause when they reached the line “Happy Birthday dear...” No one could remember my name.

Iran’s influence over the post-Saddam government in Iraq is substantial because the predominant parties in that government have long enjoyed Tehran’s sponsorship. An emerging concern is that Iran’s influence has extended to support for militant groups in Iraq. U.S. officials say that sophisticated explosive devices are entering Iraq from Iran, suggesting that Iran, or factions within Iran, are backing Iraqi factions that use violence to oppose the U.S. presence in Iraq.

Shi'a Islam -- like Christianity and Judaism -- contains a strong messianic component, which perhaps explains the End Days mentality that prevailed throughout the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Just as there have been many false Christian and Jewish messiahs, Islam too has had more than its share of phonies.

A strategic thinker who called all the correct diplomatic and military plays preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom now sees diplomatic failure and air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. The war on Iran, he says, started a year ago when the U.S. began conducting secret recon missions inside Iran.

One of the most important developments in the early twenty-first century Middle East is the rise of Iran to become a regional great power. This has come about not solely because Iran has an Islamist regime or even that it was driving strenuously for nuclear weapons, but also due to other factors including the country's geopolitical assets and a relative power vacuum. Given, however, the ideology and extremism of the Tehran regime, Iran's growing influence has serious consequences for the region's stability and Western interests that could well become a, or perhaps the, central global issue in the coming years.

ISIS recently obtained a copy of Iran’s response to the EU package; this is the document that Ali Larijani, Iran’s senior nuclear negotiator, delivered on August 22 in Tehran to diplomatic representatives of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the United States. Over the weekend, the Associate Press reported that Larijani floated the possibility that Iran would suspend voluntarily its enrichment activities for “one or two months.” ISIS is making this document public in light of Larijani’s announcement and this week’s meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors at which Iran’s nuclear program is under discussion.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has, from the outset, believed in resolution of disputes through constructive engagement and fair negotiations and has consistently insisted on respect for the rights of all parties and on prevalence of the law. The Islamic Republic of Iran considers, therefore, that recognition of rights entails their faithful realization, just as stipulation of responsibility entails commitment.

In a long series of speeches by, and live television interviews with, its most senior political and military leaders Iran has warned in no uncertain terms that, if its nuclear facilities were attacked by the United States, it will deliver a decisive blow to the attackers. To accentuate its threats Iran put on display a whole range of new weaponry systems, including locally built small submarines, flying boats, underwater missiles and mining capability, shore to sea missiles and thousands of small armed boats.

It is hard to think of a time when a nation-- and a whole civilization -- has drifted more futilely toward a bigger catastrophe than that looming over the United States and Western civilization today.

Dear President Chirac, A mutual friend warns of the obvious: An open letter to the French president -- even a president who has been an acquaintance for 30 years -- risks drawing resentment as its main response. But time is short and the decision you face is huge. So here goes.

Threats against the United States and Israel by Iranian President Ahmadinejad – coupled with advances in the Iranian nuclear weapons program, support for terror, and resistance to international negotiations on its nuclear program – demonstrate that Iran is a security threat to our nation that requires high caliber intelligence support. The seriousness of the Iranian threat has been amplified by the recent rocket attacks against Israel by the Iranian-backed Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah, which, according to press accounts, has received as many as 10,000 rockets from Iran.

The U.S. military is operating under the assumption that Iran is five to eight years away from being able to build its first nuclear weapon, a time span that explains a general lack of urgency within the Bush administration to use air strikes to disable Tehran's atomic program.

While the international community debates options for halting a defiant Iran's nuclear program, most observers assume that the Iranian people support the regime's nuclear efforts, and that any dissent centers on tactics rather than substance. By this view, nuclear progress is an expression of the country's national pride and its sovereign right to develop and modernize. The truth is more nuanced, however. Beneath the veneer of unanimity, there is much more debate among the populace than conventional wisdom would report.

Concerned by the proliferation risks presented by the Iranian nuclear programme, mindful of its primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security, and being determined to prevent an aggravation of the situation:

The war between Hezbollah and Israel is a tragedy for its victims, but it could also be a clarifying moment if the world draws the proper lessons. To wit, this is a preview of what the Middle East will look like if Iran succeeds in going nuclear.

The old saw that the U.S. Government can only handle one foreign crisis at a time still holds true and, mercifully, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said we wouldn't get his reply to the latest Western carrots-cum-sticks proposal till Aug. 25. This allows the Bush administration to focus on the latest made-in-North Korea crisis over the refueling of a Taeopodong-2 missile the U.S. believes is a two-stage ICBM. It could hit Alaska, even northern California, said Pentagon experts, and the U.S. is virtually defenseless.

After September 11, 2001, President Bush had a message for countries that support terrorism. "America has a message for the nations of the world. If you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends."

A few weeks ago, the radical Iranian president sent us an 18-page rant about how the United States is at fault for everything bad that ever happened in his part of the world. Rather than treat this ramble like the Uni-Bomber's "Manifesto," the secretary of state convinced the president to include us in direct negotiations with Iran along with the Euros, Russia and China, provided Iran stop reprocessing nuclear material.

The mullahs have had a lot of bad news in recent days--news with a particularly sinister aura, in fact. So sinister that they must be asking themselves what they have done to incur the Divine wrath.

As the world watches the political maneuvering over restarting nuclear talks with Iran - this time with American participation - few are paying attention to a broader strategic competition that has started between the United States, Russia and China.

During its 20th-century struggles for world domination, international communism periodically benefited from the naivete and willful ignorance of some in the Western media, who foolishly portrayed totalitarians as agrarian reformers and social democrats.

Speaking last October at a Tehran conference on "The World Without Zionism," Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, referred to Israel as a "disgraceful blot" and called for it to be "wiped off the map." This was not an isolated or idle threat. In the same speech, he defended Iran's determination to press ahead with its nuclear program -- which would give it the practical ability to achieve this result.

The agreement announced Saturday between Iran and Iraq to close their border against insurgents reflects Iran's growing influence in its rebellion-torn neighbor. The agreement announced by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki during his visit to Iraq has paradoxical implications for the United States. On the positive side, if Iran honors its side of the deal, the flow of weapons and to insurgents in Iraq could be significantly reduced.

Iran, apparently anticipating an American invasion, has quietly been restructuring its military and testing a new military doctrine that calls for a decentralized, Iraqi-style guerrilla campaign against an invading force. Iran's military planners are acutely aware that a military confrontation with technologically more advanced U.S. armed forces would be rapid and multifronted, unlike the static and slow-paced 1980-88 war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Iran's decision last month to resume nuclear enrichment activities-a key step in the process of making nuclear weapons-is a direct challenge to the United States, Europe, and the world. For more than two years, Europe-with Washington's support-had been offering Tehran a reasonable deal: End the nuclear enrichment work it had been doing in secret for nearly two decades, and Europe would provide Iran with technical support for a civilian nuclear energy program as well as expanded economic and diplomatic ties.

The reasons for such a profound shift in the Bush foreign-policy agenda say much about the struggles the administration faced during its first term trying to contain both Pyongyang and Tehran, say current and former American diplomats.

In a speech on 11 April 2006, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, stated that the Arak reactor is expected to be finished in 2009, which is consistent with other statements made by Iranian officials. This date might be delayed if the adjacent production facility cannot produce enough heavy water. It is not yet producing at its nominal capacity.

For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, specially in political forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.

It says something about our nation's posture in the Middle East that the most serious challenge we face is not Iraq - notwithstanding a deadly insurgency, the increased risk of an all-out civil war, a massive drain on our economic resources and moral authority, and most of all, the tragic loss of lives -- but Iran.

ISIS has obtained new commercial imagery from Digital Globe of the Natanz and Esfahan nuclear sites in Iran. Featured in these images is a new tunnel entrance near the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) at Esfahan and continued construction at the Natanz uranium enrichment site. In addition, a series of images dating back to 2002 shows the underground enrichment buildings and its subsequent covering by dirt, concrete, and other materials.

According to an Administration national security strategy document released on March 16, 2006, the United States “may face no greater challenge from a single country than Iran.” Over the past five years, the Bush Administration has pursued several avenues to attempt to contain or end what it views as the potential threat posed by Iran, including pursuing limited engagement directly or through allies.

El 4 de febrero del 2006, la Junta de Gobernadores aprobó una resolución (GOV/2006/14) en el párrafo 1 de la cual, inter alia, destacaba que las cuestiones pendientes referentes a la implementación del Acuerdo de Salvaguardas del Tratado de No Proliferación Nuclear en la República Islámica de Irán1 (Irán) podrían ser resueltas y la confianza en la naturaleza exclusivamente pacífica del programa de Irán construida por Irán, respondiendo positivamente a las solicitudes de medidas de confianza que la Junta ha hecho a Irán.

If there is another terrorist attack in the United States, you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be also immediate charges that Iran was responsible in order to generate public hysteria in favor of military action.

Of all the claims that Iran made last week about its nuclear program, a one- sentence assertion by its president has provoked such surprise and concern among international nuclear inspectors that they are planning to confront Tehran about it this week.

The Bush Administration has pursued several avenues to attempt to contain or end the potential threat posed by Iran, including pursuing limited engagement directly or through allies. Over the past two years, the Administration has focused primarily on blunting Iran’s nuclear program by backing diplomatic efforts by European nations and Russia to negotiate permanent curbs on it.

The spacecraft is small by world standards - a microsatellite of a few hundred pounds. Launched in October by the Russians for a wealthy client, it orbits the earth once every 99 minutes and reportedly has a camera for peering down on large swaths of land.

Iran's military said Friday it successfully test-fired a missile not detectable by radar that can use multiple warheads to hit several targets simultaneously, a development that raised concerns in the U.S. and Israel.

With Russia opposed to any punishment for Iran, Britain has privately suggested that Tehran be offered a new package of incentives to abandon its nuclear ambitions, this time with the "explicit backing" of the U.S., China and Russia.

Iranian officials openly brag to one another about their success in fooling European Union negotiators into believing they had stopped their efforts to produce nuclear fuel, according to Hassan Rowhani, who until last last year headed talks with the European Union 3: Britain, France and Germany.

Today, the Iranian leadership is actively working against all that the U.S. and our allies desire for the region – peace in Lebanon, peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and an end to terrorism. In fact, no country stands more resolutely opposed to our hope for peace and freedom in the Middle East than Iran.

The bomb that Tehran's mullahs are allegedly building has already done its damage. For two years now, it has decimated the headlines.

Like all totalitarian systems, the Islamist regime in Tehran needs to expand in order to survive. Mr. Ahmadinejad has worked to become more popular on the Arab street than he is in Iranian homes. His instruments of oppression feel intensely disliked and find their morale eroded while on patrol in major Iranian cities.

An Iranian nuclear arsenal, policymakers fear, could touch off a regional arms race while emboldening Tehran to undertake aggressive, even reckless, actions.

There is no easy way out of the Iranian nuclear dilemma. Iran, emboldened by the situation in Iraq and soaring oil prices, and animated by a combination of insecurity and assertive nationalism, insists on its right to develop full nuclear fuel cycle capability, including the ability to enrich uranium.

Background Briefing

The Administration will spend at least $10 million in FY06 funds to support the cause of freedom in Iran this year. These funds will be used to support political dissidents, labor union leaders and human rights activists. We will also work with NGOs to help build networks of support inside and outside Iran.

After the publication of a dozen caricatures of the prophet Mohammed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and the violent reaction to them in many countries -Huntington's thesis has gained credibility. In the last fortnight, in particular, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that at the very least we are witnessing a clash of cultures and at the very worst a clash of civilizations between the Western and Muslim worlds.

El 16 de febrero del 2006, el diario reformista en Internet Rooz (www.roozonline.com) informó por primera vez que clérigos extremistas de Qom habían emitido lo que el diario llamó "un nuevo fatwa" el cual declara que "el shari'a no prohíbe el uso de armas nucleares".

"La ofensa al honor del Profeta del Islam es de hecho un insulto al culto de Dios, y a la búsqueda de la verdad y la justicia, y una ofensa a todos los profetas de Dios. Obviamente, todos aquéllos que perjudican el honor del profeta del Islam... "

In two years of fruitless negotiations with the Europeans, Iran won precious time to work on the world's first Islamist atomic bomb. Yesterday, the diplomatic two-step moved to Moscow with the full blessing of an "international community" apparently willing to keep engaging the mullahs in open-ended negotiations. The West, it seems, is now putting its future security in the hands of Russia and China.

China and Iran are trying to conclude a multibillion-dollar oil-and-gas deal in coming weeks, underscoring how China's appetite for energy could undermine Washington's efforts to isolate Iran.

Como parte de su evaluación de la veracidad y totalidad de las declaraciones de Irán concernientes a su programa de enriquecimiento, la Agencia continúa investigando la fuente(s) de las partículas de uranio de bajo enriquecimiento (LEU), y de algunas de uranio de alto enriquecimiento (HEU), que fueron descubiertas en localizaciones en donde Irán ha declarado que los componentes de centrifugadora habían sido fabricados, utilizados y / o almacenados.

Iranian engineers have completed sophisticated drawings of a deep subterranean shaft, according to officials who have examined classified documents in the hands of U.S. intelligence for more than 20 months.

It is important to reject the view that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is inevitable, that there’s nothing that can be done to stop it. If the U.S. and other key actors do not change some of their policies, Iran probably will proceed to acquire the bomb.

Just as significantly, the resolution, though vaguely worded, included a reference to the existence in Iran of a design of uranium metal "hemispheres." Two of these, if made of highly enriched uranium, comprise the core of a nuclear bomb. Thus, the IAEA Secretariat has finally had to admit that there are indications that Iran's nuclear program includes military aspects.

The showdown with Iran over nuclear weapons is a difficult situation with few appealing options. But there are steps that can be taken to change Iran's calculations about the benefits of a nuclear weapons program.

Although the agency is now likely to report Iran to the Security Council, America and the Europeans agreed that the United Nations will wait at least a month before deciding on any punishment. There is little doubt what this cooling-off period is intended for: further negotiations on a proposal that would have Iran shift its large-scale, energy-related uranium enrichment work to Russia.

It deems necessary for Iran to re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the Agency; reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water;

Yet far from being a sword the world community can brandish against a recalcitrant Iran, oil is a shield Iran can use to protect itself. Analysts predict interruption in Iranian crude to world markets would send oil prices to more than $100 per barrel, weakening the resolve of governments around the world to take on the security challenge of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

If you do not know the difference between uranium metal and uranium oxide, you never heard of “Green Salt” until today, and you have been more interested in Pittsburgh vs. Seattle than Tehran vs. Vienna, here’s your chance to catch up on the latest developments in the Iranian nuclear showdown.

Don't provoke them. Just last week, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw explained how, in the dispute with Iran over nuclear power, the West is hoping for negotiations that would avoid "humiliating" Iran and allow it to maintain its "national dignity."

Iran's nuclear program appears tailor-made for President Bush's doctrine of pre-emption: striking before threats fully materialize. And in recent polls, a surprisingly large number of Americans say they would support U.S. military strikes to stop Tehran from getting the bomb. So why is the White House so committed to the vagaries of diplomacy?

The dangers of an Iranian bomb are clear. Others—Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey—could follow suit, both in order to deter Tehran and in the well-warranted belief that a world that allowed Iran to build a bomb would surely allow them to do so as well.

In response to Tehran's foolish decision to restart its nuclear enrichment program, the U.N. Security Council finally got serious about dealing with the Iranian threat.

Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Secretary-General Abdul Rahman al-Attiya noted Iran's interference in the domestic affairs of Gulf states and expressed fears that a nuclear Iran would spark further proliferation in the region.

Parece que es una casualidad que no carece de carga simbólica: el programa nuclear iraní y las armas de Hizbolá han sido el meollo de una amplia polémica en estos últimos días. Existen fuertes lazos entre la situación iraní y el estado de Hizbolá, empezando por una alianza política, militar e ideológica común y terminando por un mismo enemigo: Israel y su aliado Estados Unidos.

With Iranian nuclear aspirations gaining notice, it's worth directing attention to the growing relationship between Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez. The Reagan administration repulsed Soviet efforts to set up camp in Central America. Iranian designs on Venezuela perhaps deserve similar U.S. attention.

The Iranian government has been successfully scouring Europe for the sophisticated equipment needed to develop a nuclear bomb, according to the latest western intelligence assessment of the country's weapons programmes.

The IAEA Secretariat received today a Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran in which Iran informed the Agency that it "has decided to resume from 9 January 2006 those R & D on the peaceful nuclear energy programme which has been suspended as part of its expanded voluntary and non-legally binding suspension."

La Agencia continúa analizando la fuente(s) de las partículas de uranio de baja riqueza (LEU), y algunas partículas de uranio altamente enriquecido (HEU), que fueron descubiertas en Irán con vistas a garantizar la veracidad y fidelidad de las declaraciones de Irán referentes a sus actividades de enriquecimiento.

The ceremony was sponsored by Abu Mazen, who was represented by former Minister of Prisoners' Affairs Hisham Abd al-Razeq , and attended also by several Legislative Council members.

"Calls on Iran to observe fully its commitments and to return to the negotiating process that has made good progress in the last two years"

A meeting of the Board of Governors was held from 9 to 11 August 2005 to discuss the implementation of the Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran (hereinafter referred to as Iran) and the Agency for the Application of Safeguards in connection with the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)

Bush administration officials leaked to the press what they said was a new official estimate of when Iran might be able to build a nuclear weapon. Speaking anonymously, they told reporters that American intelligence agencies now believe it would take at least 6 and maybe as many as 10 years before that fateful day arrives.

Expresses serious concern at the 1 August 2005 notification to the IAEA that Iran had decided to resume the uranium conversion activities at the Uranium Conversion Facility in Esfahan, at the Director General’s report that on 8 August Iran started to feed uranium ore concentrate into the first part of the process line at this facility and at the Director General’s report that on 10 August Iran removed the seals on the process lines and the UF4 at this facility;

Iran's influence in Iraq has been one of the most talked about but least understood aspects of the post-war situation. Tehran has been variously accused by Washington of undue and nefarious interference, by Arab leaders of seeking to establish an Islamic Republic, and by prominent Iraqi officials of an array of illegitimate meddling.

A stocktaking of Iran's "visible" nuclear project is a relatively easy task. Much has been disclosed to the world and subsequently reported about this project.

A briefly report of the progress made in the verification activities in the Islamic Republic of Iran and on the issue of Small Quantities Protocols.

El Líder de Irán, Alí Jamenei, en un discurso reciente al Octavo Congreso de Estudiantes Mártires, alabó la cultura de la shahada -martirio- e increpó a los estudiantes a que siguieran el camino de los mártires.

Se ha observado últimamente un incremento del antisemitismo y de expresiones de negación del Holocausto en los medios de iraníes. Los siguientes son extractos de estos ejemplos recientes de antisemitismo en los medios iraníes.