LYCOS RETRIEVER 
Iran: Iaea Board
built 679 days ago
On June 6, 2006, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United States, and United Kingdom offered Iran a substantial package of economic cooperation and assistance. Tehran... was first required to come into compliance with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidelines on its nuclear program, suspending its uranium enrichment program. On July 31, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1696 on the Iranian nuclear question, requiring Iran to suspend all activities related to enrichment and reprocessing, including research and development, as demanded by the IAEA, or else face possible sanctions. Tehran defied the UN Security Council (UNSC) deadline of August 31, leading to the passage of UNSC Resolution 1636 in December 2006 and, as Iran continued to balk, Resolution 1747 in March 2007.
Source:
The evidence is Teheran’s unwillingness to fully cooperate with the IAEA and the breakdown of the negotiations between Iran and Euro 3 (the UK, Germany and France). Europeans tried to convince Iran to give up their programs on the uranium enrichment at nuclear facilities in Natanz. A couple of months ago, when the negotiations between the Euro 3 and Teheran were in full swing, Washington made it clear that it views the resumption of the enrichment in Natanz as the bottom line in the Iranian issue. Teheran disregarded that warning, though. Iranians claim that the Natanz plant is used to produce nuclear fuel. However, the experts agree that the plant’s facilities can be used to output the filing for nuclear charges.
Source:
In Feb., 2006, the IAEA voted to report Iran to the UN Security Council. In response Iran resumed uranium enrichment and ended surprise IAEA inspections and surveillance of its nuclear facilties. The Security Council called (March) for Iran to suspend its nuclear research program in 30 days, but the statement left unclear what if any response there would be if Iran refused. For its part, Iran remained defiant, and its slow response to a European Union–led negotiating effort and the revelation of an additional, previously unknown enrichment program caused the nations involved (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United States, and the EU) to refer the issue back to the Security Council in July, 2006. The Council set an Aug. 31 deadline for Iran to stop enrichment, but Iran insisted it would continue its program and ignored the deadline. The Council's veto-holding nations were divided over the subsequent U.S. call for sanctions, but in Dec., 2006, they agreed on sanctions that barred the sale of technology and materials that could be used in Iran's nuclear program.
Source:
In Feb. 2004, conservatives won a landslide victory in parliamentary elections, a setback for Iran's reformist movement. The hard-line Guardian Council had disqualified more than 2,500 reformist candidates, including more than 80 who were already members of the 290-seat parliament. The IAEA again censured the country in June 2004 for failing to fully cooperate with nuclear inspections. Neither U.S. threats nor Europe's coaxing managed to halt Iran's alarming defiance.
Source:
The Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) adopted a resolution on 24 September 2005 finding Iran in non-compliance with its safeguards agreements. The resolution marks the first time the IAEA has found Iran in non-compliance and sets the stage for the next step of Iran’s referral to the Security Council.
Source:
Council for a Livable World believes that Iran does not currently pose an imminent threat to the United States, and is unlikely to do so for years and perhaps more than a decade. Thus, there is ample time for the US, Iran, the IAEA and other interested parties to resolve the dispute through diplomacy. Military force should not be considered at this time, and should not be exercised at some later point unless it meets basic requirements such as the support of Congress and the United Nations.
Source:
MORE ABOUT
Iaea Board