The drumbeat of Western disapproval accompanying Iran's decision last week to resume uranium conversion at its nuclear plant in Isfahan looks likely to drown out more considered approaches to the problem of nuclear weapons proliferation in general and Iran's aspirations in particular.
Largely unnoticed by mainstream media, the foreign ministers of Australia, Chile, Indonesia, Norway, Romania, South Africa and the UK put forward a series of proposals last month to avoid exactly the sort of confrontation that now looms over Tehran.
The countries affirmed "the inalienable right of all state parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination."
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
But crucially, they suggested that states wishing to develop nuclear power for civil purposes should be able to do so without first having to develop a domestic fuel-cycle capability. It is Iran's insistence on acquiring such a capability that, more than anything, has strengthened US, Israeli and European suspicions that it is trying to build the bomb.
In other words, the ministers said, the international community "should establish mechanisms to ensure guaranteed access to the market for nuclear fuel and related services for states in compliance with their non-proliferation obligations under the NPT."
Internationally approved and monitored supplies of nuclear fuel would reduce the risk of diversion of the enriched product for non-peaceful purposes. Thus, some of the suspicions surrounding the current Iranian program would, in theory at least, be dispelled.
The group of seven also bemoaned the failure of last May's NPT review conference in New York and proposed a series of steps to reinforce the treaty. They included a reaffirmation by all signatory states of their treaty commitments; and the "universalization of the treaty" -- meaning that states with nuclear weapons that have refused to join, such as Israel, India and Pakistan, should do so.
North Korea's abandoning of NPT membership in 2002 after it was found to be in breach of its obligations was a precedent that should not be allowed to stand, the ministers said.
"Leaving the treaty must not be considered a viable or consequence-free option ... obligations cannot be retrospectively forgotten," they said.
Last but not least, the seven countries, one of which (Britain) is an acknowledged nuclear-weapons state, said the international community "must continue practical, systematic and progressive efforts to advance nuclear disarmament globally ... towards a world free of nuclear weapons."
The group said it would pursue its proposals at next month's UN summit. Unfortunately, the Bush administration was not party to the initiative, and neither were Russia or China for that matter. And in any case, the initiative by itself cannot stop a Security Council showdown over Iran if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) decides to refer the Iran "dossier" to New York.
Internationally safeguarded and guaranteed nuclear fuel supplies, for example, were part of the "final offer" put to Tehran last week by the EU3 -- France, Germany and Britain. Unfortunately, the atmosphere of distrust and recrimination after two years of protracted negotiations -- and following the election of a conservative Iranian president -- seems to have led Tehran to reject the deal out of hand.
"The EU proposal was very insulting and humiliating," said Mohammad Saeedi of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization. Saeedi appeared to be referring to the widespread Iranian perception that the EU was trying to deny Iran its "inalienable right" to process fuel -- a problem that might have been overcome if the group of seven's proposals had been in place.
The growing air of crisis over Iran's nuclear programs is also obscuring other new factors which could (and perhaps should) have a direct bearing on how Western countries, and particularly the US, act now. One such factor is the leaked assessment contained in a new Bush administration National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran.
According to US newspaper reports, the NIE concluded that Iran was bent on acquiring the atomic bomb.
"It is the judgment of the intelligence community that, left to its own devices, Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons," it said.
But the study also expressed uncertainty that Iran's clerical leaders had actually decided to go ahead. And it threw cold water on repeated Israeli claims that Iran was within six months of gaining nuclear-weapon capability. It estimated that, given Iran's technical limitations, it would probably not deploy an atomic bomb, assuming it wanted to, until 2015.
The NIE's considerably less dramatic conclusions are reminiscent of international weapons survey reports since the Iraq invasion that showed pre-war claims about Iraq's nuclear capabilities and activities had been wildly inaccurate -- and politically exaggerated.
By leaking the findings, and taking a cautious line, the US intelligence officers may be trying to ensure that they do not get caught on that hook again.
And this leads to another largely under-reported and unconsidered nugget of information concerning Iran's activities that emanated from the IAEA this week: Key evidence on which the charge of illicit bomb-making against Iran rested may have to be scrapped.
Tests performed by the IAEA reportedly indicate that enriched uranium particles found on Iranian nuclear equipment came from Pakistan, from where the equipment was imported, and were not produced in Iran.
Tehran has adamantly maintained all along that this was the most likely explanation for the existence of the particles. Now the IAEA appears to agree.
Far from being able to brandish a smoking gun, Iran's accusers hardly have a water pistol to share between them. That does not necessarily mean Tehran is innocent of all charges. It does not disguise the fact that Tehran suspiciously concealed its nuclear activities for many years. But when other factors are also taken into account, it does suggest that a more considered and consensual approach to Iran and other proliferation problems might be the wisest course.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS