Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), countries have a right to enrich its own fuel to a level appropriate for nuclear power and not any higher to a level needed for a nuclear weapon, under the watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran argues that it is merely doing what it is allowed to do and that they have no intention of making a bomb. However not only is Iran seen to the West as an untrustworthy ally Mr. Ahmadinejad himself has not helped the situation. Known for his hard-line beliefs, strict dress code for women and human rights violations, most recently reported Iranian student Ahmed Batebi, who escaped from horrendous torture in Iran due to his activities in public protesting. Mr. Ahmadinejad has not helped matters. Moreover his government has been in breach of sanctions imposed by the UN security council and been riddled with scandal, most recently the Royal Navy interception of over £800m worth of smuggled narcotics coming out of Iranian ports. Nonetheless despite all of this the big event that was sure to reach headlines was the recent power-play between the two opponent countries, Israel and Iran. In July Iran televised the test-firing of missiles as a response to the Israeli demonstration in June, whereby 100 Israeli jets appeared to be rehearsing the bombing of distant targets. The Iranian reaction is what hit the headlines, a reaction which illustrated that Iran was not scarred from any threat and would not be bullied. This very reaction created a massive stir within the Western press. The public "tit-for-tat" game play between Iran and Israel and Iran's consistent declining of deals, such as the freeze-freeze programme or suspension of the enrichment programme for negotiation, has consequently created international hysteria. This has prompted intellectuals, professors and analysts from leading think tanks to illustrate their views on how to deal with the Iran crisis.

Evidently there seems to be a variety of trends within the Western media suggesting what is the best strategy to solve rising tempers. The three main camps appear to be those who have vetoed the diplomatic track and are now calling for direct military action. Those who believe that we should continue diplomatic procedures, whether that been harsher sanctions or negotiations without Iran suspending its uranium enrichment programme. And those who believe the best solution to deal with this international crisis is to engage in dialogue with Iran via an agency or consortium to curb previous cultural and nationalistic ignorance's.

Supporters of Military action

Those who have joined the pro-military action camp are the likes of John R. Bolton, author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations,” wrote for the Wall street Journal, explicitly arguing that the continuation of diplomacy is no longer effective. He suggests that stronger incentives will not entice Iran to abandon its pursuit of "nuclear weapons" and therefore we should be discussing what cooperation the U.S will extend to Israel. By enforcing further sanctions, “The regime is buying the short additional period of time it needs to produce deliverable nuclear weapons, the strategic objective it has been pursuing clandestinely for 20 years,” wrote Bolton. He even goes as far to agree with Presidential nominee John McCain who stressed the need for a missile defence system which would defend the United States against attacks made by Iran and North Korea. Bolton went on to say in an interview that the Arab World would be “pleased” by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. (tel 24/6) Understandably this comment has substantial ground due to years of hostility between the two opposing countries, however the ramifications of an Israeli attack on Iran could affect the Arab world in a number of ways. Thus any attack on the Persian State would be far from the Arab World being "positive privately". Bolton's zero diplomatic stance believing that, "the U.S should place no obstacles in Israel"s path, and facilitate its efforts where it can,' puts him firmly in this camp.

Editor Simon Jenkins for the Sunday Times interestingly argues against sanctions altogether. "Sanctions are a war waged by cowards…[they] are an ineffective, or worse a counterproductive weapon of interstate aggression," he wrote. Thus under this thinking Tehran under sanctions loses nothing by carrying on with its nuclear programme. For Jenkins sanctions merely strengthen administrations, “Sanctions made Saddam Hussein the sixth richest man in the world,” he said. As a result if not sanctions, what? Jenkins argues if you want to overthrow a regime you should just do it. So in the Iranian case the government is in breach of the sanctions given therefore for Jenkins military action is inevitable.

The diplomatic camp

The diplomatic camp has been given a great deal of support from academics such as John Thomson, who wrote for the Sunday Independent. He argues that despite Iran's refusal to accept current deals the US president should agree to hold talks without pre-conditions. “Let negotiations begin without pre-conditions. Now, President Bush, to propose that yourself would be truly statesmanlike,” he wrote. Moreover Thomson believes that the whole Israeli talk about pre-emptive military action is a consequence of an "irrational fantasy" that Iran intends to attack them. There reaction possibly signalled due to their shock of failing to win the 34-day war against Hizbollah and the current ongoing corruption allegations swarming around the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Negotiations with suspension in Thomson's view is unlikely, he writes, “the change in Iranian tone and intentions is due to increasing confidence that its influence in the Middle East is equal to that of the US. Hence negotiations, it supposes, will be based on mutual respect.”

Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, has also supported the need for a diplomatic stance suggesting that there is a need to change US policy to one of dialogue, along with tougher sanctions and renewed incentives. “Now is the time to work with out friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral sanctions,” Obama said. By this statement alone he has become Iran's shining candidate, a man leading the way for the more dialogue to domesticate international displeasure.

David Miliband, who wrote for the Herald Times believes solely in the diplomatic track, however does not agree with pre-negotiations. Miliband gives what he believes is a clear choice, “Come into compliance with the UN resolution and be part of the international community, or remain in breach and suffer growing political and economic isolation.” The fact that there is a massive prize on offer if Iran behaves appropriately accepting the "freeze-for-freeze" negotiation, merely illustrates the consistent ignorance of the West, unaware that behaving dissimilarly to the US does not necessarily mean it is bad.

Diplomacy via agency

The third camp relates to the idea that diplomatic negotiations should be furthered under UN agencies or a new consortium for that matter. Latest headlines have reported that President George Bush has approved to send diplomat William Burns, the state department's third ranking official, to talks with Iran in Geneva this weekend over its disputed nuclear programme. This has added to the media frenzy of the last 2-3weeks and it is clear that the majority of the Western Press, The financial Times in particular, are proposing that the package of international economic support, security guarantees and assistance with its civilian nuclear programme, is one that Iran should firmly take hold of.

America's decision to negotiate shows a more wiser approach than to previous crisis' they have dealt with. Having Mr Burns attending the Geneva meeting with the EU's top foreign policy official, Javier Solana and Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, is a step towards the right direction. However this "symbolic gesture" does not intentionally mean a shift in U.S policy. The key symbolic move lies in the creation of a US interests section and if anyone has hit the right notes its secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. Rice has been seeking President Bush's approval to establish a "United States Interests Section" in the Iranian Capital, Tehran. The key advantage of having this sort of agency is that America would be able to send diplomats to Iran to simplify travel visas for Iranians to come to the U.S. This allows for better relations and a more-likely pro-American feel among the Iranian people. Furthermore such an agency would be less like an intrusive intelligence operation and more like a research opportunity to observe the countries politics directly.

This approach is what Iran wants, more dialogue and less military threat. The missile firing tests were we must remember a response to Israel, Iran was never the one to have started the powerplay. As Richard Dalton, an analyst from the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had said, “When you get threatened explicitly and repeatedly, you want to show you have the capability of hitting back.” (stimes 13/7)

Professor James P. Rubin supports the idea of opening a diplomatic post seeing it as a, “wise policy and should be judged on its own merit.” However he interestingly proposes a different tact of diplomatic procedure. He calls for U.S policy to build on the pro-American feel market phenomenon and allow more Iranians to see the "real America" rather than the propaganda version it is so frequently exposed to. Regardless of the fact that the government may see America as an adversary, the Iranian people see America as a country of "freedom and moderation." Thus by having more US diplomats come into the country, they would be able to simplify travel for Iranians to the US and subsequently improve relations. However Rubin believes this strategy will have to await a new, possibly Obama, administration before a new more powerful mix of incentives and disincentives are presented to Iran. Capitalizing on this visas initiative does seem like an effective way to deal with this International crisis, US interests in the country at the moment are looked after by the Swiss embassy. Therefore the creation of a US interests section would mean that diplomats can be stationed in Tehran marking the first time since the hostage crisis of 1979.

The jury is out which camps wins?

It would seem with the latest news of Geneva talks, the diplomacy tract without suspension has come out on top along with negotiations over a US interests consortium. The Media frenzy which has triggered the ideas and strategy solutions of leading academics and analysts is no doubt partly responsible for this most recent activity.

At the end of the day Iran does not have to pander to such international pressure because unlike Iraq, Iran has ample strategic defense plans, for example closing the Strait of Hormuz which allows passage of approximately 40% of the world traded oil. It could strike at neighboring countries, causing great rifts in Iraq and allies Hizbullah could create trouble on Israel's northern boarder. Military action would therefore be catastrophic to the global oil markets and the price of petrol, it would destroy any progression of the US military effort in Iraq and ultimately destabilize the region.

The ball at this point in time is firmly in Iran's court, however if negotiations do not go down well the ramifications of war would be disastrous as mentioned. You don't have to walk too far down memory lane to know that Iraq was a terrible war and is still suffering along with the US economy. Should I remind you and the US there is very little ground for arguing that the Iraq war was a successful one, or even Afghanistan for that matter. Over 50 thousand Iraqi's have been killed, over 5m have had to uproot from the state and the country is still riddled by insurgency. The US economy spent well over $300b for the war and with Prime Minister Nuri Al-MALIKI suggesting that US forces should start to leave in bigger brigades, Bush should take up his offer. But again it is Obama who seems to be the only politician who is on the right track to fill the gaping whole in the US economy.

Iraq is an example to the US and Israel not to use military action, war has not solved anything there so why would it solve the Iranian crisis. Going in all guns blazing like they did in Iraq, will only destroy any relations the US has made. However if dialogue does not start soon with Iran, not only will Israel move closer to engaging in military force, but also further foreign investment will be severely constrained as we have seen already with the loss of TOTAL of France, which recently decided to remove itself from investing in the Iran's huge South Pars gas field. Chief executive of Total, Christophe de Margerie said the standoff was due to the, “extremely delicate political environment.” The energy minister of Iran, Gholamhossin Nozari said, “This is our message: we will proceed with development with or without them.”

Negotiation without suspension is the right way to go. An international body/ consortium, for research to reduce cultural and nationalist ignorance of the intervening state is the best way in dealing with countries like Iran. Depending on how well the Geneva talks go the fact that the US have made the first move to negotiate and that for the first time Iran has agreed and not backed away at such a revolutionary prospect allows for a glimmer of light to shine through the gridlock.

Look at videos of the men wheeling out Fat Man (the second nuclear bomb) and they have no idea what they're getting into. Until Chernobyl we probably didn't have the slightest idea about the size of destruction a meltdown would cause. And now we do. So frankly, unless people want that to happen again they are going to be careful. Some of Hanford's reactors still work and I don't glow green in the dark (despite popular belief). The explosion from the meltdown is nothing to worry about unless your within say 100 feet of it but trust the only thing you should have to worry about is radiation. The main thing with Chernobyl is that the government (a.k.a Russia) didn't tell people about the radiation before many were affected and that was the problem. So think about it and make your choice.

No doubt, the growing Indian economy needs energy which the today's thermal power plants and coal plants will not be able to provide when compared to the Nuclear Energy, but as per some experts developing this technology will at least take around 10 years. This means by the time we have the Nuclear Energy, the demand for energy would be 100 times more. No doubt, the Nuclear Energy can meet this demand within the shortest period of time but what about the waste created while generating energy.

This is no normal waste, this is Nuclear Waste and it cannot be just dumped anywhere.

Why it cannot be dumped anywhere?

The reason for this is that the Nuclear Waste keeps emitting radiation for many years depending upon the half life of the radioactive material. This radiation will render the area (earth surface or sea bed) useless for any type of habitation. It also brings about genetical changes (if any living organism get exposed to it on a long term basis) that will leave the future generation suffering from various diseases for which the medical science will not have any effective answer. The newest threat being is its use as a Dirty Bomb by insurgent groups.

Today the major problem faced by developed nations using Nuclear Power as a means of electrical energy is about dumping of the Nuclear Waste material. Usually, nuclear materials is dumped deep down the sea bed in sealed containers as this will minimize the risk of someone tampering it or getting exposed to it in the near future.

But as the human population is growing, the technology is also reaching its new heights. In such a scenario, thinking that our future generations will not dig it out will be highly hypothetical. No doubt with all the newest technology, one can be assured that the radiation emitted will be minimal, but this minimal radiation will surely have its effect in the years to come. This leaves our future generation highly vulnerable of being exposed to it, if not today, years later.

So when we think on the lines of this, the question that arises now is that "Has the Indian Government thought about this? Do they have any plans on this? If not, then this deals calls for much larger debate on dumping of the Nuclear Waste.

I do not want India to follow the footsteps of what countries like France and U.S. did earlier - dumping in the sea. Though, scientists across the globe are working on the alternatives of using this Nuclear Waste material or making it free from radiation before dumping, but are still in the premature stage.

Not long ago China was the object of a debate as to whether it to should be a nuclear power. Today it is an integral part of the nuclear community and an important power player in Africa regarding the Sudan and other regions. In the late seventies a country most likely detonated an atomic bomb in the Indian Ocean off the South African coast. This conclusion was based on satellite evidence. Based on these two examples, is it fair for this one nation not to have the bomb and others to have them?

Another issue is that Israel has been busy destroying nuclear development in the region since 1981. It entered Iraq space that year to destroy an installation and recently entered Syrian space to do the same. It is planning also to do the same in Iran. These countries will probably continue their research programs on the development of other energy and defence resources regardless of foreign intervention unless those populations are totally replaced or wiped out. Does this make sense?

For years to the issue of the threat of blocking oil being traded through the Strait of Hormuz should a conflict escalate there, has been fanned in the international news. I don't know how that would ever happen because even though there is such a large portion of the world's oil going through the strait, we are quickly moving away from Iran a source. I guess the US needs to intensify its presence in the region to allay fears of any possible disruption in the oil traffic but it also has to take some responsibility as being an antagonist by periodically sending military ships in the region.

If Korea does this that else will end up with Korean nuclear technology, it can be leading to terrorism. There is no doubt that the American army can defeat the Koreans but the worry lies in that Koreas one million man army lies just 35 miles away from their border and the capital Seoul, South Korea's capital. Tension between the two countries date back to more than fifty years, and North Korea could use nuclear weapons to influence or enforce their government. Just imagine this North Korea problem has happened when the world is already dealing with a crazy country, Iran. Say that enforcement rules were imposed on North Korea and they worked, all the refugees from their would flee to China, and South Korea, a setback that neither of the countries want, they are already very limited in space. An expert says that all this fuss about having a nuclear program is just so Kim Jong IL can protect his government form. He wants to protect his country from invasions from bigger more powerful rivals including the United States, China, Japan, and South Korea.

Personal Reflection

In my view, from the United States, we have every privilege to intervene on that has nuclear weapons or not. National Security is very large in this country and the last thing that the US wants is for a long term problem, Iran, to mix in with a growing one. If these two problems mesh together it just might be the end for us. Speaking the truth I cannot really blame North Korea either. If we have the privilege to protect our livelihood, then so do they. Only problem is intentions are unclear, that little part of the puzzle that is left for us to guess is what sparks the world in thinking that if North Korea keeps its business a secret then it must be worthwhile discovering. If intentions are clean it's smart to take the supervision off the back of your own country from the whole world. This situation has two sides that I can lean to, and I think that the last detail that the world needs, and most importantly I need, is, "What is North Korea up to? Why work behind the rest of the world for such a long time, and in a matter of seconds is the world's #1 scoped country? Why fear the invasion of other countries? What is going on in the country that would make others want to invade?" These are all simple questions that have many answers and that we might not discover until a significant event occurs. It affects not just one country, the possession of nuclear weapons; it affects the world and the safety of the people in the chosen country, and outside the country.

First of all, any agreement pertaining to nuclear deal must be singed at the UNA level. The Government must act prudently to carefully analyze following factors:

1. USA must clearly define its nuclear activities. If the USA is supplying uranium to other cuntries, what precaution it has taken to ensure that these countries will use nuclear technology for constructive purpsoe and for not for making nuclear armaments.
2. No country should violate the nuclear restrictions imposed by UNA
3. Nuclear technologies should always be used for constructive purpose
4. Every effort must be made to ensure safety
5. Places whee nuclear activiteis are carried out should be protected

Recalling the disastrous of nuclear destruction in Hiroshima and Nagasagi in Japan, there's a critical need for exercising optimum caution. Nuclear weapons can cause colossal loss to the human lives and properties.

USA must stop supporting countries like Pakistan who has not taken adequate steps to prevent terrorism. There's an urgent need for keeping secret regarding nuclear techniques.

By way for mutual cooperation, we can develop new methods for augmenting the utilities.

So, Indian Government must ensure that USA will adopt uniform policies pertaining to nuclear techniques. If it's not done, India will lose its nuclear capacity, which may be taken as undue advantage. This may be highly detrimental to the interest of India.

The North Koreans, will also receive food and fuel, the country is dark at night, from lack of electricity and there have been millions of North Koreans who have died from lack of food. This multi-level negotiation has been going on for seven years. The country has to agree to inspections to verify that specific actions have been accomplished. The North Koreans handed over a declaration, of their nuclear programs and activities to China. China was very instrumental in the negotiations, one main reason that the Chinese were so involved, was reported to be, the resistance, to the possibility of millions of refugees, coming into China, from North Korea, which would adversely, impact the country of China. The United States put pressure on North Korea through isolation, and squeezing its banking system.

The North Koreans, seemingly decided, eventually, that it would be in their best interest, to submit to the requests from the international community. The Bush administration, is well deserving of taking a bow, for this accomplishment, although there is criticism, that the United States gave too much. Let us all hope, that the North Koreans will follow through with the requirements, within the agreements. This is not the first agreement the North Koreans have been a party to, and not kept its word, let us try to believe that this time will be different, for the sake of the North Korean people and all the people of the world community, who desire less nuclear weapons, not more.

During World War II there were two different sides, the allies and the axis. The Allies were made up of America, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union and the Axis was made up of Italy, Japan, and Germany. The wars purpose was over the Jewish population. After the war the Jews had no where to go so where did the Allied force put them. They put them in Palestine, however what about the people already living in Palestine what happened to those people. Well those people are sort of like the Iroquoians and the Iroquoians want to get back there land. When America hears about this they are not happy because they were the ones to put the Jews in Israel and the Iroquoians were going to take back there land. So I believe that the war did not come from the need of Oil, nuclear weapons or anything like that it was because America felt that it owed a debt to the Israel for putting them there.

Currently, 69% of the nation's electricity needs are supplied through coal but this is inefficient because of India's recent growth. In 2002, India has to supply 534 billion kilowatt hours of electricity - a figure that is 2 times the amount India produced in the 90s. According to International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) nuclear analyst Alan McDonald, “China and India have booming economies, booming populations, growing energy demand. They basically need to develop all the energy sources they can. Right now, nuclear electricity is only a small percentage, 2% in China, 3% of electricity in India. But China plans a five-fold increase by 2020 and India plans an eight-fold increase by 2022.” That means India wants to see its nuclear powered reactors provide 25% of the countries rising energy needs in the foreseeable future.

In 1995, India build 9 operating nuclear power plants with a total power capacity of 1,800 Megawatts or 3% of India's power output. And during the late 90s, India had 7 more nuclear plants under construction which has the potential to bring 2,320 megawatts of energy. India also has plans for 10 other reactors to be established mostly in northern parts of India and 1 reactor in Tamil Nadu. Such a system will bring in more than 5000 megawatts energy to a starved power system. In the 90s, India wanted to increase its power capacity to 10,000 Megawatts by 2000 and this goal has been met. Currently, India has over 15 small reactors, 2 medium sized reactors, 6 still under construction which includes 2 large reactors and a fast breeding reactor. India also has plans to expand its capacity further to a goal of 20,000 Megawatts energy by 2020. However, this goal can only be met if the international community allows India to import Uranium from other nations because Thorium reaction cycle cannot sustain such a high-yield reaction rate for too long.

For this India needs Uranium and since 1995, India has been importing small amounts of Uranium from China even though China is not supposed to sell India uranium under the NPT agreement. India has the largest Thorium reserves in the world and is the only nation with a nuclear reactor program designed for a thorium based cycle so even if international help with uranium is not given, India can use its own technology and fuel for quite a long time. However, if India were allowed to get large amounts of Uranium, I am sure the nuclear power capacity and output would sky-rocket. Other nuclear powers in Asia do not have the amount of nuclear reactors or power production like India. Even Pakistan only has 2 reactors compared to India's arsenal of nuclear reactors. China comes in 2nd with regards to nuclear energy production and amount of nuclear reactors in the nation. Then Japan and South Korea. Overall, Asia is the next biggest field for nuclear reactor technology and their development as these nations are faced with growing energy crisis and a bursting population starving for energy.