Iran's nuclear gambit - the basics

But while Iran has helped resolve many issues, cooperation has not been complete. The IAEA report to the Security Council on April 28 notes that "gaps remain in the Agency's knowledge" that "continue to be a matter of concern," and will require "transparency that goes beyond [the] Additional Protocol" to clear up.

Iran adheres to its "right" under the NPT to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, but has downgraded its cooperation with the IAEA to "minimal" safeguard obligations. A letter from Iranian parliamentarians to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan Sunday called for a "peaceful" solution, and warned that increasing UN pressure would prompt Iran to "review" its NPT status. Withdrawal from the treaty would end UN inspections and all international oversight.

The US, Britain, and France are pushing this week for a resolution that impels Iran to stop uranium enrichment. Washington foresees sanctions on Iran, though Russia and China object. Both have extensive trade ties with Iran, and Moscow is building Iran's first nuclear power reactor, an $800 million project at Bushehr.

Mr. Annan last week called for direct US talks with Iran to find a solution, an option that has gained credence with some US analysts in the past year. Iran has hinted it could limit its nuclear ambitions in exchange for security guarantees.

Senior US officials say they prefer a diplomatic solution; for years, the US has negotiated with North Korea to contain its nuclear weapons program. But Russian and Chinese diplomats and many Western experts are skeptical about US intentions in Iran. President Bush refuses to rule out military action.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Sunday that any consideration of a nuclear attack against Iran would be "absolutely absurd."

But several reports in recent months suggest that American preparations to hit Iran's nuclear infrastructure - perhaps including the first-ever use of tactical nuclear weapons against hardened, underground targets - are already under way.

While military action could set back Iran's nuclear programs by several years, experts say they would also have several negative, long-term side effects. Iran would almost certainly withdraw from the NPT, and probably move secretly and with full determination to build nuclear weapons.

Iran could retaliate by slowing down oil through the Persian Gulf. Iran's Revolutionary Guard and other Iranian security forces have created networks in Iraq since the 2003 US invasion. Those could be encouraged to strike at US forces already grappling with a lethal insurgency.

Iran can also urge its Hizbullah ally in Lebanon to strike targets in northern Israel. Any attack would also prompt nationalist Iranians to rally around their leadership.

"Rather than living with an Iran that had the potential to produce nuclear weapons, the US action would almost certainly guarantee an overtly nuclear-armed Iran for decades to come or, alternatively, further instances of military action," warns a February analysis by the Britain-based Oxford Research Group.

The negative consequences "would be substantially greater" than the current conflict in Iraq, the report concludes, such that a military response "is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further."

• Matt Bradley contributed reporting to this piece.

Page: 1 | 2 | 3