History

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: 1950s to 1988
Iran's nuclear program began in the 1950s but was slow to progress. The United States supplied the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) with a small 5MWt research reactor (TRR), fueled by highly enriched uranium (HEU), in 1967. In 1973, the Shah unveiled ambitious plans to install 23,000MWe of nuclear power in Iran by the end of the century, charging the newly founded Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) with oversight of this task. [1]

In the five years that followed, Iran concluded several nuclear technology related contracts with foreign suppliers and invested in education and training for its personnel. In 1976, Iran paid one billion dollars for a ten percent stake in Eurodif'sTricastin uranium enrichment plant in France and a fifteen percent stake in the RTZ uranium mine in Rossing, Namibia.[2] Tehran signed a $700 million contract to purchase uranium yellowcake from South Africa, and sent Iranian technicians abroad for nuclear training. [3] By the time of the 1979 revolution, Iran had developed an impressive baseline capability in nuclear technologies.

Much of Iran's nuclear talent fled the country in the wake of the Revolution. [4] This loss, compounded by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's opposition to nuclear technology, resulted in the near disintegration of Iran's nuclear program post-1979. Work on nuclear projects that had been ongoing under the Shah, such as construction of the Bushehr nuclear reactors, was suspended. However, in 1984 Khomeini expressed a renewed Iranian interest in nuclear power, seeking the assistance of international partners to complete construction at Bushehr. [5]

Accelerating Under the Radar of the International Community: 1989 to 2003
Freed from the burden of the costly war with Iraq, Iranian leaders began refocusing on nuclear technology acquisition in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Iran signed long-term nuclear cooperation agreements with Pakistan and China, in 1987 and 1990 respectively. [6] Accords with both countries involved the training of Iranian personnel, and China also agreed to provide Iran with a 27KW miniature neutron source reactor (MNSR) and two 300MW Qinshan power reactors. [7] In January 1995, Russia announced that it would complete Bushehr's construction and agreed to build three additional reactors. [8]

U.S. intelligence agencies have long suspected Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover for clandestine weapons development, and the U.S. government has actively pressured potential suppliers to limit nuclear cooperation with Iran. As a result, China did not ultimately supply Iran with the research reactor (which would have been suitable for plutonium production), the two Qinshan power reactors, or the uranium conversion plant it had previously offered Iran. The United States also blocked Iran's agreement with Argentina for uranium enrichment and heavy water production facilities.

Russia and Iran signed a bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement in August 1992. [9] In a follow-up agreement in 1995, Russia agreed to complete construction of the Bushehr-1 nuclear power plant and also secretly offered to supply Iran with a large research reactor, a fuel fabrication facility, and a gas centrifuge plant. [10] Hearing of these covert negotiations, U.S. President Bill Clinton expressed concerns about the technology transfers to Russian President Boris Yeltsin, who eventually agreed to scale back Russian-Iranian nuclear cooperation at least until Bushehr's construction had been completed. [11] Despite this top-level ban on nuclear cooperation with Iran, American officials believe that individual Russian scientists and institutes assisted Iranian engineers in sensitive areas of the nuclear fuel cycle, and with the construction of a 40MW heavy water research reactor at Arak. [12]

On 14 August 2002, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) revealed the existence of undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran, including Natanz, the address of the Kalaye electric company, a heavy water production plant under construction at Arak, and the names of various individuals and front companies involved with the nuclear program. [13] Between September and October 2003, the Agency carried out a number of facilities inspections and met with Iranian officials to determine the history of Iran's nuclear program. In November, the IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution welcoming Iran's decision to sign the Additional Protocol and suspend enrichment. However, the Board noted with concern Iran's previous concealment efforts and pointed out that Iran's new declarations contradicted the Agency's previous information about its nuclear program. Furthermore, the Board outlined the procedures for sanctions if Iran failed to meet the requirements of the Resolution. The Board requested that the Director General take all of the necessary steps to confirm Iran's past and present nuclear activities. [14]

At a Diplomatic Impasse with the International Community: 2003 to 2009
To avoid referral to the UN Security Council, Iran entered into negotiations with the EU-3 (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom), and agreed in October 2003 to cooperate with the IAEA, sign the Additional Protocol, and temporarily suspend conversion and enrichment activities. [15] However, Iran exploited ambiguities in the definition of "suspension" to continue to produce centrifuge components and carry out small-scale conversion experiments. [16] Faced with renewed sanctions threats, Iran concluded the Paris Agreement with the EU-3 on 15 November 2004. [17] Tehran agreed to continue the temporary suspension of enrichment and conversion activities, including the manufacture, installation, testing, and operation of centrifuges, and committed to working with the EU-3 to find a mutually beneficial long-term diplomatic solution. [18]

In early November 2004, the CIA received thousands of pages of information from a "walk-in" source indicating that Iran was modifying the nose cone of its Shahab-3 missile to carry a nuclear warhead. Iranian officials continue to dismiss these documents as forgeries. [19] Furthermore, in early 2004, the IAEA discovered that Iran had hidden blueprints for a more advanced P-2 centrifuge and a document detailing uranium hemisphere casting from its inspectors. [20] The IAEA called on Iran to be more cooperative and to answer all of the Agency's questions about the origins of its centrifuge technology. [21] Iran amended its previous declaration and admitted that it had clandestinely imported P-1 centrifuges through a foreign intermediary in 1987. Iran also acknowledged for the first time that it had imported P-2 centrifuge drawings in 1994. [22] The Agency determined that the traces of HEU and LEU on Iranian centrifuge equipment most likely originated from the foreign intermediary, as they did not match any samples from Iran's declared inventory. [23]

Diplomatic progress truly broke down on 1 August 2005, when Iran notified the IAEA that it would resume uranium conversion activities at Esfahan. [24] On 5 August, Iran rejected the EU-3's Long Term Agreement, because Tehran felt that the proposal was heavy on demands, light on incentives, did not incorporate Iran's proposals, and violated the Paris Agreement. [25] The Board of Governors responded by adopting a resolution that found Iran in non-compliance with its Safeguards Agreement.

The year 2006 witnessed a series of diplomatic advance and retreat maneuvers from both sides. In February, Tehran ended its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and resumed enrichment at Natanz. The IAEA Board of Governors subsequently voted to report Iran's case to the UN Security Council. On 15 March, the United Nations Security Council released a Presidential Statement, calling on Iran to cooperate with the IAEA. [26] Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responded by delivering a speech in April in which he discussed Iran's possession of a second uranium enrichment facility with P-2 centrifuges. [27] In June, the EU-3 together with the United States, China and Russia (P5+1) offered to provide Tehran with advanced civilian nuclear technology if Iran suspended enrichment activities and resumed implementation of the Additional Protocol. [28] Iran responded to this proposal in a letter addressed to President Bush, blaming U.S. foreign policy for the chaos in the world. The letter made only brief reference to the nuclear issue and did not address the demands of the international community. [29] In response to Iranian defiance, the UNSC unanimously passed Resolution 1696 in July, which demanded that Iran suspend enrichment activities, banned the international transfer of nuclear and missile technologies to Iran, and froze the foreign assets of twelve individuals and ten organizations involved with the Iranian nuclear program. [30] President Ahmadinejad vowed to ignore the UNSC resolution and continue enrichment. [31] That same month, Iran inaugurated a heavy water production plant at Arak, prompting yet another UNSC resolution. [32] As it had with Resolution 1696, Iran also ignored Resolution 1737 and continued to operate its enrichment facility and to install 18 cascades at the FEP's 3000-machine hall. [33]

In November 2007, Iran admitted that the foreign intermediary from its previous declarations was the A.Q. Khan network. Iran also admitted to purchasing a complete set of P-2 centrifuge blueprints from the Khan network in 1996, which it used when it began constructing and testing P-2 centrifuges in 2002. However, Iran refused to answer the Agency's outstanding questions about its UF4 conversion activities ("The Green Salt Project"), high explosives testing, and re-entry vehicle design. [34]

On 14 June 2008, the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, met in Tehran with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, and Iran's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili to deliver a new P5+1 incentives package. The proposal offered economic incentives, access to LWR technology, and a guaranteed nuclear fuel supply in exchange for the freezing of Iran's enrichment efforts. [35] Speaking just days before the deadline set by world powers for Iran's reply, Ayatollah Khamenei said Iran would "continue with its path" of nuclear development. [36] The UN Security Council responded by adopting Resolution 1835 on 27 September 2008. [37]

On 21 September 2009, Iran revealed to the IAEA that it was building a second pilot enrichment facility. [38] According to IAEA Spokesperson Marc Vidricaire, Iran's letter "stated that the enrichment level would be up to 5%," and the Agency was assured that additional information would be provided in due time. According to the U.S. government, the facility is located in an underground tunnel complex on the grounds of an Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Base near the city of Qom. Managed by Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, the enrichment facility is intended to hold 3,000 centrifuges and is not yet operational. [39] The plant's size, secrecy, and location on an IRGC military base have led some analysts in the U.S. government to argue that Iran constructed it in order to produce HEU for nuclear weapons. [40]

In fall 2009, Iran and the P5+1 resumed talks—first on October 1 in Geneva, and then on October 19 in Vienna. During the October negotiations with the P5+1, Iran agreed to IAEA inspections at the FFEP and, in principle, to send 1,200kg of LEU to Russia for further enrichment and to France for fuel fabrication.[41] The Tehran Research Reactor is expected to run out of 19.7% enriched LEU fuel within the next few years. This prompted Iran to seek a replacement for the fuel and, reportedly, to signal readiness to ship its domestically produced LEU to a third country for further enrichment. Representatives from the P5+1 and Iran tentatively agreed to this fuel swap arrangement at the meeting in Geneva on 1 October 2009. [42] Iran, however, subsequently rejected the deal and proposed instead to conduct the exchange in phases, with the first phase involving the swap of 400kg of LEU for fuel on the Gulf island of Kish. The proposal, announced by Iran's Foreign Minister Mottaki, was dismissed by the IAEA and the United States as inconsistent with earlier negotiations. [43]

Tensions with the international community increased after President Ahmedinejad announced that Iran intends to construct 10 additional uranium enrichment facilities. Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the AEOI, announced that Iran has identified close to twenty sites for these future plants and that construction work on two of the plants would begin "within the year." [44] On 15 December 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill stipulating the imposition of sanctions on "foreign companies that help supply gasoline to Iran." [45]

Agency inspectors visited the facility near Qom, now known as the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP), and carried out the first design information verification inspection from 26 to 27 October 2009. The Agency verified that the facility was being built to house 3,000 IR-1 centrifuges. Iranian officials claim that the Qom facility was allocated to the AEOI in 2007 due to repeated threats to bomb the Natanz facility, and that construction of the FFEP began the same year. IAEA officials informed Iran that the Agency had received commercially available satellite photos indicating that construction of the Qom facility began between 2002 and 2004. [46] In November 2009, the IAEA Board of Governors voted to rebuke Iran for building the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant in secret. The resolution urged Iran to clarify the original purpose of the Fordow enrichment site, stop its construction, confirm that there are no more undeclared facilities, and comply with the UN Security Council Resolutions adopted earlier. [47]

Following the breakdown in negotiations, Iran informed the IAEA that it would begin enriching some of its low enriched uranium to twenty percent. [48] Four days later President Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had produced twenty percent enriched uranium and had the ability to enrich it further if it chose to do so. [49] Following Ahmadinejad's announcement, France, Russia, and the United States sent a letter to the IAEA expressing their commitment to the fuel swap agreement and their resolve to ensure that the deal would be implemented in full. [50]

Recent Developments and Current Status: 2010 to 2012

In spite of seven UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSC) condemning its actions and six rounds of sanctions, Iran continues to enrich uranium at the Natanz facility and has begun enrichment at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP). According to the IAEA Director General's report submitted to the Board on 24 February 2012, Iran has accumulated an estimated 5,451kg of LEU enriched up to 5%. [51] According to the IAEA, as of February 2012 Iran had also produced about 95.4kg of UF6 enriched up to 20% U-235 at the Natanz PFEP and another estimated 13.8kg of up to 20% enriched material at the FFEP. [52]

The IAEA has called upon Iran to provide additional data regarding design information of new and existing facilities, including a planned new power reactor in Darkhovin, but Tehran has refused to provide this information. The Agency has also been refused access to documentation and design information related to the FFEP. [53] [54]

Finally, the Agency has continually requested clarification on a number of outstanding issues related to possible nuclear weapons experiments. The Agency stated that the intelligence it has received over the past several years raises concerns about the possibility of current and previous experiments pertaining to the construction of a nuclear warhead for a missile. Iran has maintained that the intelligence documents provided to the IAEA are forgeries and has refused to discuss the allegations with IAEA inspectors. Agency inspectors were able to confirm the non-diversion of declared nuclear material, but added that Iran should be more forthcoming with information about the origin of its nuclear program in order to confirm that all nuclear activity in Iran is peaceful. [55]

In a letter dated 19 February 2010, Iran informed the IAEA that it was still seeking to purchase the required fuel for the TRR on the international market and would be willing to exchange LEU for fuel assemblies "simultaneously or in one package inside the territory of Iran." Iran requested that the IAEA convey this message to the P5+1. [56]

The breakdown of the P5+1 talks was followed by a new nuclear fuel swap proposal brokered by Brazil and Turkey. On 17 May 2010, Brazil, Turkey and Iran issued a joint statement in which Iran agreed to export half of its LEU stock (1,200kg) to Turkey as a confidence-building measure, in return for 120kg of 20% enriched uranium for use in its medical research reactor.[57] The deal, however, was never accepted by Western countries.

In June 2010, the UN Security Council approved another set of sanctions under UNSCR 1929, primarily aimed at Iran's nuclear-related investments; three affiliates of the state-owned shipping company (the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), which had already been targeted by unilateral US and EU sanctions); and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. [58] The United States, United Kingdom and other European countries also subsequently moved to impose additional unilateral sanctions on Iran, primarily targeting its financial system.

In October 2010, the P5+1 extended another invitation to Iran to discuss its nuclear program, but did not accept Iran's request for Turkey or Brazil to attend. [59] Talks resumed on 6 December 2010 in Geneva, during which the P5+1 requested assurances that the Iranian nuclear program remained peaceful and Iran requested that international sanctions be lifted. [60] Diplomats convened for the next round of talks in Istanbul, Turkey in late January 2011. The talks broke down due to Iran's insistence on the lifting of all economic sanctions as a precondition for substantive discussions on its nuclear program. [61]

In 2011, the United States increased the pressure on IRISL, and several companies and individuals were indicted in June on charges of aiding IRISL in conducting fraudulent transactions through nine major banks located in New York. [62] In October 2011, the United States sanctioned a ring of six front companies in Panama which allegedly took over control of some IRISL vessels after the June indictment. [63]

On 13 July 2011, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov proposed a phased approach to addressing the nuclear dispute with Iran. Under the Russian proposal, Iran's cooperation with the IAEA would be met with reciprocal steps from the P5+1. [64] According to Iranian former chief nuclear negotiator Hossein Mousavian, the proposal envisioned five stages, with Iran limiting its enrichment activities to one site; capping enrichment levels at 5% U-235; implementing modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements that provides for early provision of design information; ratifying the Additional Protocol to its safeguards agreement; and finally, suspending enrichment for three months. In response, at each stage the P5+1 would gradually lift sanctions imposed unilaterally and through the UN Security Council. [65] Iran initially welcomed the Russian plan, but the United States, United Kingdom and France did not accept the idea of lifting sanctions at an early stage. [66] Formal discussions on the basis of the proposal never took place.

On 8 November 2011, the IAEA released a highly anticipated safeguards report on Iran. [67] In an annex to the report, the Agency presented a lengthy, detailed account of "possible military dimensions" to Iran's nuclear program. Most of the information in the annex had been known previously, but the November 2011 report was the first time that the IAEA assembled available evidence into one overview document. According to the report, Iran has engaged in a range of activities "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device." [68] Those included efforts to "procure nuclear related and dual-use equipment and materials by military-related individuals and entities;" to develop "undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material;" to acquire "nuclear weapons development information and documentation," presumably from the A.Q. Khan network; and to "work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components." The report further states that prior to the end of 2003 those activities took place under a "structured program," and that there are indications that "some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device continued after 2003, and that some may still be ongoing." [69]

The IAEA report led to the adoption of a new resolution by the Board of Governors that expressed "deep and increasing concern" about the unresolved issues and urged Iran to fully comply with its obligations. [70] As Russia and China both opposed a new UN Security Council resolution, the United States and the European Union launched a series of unprecedented measures unilaterally. For the first time, the United States designated the Government of Iran and all financial institutions in the country as entities of money laundering concern, warning financial institutions around the world that doing business with Iranian banks entailed significant risks. [71] In December 2011, the U.S. Congress enacted the Menendez-Kirk amendment, requiring the President to sanction the Central Bank of Iran, as well as foreign financial institutions, including central banks, for processing transactions related to oil and petroleum products on behalf of Iranian companies and the Iranian government. [72] The measures will come into force in the summer of 2012. On 23 January 2012, the European Union moved to freeze all assets of the Central Bank of Iran and agreed on a phase-out of Iranian oil imports by 1 July 2012. [73] On 5 February, the United States ordered the freezing of all property of the Government of Iran, including its Central Bank. [74] As of March 2012, reports had surfaced of draft legislation in the U.S. Congress that would sanction all Iranian financial institutions, as well as foreign financial institutions and central banks engaged in non-oil transactions with Iran. [75]

On 25 January 2012, Iran started uranium enrichment at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant near Qom. [76] In late January, an IAEA team headed by the Deputy Director General for Safeguards Herman Nackaerts visited Iran to discuss ways to resolve outstanding issues. A follow-on visit took place in late February 2012, but the two sides were unable to agree on a plan, and the IAEA expressed its disappointment in the meeting due to Iran's refusal to grant access to the Parchin military complex. [77] However, on 6 March 2012, Iran announced that it would allow IAEA inspectors to visit Parchin. [78] The same day, the EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, speaking for the Western powers, announced that she had "offered to resume talks with Iran on the nuclear issue." [79] The dates for renewed negotiations have not yet been set.

Sources:
[1] Joseph Cirincione, Jon Wolfsthal and Miriam Rajkumar, "Iran," in Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Threats (Washington, DC, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005), p. 298.
[2] Oliver Meier, "Iran and Foreign Enrichment: A Troubled Model," The Arms Control Association, January/February 2006.
[3] David Albright, Jacqueline Shire, and Paul Brannan, "Is Iran Running out of Yellowcake?," The Institute for Science and International Security, 11 February 2009.
[4] Iran's Strategic Weapons Programmes: A Net Assessment (London: The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2005), p. 9.
[5] Iran's Strategic Weapons Programmes: A Net Assessment (London: The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2005), p. 12.
[6] Joseph Cirincione, Jon Wolfsthal and Miriam Rajkumar, "Iran," in Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Threats (Washington, DC, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005), p. 303.
[7] Joseph Cirincione, Jon Wolfsthal and Miriam Rajkumar, "Iran," in Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Threats (Washington, DC, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005), p. 303
[8] Nathan E. Busch, No End in Sight: The Continuing Menace of Nuclear Proliferation (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2004), p. 265.
[9] Iran's Strategic Weapons Programmes: A Net Assessment (London: The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2005), p. 13.
[10] R. Jeffrey Smith and Michael Dobbs, "Russia Promised to Sell Centrifuge Plant to Iran; Bomb Grade Uranium Could be Made There," The Washington Post, 29 April 1995; Iran's Strategic Weapons Programmes: A Net Assessment (London: The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2005), p. 13.
[11] Iran's Strategic Weapons Programmes: A Net Assessment (London: The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2005), p. 13.
[12] Iran's Strategic Weapons Programmes: A Net Assessment (London: The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2005), p. 13.
[13] Iran's Strategic Weapons Programmes: A Net Assessment (London: The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2005), p. 16.
[14] "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran," Board of Governors Resolution, The International Atomic Energy Agency, 10 November 2003; "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran," Board of Governors Resolution, The International Atomic Energy Agency, 26 November 2003.
[15] "Statement by the Iranian Government and Visiting EU Foreign Ministers," The International Atomic Energy Agency, 21 October 2003, www.iaea.org.
[16] Iran's Strategic Weapons Programmes: A Net Assessment (London: The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2005), p. 23.
[17] "Iran's Nuclear Program: Expanding the Nuclear Fuel Cycle; Illicit Procurement," Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), www.isisnucleariran.org.
[18] "Communication dated 26 November 2004 received from the Permanent Representatives of France, Germany, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the United Kingdom concerning the agreement signed in Paris on 15 November 2004," The International Atomic Energy Agency, 26 November 2004, www.iaea.org.
[19] Jeffrey Richelson, Spying on the Bomb: American Nuclear Intelligence from Nazi Germany to Iran and North Korea (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2007), p. 514.
[20] "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran," Report by the Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency, 15 November 2004.
[21] "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran," Report by the Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency, 15 November 2004.
[22] Etel Solingen, Nuclear Logics: Contrasting Paths in East Asia and The Middle East (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2007), p. 172.
[23] "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran," Report by the Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency, 15 November 2004.
[24] Anne Penketh, "Iran in Showdown with EU Over its Nuclear Ambitions," The Independent, 1 August 2005.
[25] "Response of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Framework Agreement Proposed by the EU3/EU," The Islamic Republic of Iran, downloaded from the British American Security Information Council, www.basicint.org/ pubs/ Notes/ BN050811- IranEU.htm; "Communication dated 1 August 2005 received from the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Agency," The International Atomic Energy Agency, 1 August 2005.
[26] Warren Hoge, "Text on Iran's Nuclear Work is Under Study by the UN Council," The New York Times, 15 March 2006.
[27] Nasser Karimi, "President: Secret Centrifuge is Operational — Iran's New Nuke Tests," The Daily Telegraph, 19 April 2006.
[28] "'Carrot-stick' deal agreed on Iran," CNN, 2 June 2006; "EU's Solana to present Iran with nuclear proposal," CNN, 5 June 2006; "Iran 'positive' on nuclear offer," BBC, 6 June 2006.
[29] "Chronology of Key Events Related to the Implementation of IAEA Safeguards in Iran," The James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, 16 June 2006, http://cns.miis.edu.
[30] United Nations Security Council Resolution 1696, adopted 31 July 2006.
[31] NazilaFathi, "Iran's Leader Stands by Nuclear Plans; Military to Hold Exercises," The New York Times, 22 January 2007.
[32] United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737, adopted 27 December 2006.
[33] "Cooperation between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Agency in the light of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737 (2006)," Report by the Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency, 9 February 2007.
[34] "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) in the Islamic Republic of Iran," Report by the Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency, 15 November 2007.
[35] Julian Borger, "International Diplomats to Visit Tehran to Deliver Nuclear Ultimatum," The Guardian, 14 June 2008.
[36] Graham Bowley, "Despite Call to Halt, Iran Says It Will Continue Its Nuclear Program," The New York Times, 31 July 2008.
[37] United Nations Security Council Resolution 1835, adopted 27 September 2008.
[38] David Sanger and William Broad, "U.S. and Allies Warn Iran over Nuclear Deception," The New York Times, 25 September 2009.
[39] "Public Points for Qom Disclosure," United States Government, www.isisnucleariran.org.
[40] David Sanger and William Broad, "U.S. and Allies Warn Iran over Nuclear Deception," The New York Times, 25 September 2009.
[41] "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), and 1835 (2008), in the Islamic Republic of Iran," Resolution adopted by the Board of Governors, (GOV/2009/82), 27 November 2009.
[42] "Iran Atom Talks Off to Good Start despite Tensions," Reuters, 19 October 2009; Geoffrey Forden, "TRR Refueling and Nonproliferation Barriers," ArmsControlWonk.com, 11 October 2009.
[43] W.G. Dunlop, "Iran Offers to Swap 400 Kilos of LEU on Kish for Atomic Fuel," AFP, 12 December 2009.
[44] David Sanger and William Broad, "A Defiant Iran Vows to Build Nuclear Plants," The New York Times, 30 November 2009; "Iran to Declare Good News on Centrifuges to be Used in New Site: AEOI," Iranian Student News Agency, 22 February 2010.
[45] "House Passes Iran Gasoline Sanctions Bill," Reuters, 15 December 2009.
[46] "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and 1805 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran," Report by the Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency, 16 November 2009.
[47] "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran," Report by the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, (GOV/2010/46), 16 September 2010.
[48] Borzou Daragahi, "Iran to Boost Enrichment; Ahmedinejad Tells Atomic Agency to Process Uranium to a Higher Purity," The Los Angeles Times, 8 February 2010.
[49] Borzou Daragahi, "Iran to Boost Enrichment; Ahmedinejad Tells Atomic Agency to Process Uranium to a Higher Purity," The Los Angeles Times, 8 February 2010.
[50] "France, Russia, and the United States Write to Amano on Iran," ISIS Nuclear Iran, 16 February 2010.
[51] "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran," Report by the Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency, (GOV/2012/9), 24 February 2012.
[52] "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran," Report by the Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency, (GOV/2012/9), 24 February 2012.
[53] "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran," Report by the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, (GOV/2010/46), 16 September 2010.
[54] "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran," Report by the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, (GOV/2010/46), 16 September 2010.
[55] "Communication dated 19 February 2010 received from the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the supply of fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor," The International Atomic Energy Agency, 22 February 2010.
[56] Peter Crail, "Brazil, Turkey Broker Fuel Swap with Iran," Arms Control Today, June 2010
[57] "Resolution 1929 (2010) Adopted by the Security Council at its 6335th meeting, on 9 June 2010," UN Security Council, (S/RES/1929(2010), 9 June 2010.
[58] Colum Lynch and Glenn Kessler, "U.N. Imposes another round of sanctions on Iran," The Washington Post, 10 June 2010.
[59] "World Powers Propose Nuclear Talks with Iran in November," Politico, International Institute for Strategic Studies, 14 October 2010.
[60] KarimSadjadpour, "Examining the P5+1 Iran Talks in Context," Middle East Progress, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 6 December 2010.
[61] Steven Erlanger, "Talks on Iran's Nuclear Program End with no Progress," The New York Times, 23 January 2011.
[62]  The People of the State of New York v. Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Supreme Court, New York County, 20 June 2011, indictment 11-02924.
[63] Matthew Levitt, "Treasury Tightens Squeeze on Iran Front Companies," The Iran Primer, United States Institute of Peace, 27 October 2011.
[64] Russia Proposes "Phased" Resolution of Iran Nuclear Standoff', Global Security Newswire, 14 July 2011.    
[65] Masakatsu Ota, "U.S. Missed Chance to Resolve Iran Nuclear Issue: ex-Iran Negotiator," Kyodo News, 8 February 2012,  http://english.kyodonews.jp.
[66] Steve Gutterman and Lidya Kelly, "Russia Hopes Its Proposal Can Revive Iran Nuclear Talk,"
[67] "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran," Report by the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, (GOV/2011/65), 8 November 2011.
[68] "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran," Report by the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, (GOV/2011/65), 8 November 2011.
[69] "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran," Report by the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, (GOV/2011/65), 8 November 2011.
[70] "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran," Resolution adopted by the Board of Governors, 18 November 2011, GOV/2011/69.
[71] US Department of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, "Imposition of Special Measure against the Islamic Republic of Iran as a Jurisdiction of Primary Money Laundering Concern. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking," 28 November 2011.
[72] Josh Rogin, "Iran sanctions amendment emerges from conference largely intact," The Cable, 13 December 2011.
[73] "EU Iran sanctions: Ministers adopt Iran oil imports ban," BBC, 23 January 2012.
[74] US Department of the Treasury, "Fact Sheet: Implementation of National Defense Authorization Act Sanctions on Iran," 6 February 2012.
[75] Josh Rogin, "Congress prepares to go after all Iranian banks," The Cable, 6 March 2011.
[76] "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran," Report by the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, (GOV/2012/9), 24 February 2012.
[77] "U.N Nuclear Watchdog Can't Break Impasse with Iran," Global Security Newswire, 22 February 2012.
[78] Parisa Hafezi and Fredrik Dahl, "Iran to allow IAEA visit Parchin military site: ISNA," Reuters, 6 March 2012.  
[79] Justyna Pawlak, "Big powers accept Iran offer of nuclear talks-EU's Ashton," Reuters, 6 March 2012.