Copenhagen: What's your solution?

http://news.bbc.co.uk

If you had the microphone at the Copenhagen climate summit, what would you say?

What is your message to world leaders on global warming?

BBC News would like you to send us your message for Copenhagen.

The best video messages we receive will be featured in a special televised debate on BBC News, at the climax of the conference.

Last chance

The UN Climate Change Conference begins in Copenhagen, Denmark, on December 7.

Example of a video message - Children send their messages to Barack Obama

Some say it is our last chance to save the world from runaway climate change.

Many hope that world leaders will agree significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions; and compensation for countries suffering from global warming.

But talks so far have been slow, with key nations cagey to commit. There are fears that no firm action will be agreed.

• Are you worried about climate change?

• What deal would you strike in Copenhagen?

• Who should cut their emissions? By how much? And how should they make these cuts?

• How would you improve the negotiation process?

Send us your comments in video

Life in 2050

How will climate change affect you in future?

Is it already affecting you now?

Perhaps you are farmer whose crops are vulnerable.

Or you may live in a coastal area at risk of flooding.

You may be an oil worker, or a coal miner whose job is threatened.

Whatever you do, we'd like to hear from you.

Tell us:

• Why does climate change matter to you?

• How much are you personally willing to adapt, to live more sustainably?

• Are you prepared to change the way you travel, the food you eat, or to have fewer children?

• Would you pay more taxes - to invest in green energy and compensate countries hurt by climate change?

A brief history of climate change

http://news.bbc.co.uk

As the UN climate summit in Copenhagen approaches, BBC News environment correspondent Richard Black traces key milestones, scientific discoveries, technical innovations and political action.

The Newcomen Engine foreshadowed industrial scale use of coal

1712 - British ironmonger Thomas Newcomen invents the first widely used steam engine, paving the way for the Industrial Revolution and industrial scale use of coal.

1800 - world population reaches one billion.

1824 - French physicist Joseph Fourier describes the Earth's natural "greenhouse effect". He writes: "The temperature [of the Earth] can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in re-passing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat."

1861 - Irish physicist John Tyndall shows that water vapour and certain other gases create the greenhouse effect. "This aqueous vapour is a blanket more necessary to the vegetable life of England than clothing is to man," he concludes. More than a century later, he is honoured by having a prominent UK climate research organisation - the Tyndall Centre - named after him.

1886 - Karl Benz unveils the Motorwagen, often regarded as the first true automobile.

1896 - Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius concludes that industrial-age coal burning will enhance the natural greenhouse effect. He suggests this might be beneficial for future generations. His conclusions on the likely size of the "man-made greenhouse" are in the same ballpark - a few degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2 - as modern-day climate models.

Svante Arrhenius unlocked the man-made greenhouse a century ago

1900 - another Swede, Knut Angstrom, discovers that even at the tiny concentrations found in the atmosphere, CO2 strongly absorbs parts of the infrared spectrum. Although he does not realise the significance, Angstrom has shown that a trace gas can produce greenhouse warming.

1927 - carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and industry reach one billion tonnes per year.

1930 - human population reaches two billion.

1938 - using records from 147 weather stations around the world, British engineer Guy Callendar shows that temperatures had risen over the previous century. He also shows that CO2 concentrations had increased over the same period, and suggests this caused the warming. The "Callendar effect" is widely dismissed by meteorologists.

1955 - using a new generation of equipment including early computers, US researcher Gilbert Plass analyses in detail the infrared absorption of various gases. He concludes that doubling CO2 concentrations would increase temperatures by 3-4C.

1957 - US oceanographer Roger Revelle and chemist Hans Suess show that seawater will not absorb all the additional CO2 entering the atmosphere, as many had assumed. Revelle writes: "Human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment..."

1958 - using equipment he had developed himself, Charles David (Dave) Keeling begins systematic measurements of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa in Hawaii and in Antarctica. Within four years, the project - which continues today - provides the first unequivocal proof that CO2 concentrations are rising.

Change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto Margaret Thatcher

1960 - human population reaches three billion.

1965 - a US President's Advisory Committee panel warns that the greenhouse effect is a matter of "real concern".

1972 - first UN environment conference, in Stockholm. Climate change hardly registers on the agenda, which centres on issues such as chemical pollution, atomic bomb testing and whaling. The United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) is formed as a result.

1975 - human population reaches four billion.

1975 - US scientist Wallace Broecker puts the term "global warming" into the public domain in the title of a scientific paper.

1987 - human population reaches five billion

1987 - Montreal Protocol agreed, restricting chemicals that damage the ozone layer. Although not established with climate change in mind, it has had a greater impact on greenhouse gas emissions than the Kyoto Protocol.

1988 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) formed to collate and assess evidence on climate change.

1989 - UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher - possessor of a chemistry degree - warns in a speech to the UN that "We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere... The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto." She calls for a global treaty on climate change.

1989 - carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and industry reach six billion tonnes per year.

The CO2 concentration, as measured at Mauna Loa, has risen steadily

1990 - IPCC produces First Assessment Report. It concludes that temperatures have risen by 0.3-0.6C over the last century, that humanity's emissions are adding to the atmosphere's natural complement of greenhouse gases, and that the addition would be expected to result in warming.

1992 - at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, governments agree the United Framework Convention on Climate Change. Its key objective is "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". Developed countries agree to return their emissions to 1990 levels.

1995 - IPCC Second Assessment Report concludes that the balance of evidence suggests "a discernible human influence" on the Earth's climate. This has been called the first definitive statement that humans are responsible for climate change.

1997 - Kyoto Protocol agreed. Developed nations pledge to reduce emissions by an average of 5% by the period 2008-2012, with wide variations on targets for individual countries. US Senate immediately declares it will not ratify the treaty.

1998 - strong El Nino conditions combine with global warming to produce the warmest year on record. The average global temperature reached 0.52C above the mean for the period 1961-1990 (a commonly-used baseline).

1998 - publication of the controversial "hockey stick" graph indicating that modern-day temperature rise in the northern hemisphere is unusual compared with the last 1,000 years. The work would later be the subject of two enquiries instigated by the US Congress.

Rajendra Pachauri's IPCC netted the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007

1999 - human population reaches six billion.

2001 - President George W Bush removes the US from the Kyoto process.

2001 - IPCC Third Assessment Report finds "new and stronger evidence" that humanity's emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause of the warming seen in the second half of the 20th Century.

2005 - the Kyoto Protocol becomes international law for those countries still inside it.

2005 - UK Prime Minister Tony Blair selects climate change as a priority for his terms as chair of the G8 and president of the EU.

2006 - the Stern Review concludes that climate change could damage global GDP by up to 20% if left unchecked - but curbing it would cost about 1% of global GDP.

2006 - carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and industry reach eight billion tonnes per year.

2007 - the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report concludes it is more than 90% likely that humanity's emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for modern-day climate change.

2007 - the IPCC and former US vice-president Al Gore receive the Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change".

2007 - at UN negotiations in Bali, governments agree the two-year "Bali roadmap" aimed at hammering out a new global treaty by the end of 2009.

2008 - half a century after beginning observations at Mauna Loa, the Keeling project shows that CO2 concentrations have risen from 315 parts per million (ppm) in 1958 to 380ppm in 2008.

2008 - two months before taking office, incoming US president Barack Obama pledges to "engage vigorously" with the rest of the world on climate change.

2009 - China overtakes the US as the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter - although the US remains well ahead on a per-capita basis.

2009 - 192 governments convene for the UN climate summit in Copenhagen.

Q&A: The Copenhagen climate summit

http://news.bbc.co.uk

In December, delegations from 192 countries will hold two weeks of talks in Copenhagen aimed at establishing a new global treaty on climate change. Here, BBC environment correspondent Richard Black looks at what the talks are about and what they are supposed to achieve.

Why are the Copenhagen talks happening?

The majority of the world's governments believe that climate change poses a threat to human society and to the natural world.

Successive scientific reports, notably those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have come to ever firmer conclusions about humankind's influence on the modern-day climate, and about the impacts of rising temperatures.

Two years ago, at the UN climate talks held in Bali, governments agreed to start work on a new global agreement.

The Copenhagen talks mark the end of that two-year period.

Governments hope to leave the Danish capital having completed the new deal.

The talks are technically known as the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) - often abbreviated to COP15.

Why is climate change happening - and is it the same as global warming?

The Earth's climate has always changed naturally over time.

For example, variability in our planet's orbit alters its distance from the Sun, which has given rise to major Ice Ages and intervening warmer periods.

According to the last IPCC report, it is more than 90% probable that humankind is largely responsible for modern-day climate change.

A brief history of climate change What's your Copenhagen solution?

The principal cause is burning fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas.

This produces carbon dioxide (CO2), which - added to the CO2 present naturally in the Earth's atmosphere - acts as a kind of blanket, trapping more of the Sun's energy and warming the Earth's surface.

Deforestation and processes that release other greenhouse gases such as methane also contribute.

Although the initial impact is a rise in average temperatures around the world - "global warming" - this also produces changes in rainfall patterns, rising sea levels, changes to the difference in temperatures between night and day, and so on.

This more complex set of disturbances has acquired the label "climate change" - sometimes more accurately called "anthropogenic (human-made) climate change".

Why is a new treaty needed?

The Copenhagen talks sit within the framework of the UNFCCC, established at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992.

In 1997, the UNFCCC spawned the Kyoto Protocol.

Denmark's Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard will chair COP15

But neither of these agreements can curb the growth in greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to avoid the climate impacts projected by the IPCC.

In particular, the Kyoto Protocol's targets for reducing emissions apply only to a small set of countries and expire in 2012.

Governments want a new treaty that is bigger, bolder, wider-ranging and more sophisticated than the Kyoto agreement.

In June, the G8 and a number of large developing countries agreed that the average temperature rise since pre-industrial times should be limited to 2C (3.6F).

In principle, they are looking to the Copenhagen treaty to curb the growth in greenhouse gas emissions enough to keep the world within that limit.

Who is looking for what in the new treaty?

A lot of issues are involved.

Industrialised nations will set targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions in order to mitigate climate change.

The key date for these commitments is 2020, although some countries are looking beyond that, to 2050.

Australia, the EU, Japan and New Zealand have already said what they are prepared to do by 2020.

Richer developing countries are also likely to be asked to constrain their emissions.

If they do make any pledges, they are likely to restrain the growth of emissions rather than making actual cuts.

CLIMATE CHANGE GLOSSARY Select a term from the dropdown: Suggest additions Glossary in full Their commitments are likely to be expressed in terms of a reduction in emissions growth of a certain percentage compared with "business as usual". In order to help developing countries constrain their greenhouse gas emissions, industrialised nations have agreed in principle to help them in areas such as renewable energy. Developing countries are looking for mechanisms that can speed up this technology transfer. Many countries are thinking about how to prepare for the impacts of climate change - what sorts of adaptation will be necessary. These include measures such as building sea defences, securing fresh water supplies and developing new crop varieties. Developing countries are looking for substantial and reliable finance to help them adapt. Their argument is that as the industrialised world has caused the problem, it must pay to sort it out. Measures to protect forests will be a component of the deal. How much will it cost? In general, fossil fuels provide us with our cheapest sources of energy. The main route to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to avoid burning fossil fuels; so a successful treaty would almost certainly make energy more expensive. Funding clean technologies will be part of any deal There are different analyses of how much it would cost to make this transition quickly enough to avert "dangerous" climate change. Developing countries are looking for money in the order of hundreds of billions of dollars each year for mitigation - the ballpark figure that the International Energy Agency calculates is necessary to fund a large-scale switch to low-carbon energy. A number of studies, including one by the World Bank, also suggest that a further $100bn per year or thereabouts will be needed to help poorer countries adapt. By comparison, the amount of overseas aid currently given each year by rich countries is in the region of $100bn. What are the prospects for a deal? Four broad outcomes are possible from the Copenhagen summit: a comprehensive deal with all loose ends tied up a deal agreeing the "big picture", but with lots of details remaining to be thrashed out over the coming months or years adjournment of the COP, probably until midway through 2010 breakdown. Almost every government attending the talks says it wants a deal; and many contend it is necessary to have the essential ingredients in place by the time the Kyoto Protocol's current targets expire in 2012. But in the weeks leading up to Copenhagen, it has become clear that a full, legally-binding treaty is not possible, with a number of key players suggesting something less ambitious is indicated given the immense amount of detail remaining to be worked out and the fact that the US is not in a position to make firm pledges on mitigating its own emissions or on providing financial support to the developing world. A political agreement appears more likely, with attempts to secure a legally-binding treaty deferred until some point in 2010. Would a Copenhagen deal solve climate change? The global average temperature has already risen by about 0.7C since pre-industrial times. In some parts of the world this is already having impacts - and a Copenhagen deal could not stop those impacts, although it could provide funding to help deal with some of the consequences. Greenhouse gases such as CO2 stay in the atmosphere for decades; and concentrations are already high enough that further warming is almost inevitable. Many analyses suggest an average rise of 1.5C since pre-industrial times is guaranteed. A strong Copenhagen deal might keep the temperature rise under 2C; but given uncertainties in how the atmosphere and oceans respond to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, it might not. This is why developing countries put such an emphasis on adaptation, which they argue is necessary already. IPCC figures suggest that to have a reasonable chance of avoiding 2C, global emissions would need to peak and start to decline within about 15-20 years. Currently, the cuts pledged by industrialised nations are not enough to halt the overall global rise in emissions. Whatever happens in Copenhagen, further meetings will almost certainly be necessary to finalise the "rules" of any new treaty. Further ahead, at some point governments will almost certainly begin the process of securing the deal after Copenhagen.

Nuclear fuel cycle

http://news.bbc.co.uk Introduction :: Mining uranium Uranium is the basic raw material of both civilian and military nuclear programmes. It is extracted from either open-cast pits or by underground mining. Although uranium occurs naturally all over the world, only a small fraction is found in concentrated ores. When certain atoms of uranium are split in a chain reaction, energy is released. This process is called nuclear fission. In a nuclear power station this fission occurs slowly, while in a nuclear weapon, very rapidly. In both instances, fission must be very carefully controlled. Nuclear fission works best if isotopes - atoms with the same number of protons, but different numbers of neutrons - of uranium 235 (or plutonium 239) are used.These isotopes have almost identical chemical properties, but different nuclear properties. Uranium-235 is known as a "fissile isotope" because of its propensity to split in a chain reaction, releasing energy in the form of heat. When a U-235 atom splits, it emits two or three neutrons. When other U-235 atoms are present, these neutrons collide with them causing the other atoms to split, producing more neutrons. A nuclear reaction will only take place if there are enough u-235 atoms present to allow this process to continue as a self-sustaining chain reaction. This requirement is known as "critical mass". However, every 1,000 atoms of naturally-occurring uranium contain only seven atoms of U-235, with the remaining 993 being denser U-238.

Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue

http://news.bbc.co.uk

Iran says its nuclear regime is peaceful

Iran is defying Security Council resolutions ordering it to suspend the enrichment of uranium.

On 27 November 2009, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) criticised Iran for building another uranium enrichment plant.

Iran is now considering an offer to have much of its enriched uranium converted into fuel abroad.

Why has the IAEA criticised Iran again?

It argues that Iran's new plant near Qom should have been declared much earlier and is demanding that construction stops. Iran revealed the plant only days before President Obama accused it of developing a secret enrichment facility which the president suggested might have a military use. Iran says it was on time with its declaration - there is a dispute about its obligations to the IAEA - and is constructing the plant - in a mountain - in order to safeguard its technology from any attack.

The IAEA has inspected the plant and says that it will have room to house 3000 centrifuges.

What is the significance of the uranium enrichment offer?

The plan is to take about 75% (1,200kg) of the low-enriched uranium Iran has stockpiled and convert it into fuel rods in Russia and France for use in the research reactor Iran has run in Tehran for years. This produces isotopes for use in medical treatments.

It is potentially significant because it would lower tension with Iran and get most of the enriched uranium out of Iran, reducing fears that it could be further enriched and made suitable for a nuclear device.

However, Iran would still go on enriching and it could make up the amount in about a year.

Iran has given its agreement in principle but wants changes. The head of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei says that Iran is offering to release the uranium in two batches. It is not clear how, or indeed if, the agreement will go ahead.

Why is Iran refusing to obey the Security Council resolutions?

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a signatory state has the right to enrich uranium to be used as fuel for civil nuclear power. Such states have to remain under inspection from the IAEA. Iran is under such inspection. However, only those signatory states with nuclear weapons at the time of the treaty in 1968 are allowed to enrich to the much higher level needed for a nuclear weapon.

Iran says it is simply doing what it is allowed to do under the treaty and intends only to enrich to the level needed for nuclear power station fuel. It blames the Security Council resolutions on political pressure from the US and its allies. It argues that it needs nuclear power and wants to control the whole process itself...

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stressed that Iran will not yield to international pressure: "The Iranian nation will not succumb to bullying, invasion and the violation of its rights," he has said.

What does Iran say about developing nuclear weapons?

It says it will not break its obligations under the NPT and will not use the technology to make a nuclear bomb.

On 18 September 2009, President Ahmadinejad told NBC News: "We don't need nuclear weapons... it's not a part of our programmes and plans."

He said that nuclear-armed states should themselves give up their nuclear weapons.

Shortly afterwards Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who is reported to have issued a fatwa some time ago against nuclear weapons said: "We fundamentally reject nuclear weapons."

Why has the Security Council ordered Iran to stop enrichment?

Because the technology used to enrich uranium for use as fuel for nuclear power can also be used to enrich the uranium to the higher level needed to produce a nuclear explosion. There are fears that Iran is at least acquiring the know-how so that one day it has the option of going for a bomb. Iran hid an enrichment programme for 18 years, so the Council says that until Iran's peaceful intentions can be fully established, it should stop enrichment and certain other nuclear activities. The Council's order is obligatory and supersedes other rights.

What precisely does the Security Council and the IAEA want Iran to do?

It wants Iran to stop all enrichment activities, including the preparation of uranium ore, the installation of the centrifuges in which a gas from the ore is spun to separate the richer parts, and the insertion of the gas into the centrifuges. It also has to suspend its work on heavy water projects, notably the construction of a heavy water reactor. Such a reactor could produce plutonium, an alternative to uranium for a nuclear device.

The IAEA has also called on Iran to ratify and implement an additional protocol allowing more extensive inspections as a way of establishing confidence.

What does the IAEA say about Iran?

In September 2009, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in an interview that there was "no credible evidence" about an Iranian weapons attempt. He said: "I do not think based on what we see that Iran has an ongoing nuclear weapons programme."

The IAEA has Iran's Natanz fuel enrichment plant under its surveillance and in presenting his latest report in September 2009 Mr ElBaradei said: "Since my last report, the Agency has continued to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has co-operated with the Agency in improving safeguards measures at the Fuel Enrichment Plant and in providing the required access to the Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR-40) at Arak for purposes of design information verification.

"On all other issues relevant to Iran's nuclear programme, however, there is stalemate. Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities or its work on heavy water related projects as required by the Security Council, nor has Iran implemented the Additional Protocol. Likewise, Iran has not co-operated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues, detailed fully and completely in the Agency's reports, which need to be clarified in order to exclude the possibility of there being military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme."

The IAEA also reports that Iran is not cooperating with its request for an answer to questions about possible studies on nuclear warheads carried out in the past. On 26 November 2009, Mr ElBaradei said the discussions on this issue had reached a "dead end."

These past studies - which Iran calls fabrications - have caused concern in that Iran appears to have examined how to design a nuclear warhead.

What about a reported secret IAEA document on Iran's work?

This was reported by the Associated Press on 18 September 2009. The document is said to state that IAEA experts believe that Iran has "sufficient information" to make a nuclear device and has worked on a warhead that could be carried on a missile. When it is supposed to have done so is not clear.

This reported assessment goes beyond anything in published IAEA reports on Iran but in a statement the agency said it had "no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapons programme in Iran."

On 4 October, the New York Times also reported on the unpublished IAEA document and earlier the Institute for Science and International Security published what it said were excerpts.

President Obama offered an "extended hand" to Iran. What happened to that?

President Obama said: "If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us." He proposed that talks take place between Iran and the so-called P5 +1, that is the five permanent members of the Security Council - the US, Russia, China, Britain and France - plus Germany.

On 9 September 2009, Iran handed what appears to be its reply - a five page letter called "Cooperation for Peace, Justice and Progress". The letter offers global talks on a range of international issues, including global nuclear disarmament, but does not mention Iran's own nuclear work. President Ahmadinejad had said earlier that discussion of the Iranian nuclear issue was "finished" and that he would never negotiate on "the Iranian nation's obvious rights."

President Obama has said there will have to be an assessment of the Iranian position by the end of the year, the implication being that further sanctions would be considered if no progress was made.

What new sanctions are possible?

Russia and China are reluctant to agree to new Security Council sanctions, so a coalition of countries, including the EU, might take action themselves. Consideration was given to stopping the export to Iran of refined petroleum products. Despite its oil wealth, Iran cannot produce enough such products itself. However, there is opposition to this idea because it would hit ordinary people. There might efforts to get a ban on investment in oil and gas and on financial dealings, especially reinsurance.

Incentives are being offered to Iran. What are these?

The US, Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany say that if Iran suspends uranium enrichment, then talks can start about a long-term agreement. On offer is recognition of Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and the treatment of Iran in "the same manner" as other states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran would get help with developing nuclear power stations and be guaranteed fuel for them. It would also be offered trade concessions, including the possible lifting of US sanctions, which prevent it for example from buying new civilian aircraft and parts.

What sanctions have been imposed on Iran?

The US has imposed restrictions since the taking of American hostages in 1979, leading to a total trade embargo in 1995. In addition the UN has imposed wider sanctions.

Security Council Resolution 1737, passed in December 2006, mandates all UN member states "to prevent the supply, sale or transfer... of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems".

In March 2007, the Council passed resolution 1747. This seeks to tighten the squeeze on Iran's nuclear and missile programmes by preventing dealings with the state Bank Sepah and 28 named people and organisations, many connected to the elite Revolutionary Guard. Member states have been told to exercise restraint in and to report the travel of individuals connected to these programmes.

Imports of arms from Iran are banned and member states are told to exercise restraint in selling major arms systems to Iran. Loans are supposed to be limited to humanitarian and development purposes. Resolution 1803 of March 2008 extends asset restrictions and travel bans on more Iranian individuals said to be involved in nuclear work and on more Iranian companies. It bans the sale to Iran of so-called dual-use items - items which can have either a military or civilian purpose - as well as calling on governments to withdraw financial backing from companies trading with Iran, to inspect cargo going into and out of the country, and to monitor the activities of two Iranian banks.

What does the US intelligence assessment say about Iran?

The National Intelligence Estimate plays down any early threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. It assesses "with high confidence" that Iran did have a nuclear weapons programme until 2003, but this was discovered and Iran stopped it. The NIE adds: "We do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons." The assessment admits that Iran appears "less determined" to develop nuclear weapons than US intelligence had previously thought. It says that the earliest date by which Iran could make a nuclear weapon would be late 2009 but that this is "very unlikely".

What are the chances of an attack on Iran?

The Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu constantly stresses what he sees as a potential existential threat from Iran. Israel has reportedly carried out a major air force exercise, seen as practice for a raid on Iran. It is sceptical that diplomatic means will force Iran to stop enrichment and does not want to let Iran develop even a theoretical capacity to make a nuclear bomb.

So the possibility of an attack, by Israel at least, remains.

Does everyone accept the NIE report?

No. Israel does not. The then Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert said on 12 February 2008 that Israel thought Iran was aiming to create "a capacity for non-conventional weapons." The present prime minister Mr Netanyahu takes the same view.

And in London on 5 March 2008, a senior British diplomat said: "Many of us were surprised by how emphatic the writers [of the NIE] were... I haven't seen any intelligence that gives me even medium confidence that these programmes haven't resumed."

Even the Director of US National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, appeared to backtrack on 28 February 2008, in evidence to the Senate Armed Forces Committee. In this evidence, he said that Iran had probably halted warhead design and weaponisation, but pointed out that Iran's continued enrichment of uranium meant that it was continuing with "the most difficult challenge in nuclear production." He said: "We remain concerned about Iran's intentions... Tehran at a minimum is keeping the option open to develop nuclear weapons."

What other pressure has there been on Iran?

On 17 October 2007, the US designated part of the Revolutionary Guard as a "supporter of terrorism" and the Guard as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction for its alleged work on ballistic missiles. The US imposed further sanctions on the Guards' commercial activities and on several Iranian banks. The EU has agreed to freeze assets of Iran's largest bank, Bank Melli, and to extend visa bans to more Iranians involved in nuclear and missile development.

Is it not too late now to stop Iran from acquiring enrichment technology?

Iran thinks so and has said so. Its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has called this a "great victory". According to Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, events have overtaken the current strategy and he thinks that Iran should now be allowed to undertake limited enrichment but under strict supervision. This approach has been rejected by the US and its supporters.

How soon could Iran make a nuclear bomb?

Experts believe that Iran could enrich enough uranium for a bomb within a few months. However, it has apparently not mastered the technology of making a nuclear warhead. In theory Iran could leave the NPT with three months notice and it would then be free to do what it wanted. However, by doing that it would signal its intentions and leave itself open to attack. If it tried to divert material for a bomb in secret and was found out, it would lay itself open to the same risk.

Mohamed ElBaradei has said that the threat of Iran developing a bomb has been "hyped."

Doesn't the Non-Aligned Movement support Iran?

The NAM, representing 120 nations, issued a statement in July 2008 supporting Iran's right to develop peaceful nuclear power. Iran said this reflected international support for its position. The statement did not directly criticise UN sanctions against Iran, though it said that any issues should be dealt within the IAEA. It also appeared to accept that there are some problems remaining when it said: "Diplomacy and dialogue through peaceful means must continue to find a comprehensive and long-term solution to the Iranian nuclear issue."

Don't existing nuclear powers have obligations to get rid of their weapons under the NPT?

Article VI commits them to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament". The nuclear powers claim they have done this by reducing their warheads, but critics say they have not really moved towards nuclear disarmament. Critics also argue that the US and UK have broken the treaty by transferring nuclear technology from one to another. The US and UK say that this is not affected by the NPT.

Doesn't Israel have a nuclear bomb?

Yes. Israel, however, is not a party to the NPT, so is not obliged to report to it. Neither are India or Pakistan, both of which have developed nuclear weapons. North Korea has left the treaty and has announced that it has acquired a nuclear weapons capacity.

On 18 September 2009, the IAEA called on Israel to join the NPT and open its nuclear facilities to inspection. The resolution said that the IAEA "Expresses concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities, and calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT and place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards... "

Israel refuses to join the NPT or allow inspections. It is reckoned to have up to 400 warheads but refuses to confirm or deny this.

Iran nuclear crisis: are new sanctions on the way?

http://news.bbc.co.uk

By Paul Reynolds World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

Iran has insisted it will not stop enriching uranium

The latest criticism of Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is another sign that new sanctions could be on the way.

The IAEA resolution, censuring Iran's secret construction of another uranium enrichment plant, was supported by Russia and China.

This does not mean they will join in a new round of international measures against Iran. But it does mean that Iran cannot count on them for diplomatic support.

And it possibly indicates that Russia will not supply Iran with the S-300 anti-missile system that Iran has ordered. That would be a sanction in itself.

US President Barack Obama has indicated that he will assess the Iranian position by the end of the year.

If he goes for more sanctions, he will try to get Russia and China on board. If he cannot, he will act with fellow negotiators Britain, France and Germany, plus, he hopes, the whole EU and other players.

Western 'trick'

Only two things could stop such moves. The first is Iranian compliance with the security demands for it to stop uranium enrichment.

This opportunity should be seized and it would be highly regrettable if it was missed Mohamed ElBaradei

That will not happen, according to Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has been consistent on this so it is realistic to believe him.

The other is an agreement on a proposal to take Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium (LEU) and send it to Russia and France for conversion into fuel rods for use in Iran's small research reactor in Tehran, which produces isotopes for cancer treatment.

Some Iranian leaders see a trick in this, a way for the West to get hold of its uranium, then keep it.

However the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei has said that Iran does have a proposal of its own.

He said this week: "My understanding of Iran's position so far is that it is ready to exchange LEU produced in Iran, in two batches, simultaneously upon receipt of an equivalent amount of fuel for its research reactor.

"Pending receipt of the fuel, Iran is ready to place the LEU under IAEA custody and control, but only in Iran."

Mr ElBaradei, who retires from his post next week, also said: "This opportunity should be seized and it would be highly regrettable if it was missed." This is an understatement.

Target oil

The UN Security Council has approved three rounds of sanctions so far - covering trade in nuclear material, as well as travel and financial restrictions aimed at Iranian organisations and individuals.

If there are to be new sanctions, then the targets will be Iran's oil trade, especially its reliance on imported refined petroleum products, and the buzzword is reinsurance.

Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue Nuclear fuel cycle

Reinsurance is the means by which insurers can protect themselves against losses and the idea would be to stop or dissuade companies from proving such services for trade with Iran.

According to Wilkie, Farr and Gallaher, an international law firm, the intent is this: "The Obama Administration's sanctions could affect most Iranian import and export trade.

"[Its] proposals could ban goods, services, technology, information, or other activities that support the importation or production of refined petroleum by Iran, including refinery construction, modernization, and repair."

Some governments might be satisfied with that for the time being, bearing in mind that there is no evidence of actual nuclear bomb-making activity and Iran's statement that it will not build any such device.

However, Israel is not and will not be convinced.

New sanctions would have to be given time to work or not.

So a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites at some stage might be less likely in the shorter term, but cannot be not ruled out.

Iran rebuked over nuclear 'cover-up' by UN watchdog

http://news.bbc.co.uk

Iran's second uranium enrichment facility came to light in September

The UN nuclear watchdog's governing body has passed a resolution condemning Iran for developing a uranium enrichment site in secret.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also demanded that Iran freeze the project immediately.

The resolution, the first against Iran in nearly four years, was passed by a 25-3 margin with six abstentions.

Iran called the move "useless" but the US said it showed time was running out for Iran to address key issues.

Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful energy purposes, but the US says it is seeking nuclear weapons.

In September, it emerged that as well as its uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, Iran had a second such facility near the town of Qom.

The revelation deepened Western fears about the country's nuclear ambitions.

'Clear signal'

The IAEA resolution was passed with rare Russian and Chinese backing. Only Cuba, Venezuela and Malaysia voted against it.

						I believe the next stage will have to be sanctions if Iran does not respond to what is a very clear vote Gordon Brown New sanctions on way for Iran?

It called on Iran to reveal the purpose of the second plant and confirm that it is not building any other undeclared nuclear facilities.

After the resolution, the US said Iran needed to address "the growing international deficit of confidence in its intentions".

"Our patience and that of the international community is limited, and time is running out," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

"If Iran refuses to meet its obligations, then it will be responsible for its own growing isolation and the consequences."

Speaking at a Commonwealth summit in Trinidad and Tobago, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that sanctions were the next step if Iran did not respond to what was "a very clear vote".

Russia's Foreign Ministry urged Iran to react "with full seriousness" to the resolution.

ANALYSIS Jon Leyne, BBC Tehran correspondent This resolution is a sign of Iran's growing isolation. It is the first at the IAEA since 2006. Crucially it secured the support of Russia and China. That makes it more likely they will vote for new sanctions on Iran when debate is stepped up in the new year, though there are still some tough negotiations ahead. It seems that Iran's hesitation over a new fuel deal for its Tehran research reactor and its reluctance to engage in more constructive talks has infuriated even those countries which have protected it in the past. On Thursday IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei, who has always pressed for a compromise solution, expressed his frustration in dealing with Iran. In response, Iran has threatened to reduce its co-operation with the UN nuclear watchdog, but not to break off ties completely. The real trouble for Tehran is that the Iranian government now seems to be in too much internal turmoil to make clear decisions and follow them through.

But Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast called the IAEA vote "a theatrical move aimed at pressuring Iran" that would be "useless", state news agency Irna reported.

And Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said it was a "hasty and undue" step that would jeopardise the chances of success in negotiations.

"The great nation of Iran will never bow to pressure and intimidation vis-a-vis its inalienable right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy," he said.

The resolution came a day after the outgoing head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, expressed frustration at Iran's refusal to accept an international proposal to end the dispute over its nuclear programme.

The plan envisages Iran's low-enriched uranium being shipped overseas for processing into fuel. This is seen as a way for Iran to get the fuel it wants, while giving guarantees to the West that it will not be used for nuclear weapons.

Addressing IAEA governors in Vienna on Thursday, Mr ElBaradei said his inspectors had made no progress in their attempts to verify the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme.

"It is now well over a year since the agency was last able to engage Iran in discussions about these outstanding issues," he said. "We have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us."