FAILURE OF U.S. PRESS ABOUT WAR WITH IRAN

"... The mainstream media has also inexcusably failed to educate the public about the nature of a possible war with Iran... It fails to point out that, just like the war in Iraq, any war with Iran would be totally illegal, so long as the Islamic Republic has neither attacked nor plainly threatened the United States. The mainstream media has failed to make clear that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will seem relative child's play compared to a war with Iran. The Islamic Republic has placed many assets throughout the Middle East; if attacked, Iran's military will not hesitate to use both its own resources and those assets to quickly spread the conflict -- via asymmetrical warfare, in particular -- throughout the Middle East and quite possibly the entire Islamic world. The mainstream media does not wish to tell the American people the unpleasant truth that a war with Iran will destroy the economy of the West, and may ultimately lead to World War III."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/12/using-wikileaks-to-advance-the-narrative-of-war-on-iran.html

SENATOR SAYS U.S. SHOULD "NEUTER" IRAN

"Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham... (said) his country should be prepared to launch a military attack on Iran that would "neuter" the hard line regime... military action against Iran that would destroy its ability to fight back while allowing its people to rise up... "sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard... neuter that regime."
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20101106/lindsey-graham-iran-halifax-101106/

AHMADINEJAD DID NOT ACCUSE THE U.S. OF 9-11 ATTACKS

"The Iranian leader did not accuse the U.S. of conspiring to murder thousands of its own people to create a pretext for launching wars as conveyed by the US media... the Times published a correction: "A headline on Friday with an article about an incendiary speech in the United Nations General Assembly by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran summarized his remarks about the Sept. 11 terror attacks incorrectly. In his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad asserted various theories about the origin of the attacks, including the possibility that they had been planned by the United States. He did not say that the United States had planned the attacks... "

"Following are the few paragraphs pertaining to this matter from the Iranian leader's text:

"In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints.

"1- That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack. This is the main viewpoint advocated by American statesmen.

"2- That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.

"3- It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents. The main evidence linking the incident was a few passports found in the huge volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American officials. It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire no trace of the suicide attackers was found..."

Ahmadinejad did not suggest these were his views...."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SMI20100926&articleId=21198

The corrected New York Times article (correction is at the bottom):
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/world/24nations.html?scp=1&sq=ahmadinejad%20correction&st=cse

RUSSIAN SALE OF S-300 MISSILE SYSTEM IS OFF

"... Russia... (will) permanently halt delivery of S-300 missiles, which Tehran wanted to build as a deterrent to airstrikes against its nuclear facilities. The declaration by Mr. Medvedev ended equivocation by Russian officials about whether the sophisticated advanced air defense system would fall under the sanctions ban..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/world/europe/23prexy.html?_r=1

ILLUSION OF LIMITED WAR ON AGAINST IRAN
U.S. casualties on a WW2 scale

"... The range of predictable responses available to the IRGC high command include dramatic hit ad run attacks against military and commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf, the use of mid-range ballistic missiles against American bases in the region and Israel and a direct assault on American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. All these options are likely to be used within 48 hours of the start of hostilities...

"One possible response by the IRGC Qods force is spectacular terrorist-style attacks against American intelligence bases and assets throughout the region. The IRGC Qods Force is believed to have identified every key component of the American intelligence apparatus in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan...

"The IRGC navy will also play a key asymmetrical role in the conflict by organising maritime suicide bombings on an industrial scale. By manning its fleet of speedboats with suicide bombers and ramming them into American warships and even neutral commercial shipping, (they) will hope to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 40 percent of world crude oil supplies pass...

"The combination of these asymmetrical forms of warfare with more conventional style missile and even ground force attacks on American bases in the region will likely result in thousands of American military casualties in the space of a few weeks. The IRGC has both the will and wherewithal to inflict a level of casualties on American armed forces not seen since the Second World War...

"Not only will it awaken the sleeping giant of Iranian nationalism... U.S. military aggression will likely accelerate the actualisation of the very scenario that American political and military leaders insist they are determined to prevent, i.e. a nuclear armed Iran..."

http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/abedin-the-illusion-of-a-‘limited-war’-against-iran.html

AHMADINEJAD EXPECTS U.S. ATTACK SOON

"Iran expects the United States to launch a military strike... "They have decided to attack at least two countries in the region in the next three months," Ahmadinejad said..."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/07/27-7

IRAN READY TO RESOLVE NUCLEAR DISPUTE

"Iran is ready for "effective cooperation" to resolve the dispute over its nuclear program... will talk with P5+1 as of early September, but there are some conditions... the conditions for talks include the P5+1 members announcing their positions on Israel having nuclear weapons... The P5+1 consists of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- the United States, Russia, China, France and United Kingdom -- and Germany..."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/07/27/iran.nuclear.negotiations/index.html?iphoneemail

EX-CIA DIRECTOR SAYS STRIKE ON IRAN IS "INEXORABLE"

"Michael Hayden, a CIA chief under President George W. Bush...predicts Iran will build its program to the point where it's just below having an actual weapon... during his tenure a strike was "way down the list" of options. But... such action now "seems inexorable."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/25/us-iran-military-strike-likely_n_658522.html

IRAN STUDYING NUCLEAR FUSION

"Iran's nuclear agency began studies Saturday to build an experimental nuclear fusion reactor, something that has yet to be achieved by any nation... Iran will take two years to complete these studies and then another decade to design and build a reactor... The United States, the European Union, China, India, Russia, Japan and South Korea signed an accord in 2006 to build a $12.8 billion experimental fusion reactor at Cadarache, southern France, aimed at revolutionizing global energy use for future generations. The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER, members have said no single country can afford the immense investment needed to move the science forward... Iran's nuclear chief, said Iran was willing to join any international grouping to offer its expertise to promote the project. However, he said Iran will go its own way should the world not welcome it."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iran_nuclear

IRANIAN DEFECTOR TOLD CIA IRAN HAS NO NUKE PROGRAM

"... CIA sources familiar with the Amiri case say he told his CIA handlers that there is no such Iranian nuclear weapons programme... Amiri provided "almost no information" about Iran's nuclear programme... but had picked up "scuttlebutt" from other nuclear scientists with whom he was acquainted that the Iranians have no active nuclear weapon programme... (which is a) reaffirmation... of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)'s finding that work on a nuclear weapon has not been resumed after being halted in 2003..."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/07/19-5

GOP LAWMAKER SAYS IRANIANS INFILTRATING FROM MEXICO



"Iran is working with Venezuela. And they're transiting through Venezuela, taking Spanish for maybe six months. They're getting the false documents that they need, coming up through Mexico and if they're stopped, they just say well I'm Spanish... the other thing that we're seeing... in the prisons is Farsi tattoos. Farsi is basically a Persian language, which Iran is... That's a pretty good indication that these people coming across our border are not just coming from Mexico..."
--Representative Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/14/sue-myricks-latest-conspi_n_646093.html

This Republican congresswoman, who is on the House Intelligence Committee, believes that Iran sends agents to Venezuela to be trained in Spanish, so they can cross the Mexican border into the US, where so many end up in prison that they can be spotted by their Farsi tattoos.

This fear-mongering fantasy neatly combines Iran, Chavez, the Mexican border, immigration reform, and olive-skinned prisoners unto a call for action. Dislike of immigrants was not enough; now fear of Iran is being used to justify more defenses on the Mexican border. And it also increases the support for an attack on Iran.

In analyzing this "intelligence", I expect that:
1. There are Iranians in Venezuela as a result of the trade and military exchanges between the two countries.
2. The people in the trade and military missions are learning each other's languages.
3. No Spanish-speaking Iranian agents have been caught on the Mexican border.
3. The tattoos on the US prisoners are Arabic, and the prisoners are Hispanics and/or converts to Islam, who speak no Farsi and have no connection to Iran.

IRAN SUBJECT TO NUCLEAR DOUBLE STANDARD

"... U.S. and other nuclear-armed powers have punished Iran with the sanctions even though it doesn't have nuclear weapons, while at the same time they support Israel, which is widely believed to have a sizable nuclear arsenal...

"The Jewish state, which unlike Iran has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its nuclear program, neither confirming nor denying that it has nuclear weapons...

"(Meanwhile) ... the U.N. nuclear watchdog never found evidence of Tehran diverting its nuclear program into weapons-making... (and Iran says) it only seeks nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and insists on its rights under the nonproliferation treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel..."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/18-0

IRAN'S RISING INFLUENCE IN LATIN AMERICA

"Iran has undertaken its own ambitious mission in recent years to expand its influence across Latin America and the Caribbean... The expanding Iranian-Brazilian interface, as well as Iran's growing multifaceted contacts with Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Guyana, among a host of other nations in the Americas, reflect Iran's commitment to assert itself as a player in its own right in the Americas.... (D)iplomatic exchanges and growing business contacts between Iran and partners in Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Peru and Mexico, coupled with the opening of new Iranian embassies, also illustrate the rapid development of the Islamic Republic's relations with the region..."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LF19Ak03.html

AHMADINEJAD UP, GREEN MOVEMENT DOWN

"Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad seems be to standing on firmer political ground than any other time during his time in office... his government is now more confident at home and more respected abroad. On a broader scale, the Islamic Republic of Iran is in many ways stronger and more stable... In the international arena of geopolitical and diplomatic challenges, Iran has recently scored a number of important points and won important new allies... (with) the recent Iran-Brazil-Turkey agreement on nuclear fuel exchange...

"(Meanwhile)... the political fortunes of... Mir Hossein Mousavi... have significantly declined and their ''Green'' movement... is in disintegration... (T)he green movement ran a dishonest presidential campaign. Its candidate, Mousavi, ran for president but refused to submit to the will of the majority when it became clear that he had lost the election. This has led many observers to believe that his presidential campaign was more akin to a coup attempt..."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LF16Ak01.html

AFGHAN INSURGENTS GETTING AID FROM IRAN

"Afghan insurgents are being trained inside Iran and given weapons to fight security forces, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces said... General Stanley McChrystal said... Iran, as a neighbor, had natural interests in Afghanistan and to a certain extent the assistance and interaction it provided was healthy. "There is however clear evidence of Iranian activity, in some cases of providing weapons and training to the Taliban that is inappropriate... "

"Tehran's economic influence in Afghanistan has grown rapidly in recent years, especially in the West, where cross-border trade is brisk. A dialect of Iran's Farsi language is one of two state languages in Afghanistan, and Iran hosted millions of Afghan refugees during decades of conflict...."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_afghanistan_iran

U.S. ORDERS CLANDESTINE MILITARY OPERATIONS INSIDE IRAN

"... Gen. David H. Petraeus... has ordered a broad expansion of clandestine military activity in an effort to disrupt militant groups or counter threats in Iran... the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate... The secret directive, signed in September... appears to authorize specific operations in Iran, most likely to gather intelligence about the country’s nuclear program or identify dissident groups that might be useful for a future military offensive..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/world/25military.html

U.S. DENIES IRAN THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ENRICHMENT
Because such knowledge would be a deterrent against attack

"... the position of the U.S.... has been that Iran must be compelled to forfeit its right to enrich uranium, even for a purely peaceful nuclear program, since the technological knowledge that Iran is acquiring by enriching uranium could be diverted towards a military program in the future...

(However) Iran's goal is not the acquisition of a nuclear weapon, but the acquisition of the technological knowledge to assemble the components of a nuclear weapon without actually building one and without violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty... this approach could give Iran much of the benefit of acquiring a nuclear weapon as a deterrent against Western attack without subjecting Iran to the negative political and economic consequences of openly violating the treaty.

(So) The U.S. goal has not been merely to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon - the U.S. goal has been to prevent Iran from acquiring the deterrent benefits of getting close to acquiring a nuclear weapon..."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/04-4

IRAN NO THREAT

"... Iran historically is not an aggressive, expansive nation. Though it is, by dint of its oil reserves and its population, one of the biggest and most powerful countries in the Middle East, it has not invaded another country since the 18th century, and there is no indication that it plans to invade any other country now... For Iran to launch a crude nuke at Israel would be an act of national suicide, and while individual terrorists may kill themselves, nations don't commit suicide....

"Iran... (is not) America's arch enemy... It has backed the same Shi'ite led government in Iraq that the US has been backing, and indeed, to the extent that Iraq has stabilized, it is largely Iran's doing. It provided key help to the US in the early invasion of Afghanistan and the routing of the Taliban government, which was never favored by the Iranians... Iran has no ability to attack the US, and even its ability to threaten US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan is severely limited, not to mention the fact that should it be foolhardy enough to initiate any such action, it would bring down the full force of the US military on its head in an instant..."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/22-7

IRAN AIMING FOR NUCLEAR LATENCY AS DETERRANCE
U.S. has no policy to deal with it

"... Iran (may) choose the course that many government and outside analysts consider likely: Iran could assemble all the major parts it needs for a nuclear weapon — fuel, designs and detonators — but stop just short of assembling a fully operational weapon. In that case, Iran could remain a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty while becoming what strategists call a “virtual” nuclear weapons state.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/world/middleeast/18iran.html?hp

"... Tehran (may) achieve ‘nuclear latency’ (where a country has the ability to construct a nuclear weapon but stops short of doing so), in order to avoid international sanctions and disapproval... (Secretary of Defense) Gates concurs with those analysts... that Iran does not intend actually to build a bomb, but wants the technical know-how to do so as a way of deterring foreign invasions and attacks... Gates sent the White House a memo last January observing that the US has no real developed policy for dealing with Iran should Tehran achieve ‘nuclear latency’..."
http://www.juancole.com/2010/04/gates-worries-about-iranian-nuclear-research-while-khamenei-blasts-us-for-hiroshima.html

ISRAEL THE CAUSE OF IRAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM

"... Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is at the moment largely in compliance with it, has no nuclear arsenal, and does not even have a nuclear weapons program. (The treaty allows countries to enrich uranium for fuel, which is all that Iran is known to be doing). Yet the US has an extensive regime of economic sanctions on Iran, along with UN Security Council sanctions, both of which Obama is attempting to ratchet up. In contrast, Israel is actively constructing more and more nuclear warheads, which it is stockpiling, and which its leaders occasionally brandish at other Middle Eastern states. The Israeli arsenal, in turn, spurs a Middle East arms race..."
-- Juan Cole, Informed Comment, April 11, 2010
http://www.juancole.com/

IRAN DEVELOPING NUKES OUT OF FEAR

"... Iran is developing nuclear weapons out of a rational fear for its national safety because of the systematically threatening posture of the United States and Israel... Hostile actions of the United States and its Israeli client are a major factor in Iran's decisions of whether or not to develop a nuclear deterrent... the defiant and hypocritical insistence of the United States on holding the constant threat of military action over Iran as a punishment for its noncompliance with United Nations mandates..."
--Noam Chomsky, Memorial Church, Harvard University, March 6, 2010
http://www.hlrecord.org/news/noam-chomsky-iran-pursuing-nuclear-weapons-out-of-fear-1.1265656

IRAN ANNOUNCES CRUISE MISSILES

"Iran announced Sunday that it has started a new production line of highly accurate, short range cruise missiles... the cruise missile, called Nasr 1, would be capable of destroying targets up to 3,000 tons in size... the missile can be fired from ground-based launchers as well as ships, but would eventually be modified to be fired from helicopters and submarines... the cruise missiles would strengthen Iran's naval power..."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-03-07-iran-missile_N.htm?csp=usat.me

IRAN NUCLEAR STOCKPILE OUT IN OPEN

"Iran moved nearly its entire stockpile of low-enriched nuclear fuel to an above-ground plant... with inspectors present, the Iranians moved roughly 4,300 pounds of low-enriched uranium out of deep underground storage to the small plant that they have declared they will use to re-enrich the fuel to 20 percent purity... the fuel now sits out in the open, where an air attack... could destroy it.... military officials say this is a tempting moment for the Israelis...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/world/middleeast/27iran.html?hp

IRAN AND THE NUCLEAR TREATY

From the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty:
"Article I: Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons...
Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons...
Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
Article IV: Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

"... Greg Thielmann, Senior Fellow at the Arms Control Association, notes that it would be far better if the U.S. would stress that Iran's right to uranium enrichment, consistent with Non-Proliferation Treaty Article IV, is contingent on Iran's adherence to the treaty's Articles I, II, and III. Thielmann notes that Iran has no inherent right to uranium enrichment while it is violating its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA. Yet this point is being lost by the West's unqualified emphasis on the demand that uranium enrichment be suspended, and inconsistent U.S. statements about Iran's intention to develop nuclear weapons. Consequently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can posture that the West is just trying to keep Iran down and deny it the rights guaranteed under the NPT..."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/22-1

WAR GAME SHOWS ATTACK ON IRAN COULD BACKFIRE

"... (A) recent war game conducted at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, part of the Washington-based Brookings Institution, a center-left think tank, appears to dampen hopes for a simple solution to Iran's real-world nuclear challenge. The lesson is "once you start this, it's really hard to stop it"... even a "successful" airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities — setting the program back by two to four years — could come at a tremendous, unpredictable cost..."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/21/87061/war-game-shows-how-attacking-iran.html

ISRAEL HAS DRONE FLEET THAT CAN REACH IRAN


"Israel's air force on Sunday introduced a fleet of huge pilotless planes that can remain in the air for a full day and could fly as far as the Persian Gulf, putting rival Iran within its range.The Heron TP drones have a wingspan of 86 feet (26 meters), making them the size of Boeing 737 passenger jets and the largest unmanned aircraft in Israel's military. The planes can fly at least 20 consecutive hours and are primarily used for surveillance and carrying diverse payloads.... The unmanned plane resembles its predecessor, the Heron, but can fly higher, reaching an altitude of more than 40,000 feet (12,000 meters), and remain in the air longer... The plane's maker, state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries, has said it is capable of reaching the Persian Gulf, which would put Iran within its range. Israeli defense officials said the Heron TP could be a useful tool against Iran. It could provide surveillance, jam enemy communications and connect ground control and manned air force planes..."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100221/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_drones

CLINTON PROMOTES CONFLICT WITH IRAN

"In a visit to Qatar and Saudi Arabia this week, Hillary Clinton said that Iran "is moving toward a military dictatorship"... What could America's top diplomat hope to accomplish with this kind of inflammatory rhetoric?... what is the purpose of a speech like this? The most obvious conclusion is that it is to promote conflict, and to convince Americans that Iran is an actual threat to their security. Americans generally have to be prepared and persuaded for years if they are to accept that they must go to war... (Americans must be led to believe that) it's really true that all these people just want to kill us for no reason; that it has nothing to do with our foreign policy or wars; that we can effectively reduce terrorism by bombing and occupying Muslim countries; and that terrorism is the country's most urgent security threat..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/feb/18/hillary-clinton-iran

IRAN SAYS NUKES ARE BANNED BY ISLAM

"Iran's supreme leader said Friday the Islamic republic isn't seeking and doesn't believe in pursuing nuclear bombs... "Iran will not get emotional in its response to these nonsensical statements, because we have often said that our religious tenets and beliefs consider these kinds of weapons of mass destruction to be symbols of genocide and are, therefore, forbidden and considered to be haram (religiously banned)," he said. "This is why we do not believe in atomic bombs and weapons and do not seek them."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/19/iran.nuclear/index.html?iphoneemail

DEBATE OVER DEFINITION OF TERRORISM

"... confusion and doubt arose (after Joseph Stack's airplane attack on an IRS building) over whether a person who perpetrated a classic act of Terrorism should, in fact, be called a Terrorist: he's not a Muslim and isn't acting on behalf of standard Muslim grievances against the U.S. or Israel, and thus does not fit the "definition." It has really come to mean: "a Muslim who fights against or even expresses hostility towards the United States, Israel and their allies."
If an American Muslim argues that violence against the U.S. (particularly when aimed at military targets) is justified due to American violence aimed at the Muslim world, that person is a Terrorist who deserves assassination... if the U.S. military invades a Muslim country, Muslims who live in the invaded and occupied country and who fight back against the invading American army -- by attacking nothing but military targets -- are also Terrorists.... (And) large numbers of detainees at Guantanamo were accused of being Terrorists for nothing more than attacking members of an invading foreign army in their country..."
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/19/terrorism/index.html

"... Stratfor, an Austin-based global intelligence firm specializing in international risk management, said the rhetoric in Stack's rant clearly matches the USA Patriot Act's definition of terrorism: a criminal act that is intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping..."
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/nation-world-news/plane-attack-prompts-debate-over-terrorism-label-558975.html

IRAN DISMISSES U.S. DEADLINE, SETS ITS OWN DEADLINE

"... Iran dismissed an end-of-2009 deadline... to accept a U.N.-drafted deal to swap most of its enriched uranium for nuclear fuel. The deal would reduce Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium... Under the plan, Iran would export most of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium for further enrichment in Russia and France, where it would be converted into fuel rods. The rods, which Iran needs for the research reactor in Tehran, would be returned to the country about a year later... Exporting the uranium would temporarily leave Iran without enough of a stockpile to further enrich the uranium into material for a nuclear warhead, and the rods that are returned cannot be processed further for use in making weapons..."

"(Now) Iran (has) set a one-month deadline... for the West to accept its counterproposal... (which is) to have the West either sell nuclear fuel to Iran, or swap its nuclear fuel for Iran's enriched uranium in smaller batches instead of at once as the U.N. plan requires... (Iran)... warned that otherwise it will produce reactor fuel at a higher level of enrichment on its own..."

"(However) it would likely take years before it could master the technology to turn uranium enriched to the level of 20 percent into the fuel rods it needs for a medical research reactor..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/02/iran-warns-west-it-will-m_n_409306.html