As I understand it Iran is legally entitled to develop the nuclear fuel cycle, as are all signatories to the non-proliferation treaty. Is there not a double standard here: the US and Europe says no to Iran but yes to Israel, Pakistan and India? Did not the United States build Iran's first nuclear plant at Amirabad, and knew that the Shah had began a low-grade weapons research programme in 1967?

Martin Rowson

The US is pushing to bring sanctions against Iran for a suspected "nuclear weapons programme". The current battleground is at the International Atomic Energy Agency, where the Bush administration proposes to refer Iran's civilian nuclear programme to the UN security council.

As an editorial in The Guardian points out the world's five "official" nuclear powers, led by a unilateralist United States, could do more to meet their own NPT obligations to move towards disarmament, and been less than tolerant towards a nuclear-armed Israel, India and Pakistan operating outside the treaty.

Is not the Bush adminstration busy investing in another generation of nukes? Why so when the ciold war over/?

Strikes me that a lot of nonsense is being talked around nuclear power (and energy).