The concern over Iran's nuclear power

Nuclear weapons have been a topic of concern since the development of the atomic bomb during World War I. But with President Bush's recent tour of Europe, they have become the backbone of political discourse. \nOver the past month the source of nuclear concerns has been shifted from North Korea, which recently admitted to having nuclear weapons, to Iran, which sees itself has preparing to defend against an increasingly hostile United States. President Bush has called upon Germany, France, Great Britain and Russia for support in confronting Iran's decisions on nuclear power and is sure he has the support of the world in confronting Iran, saying in a press conference Thursday, " ... all said loud and clear that the Iranians should not have nuclear weapons."\nIran, along with 189 other countries, signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty of Nuclear Weapons, which was enacted in 1970 to ensure that the development of nuclear weapons would stay in check. Any country has the option of signing the treaty to prevent any expansion or development of nuclear weapons.\nOnly five countries -- China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States -- are able to hold nuclear weapons under this treaty. To U.S. knowledge, three countries -- India, Pakistan and Israel -- have nuclear weapons but have not signed the treaty. These countries have been producing weapons in spite of this treaty, reporting that the treaty is unfair. \nHowever, Iran, a member to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has become the focus of concern, prompting President Bush to declare in a news conference with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, "Iran must not have a nuclear weapon for the sake of security and peace."\nPresident Bush said his concern over Iran's weapons stems from the fact that "they were caught enriching uranium after they have signed a treaty saying they wouldn't enrich uranium." This breach has given the president reason to take action. \nIn Europe, talks have been set up between Germany, France and Great Britain that will work to find more appealing options than nuclear power for Iran, such as more trade to promote the Iranian economy. President Bush hasn't offered U.S. participation in these talks.\nFrom Iran's point of view, nuclear power is beneficial to the nation's development because it is cheaper and more efficient than a limited oil supply. The country began developing uranium, which is the first step in the development of nuclear weapons, but has not produced the weapons themselves. In U.S. eyes, Iran has no reason for nuclear power because it has such a clear abundant source of oil.\nThe president's tour in Europe is evidence of his diplomatic approach to the Iranian question he intends to follow until June. Pressure to mend relations with Europe and other nations has been stressed since the U.S. invasion of Iraq. After June, he will open the case to the Security Council in New York. \nThe president has called suggestions that the U.S. might invade Iran "ridiculous," but he has also said "all options are on the table." Talking and opening up diplomacy is always the first step, and many of Bush's critics were pleased with his willingness to discuss concerns with other leaders. \nThe key to understanding the nuclear issue will be deciphering every country's intent, which may prove to be the guidance for action. Only when true motivation is understood will their be a resolution to the question.