Well then, I guess the joke is on the US for having prevented Iran from simply purchasing the 20% nuclear reactor fuel it needs to make medical isotopes in a fully-monitored reactor that poses no weapons threat in the first place. Or, for having torpedoed the Turkey-Brazil brokered deal whereby Iran was ready to export its enriched uranium to be manufactured into reactor fuel overseas.

As Elbaradei has noted, by consistently refusing to acknowledge repeated Iranian compromise offers, we;re only making things worse.

"I have seen the Iranians ready to accept putting a cap on their enrichment [program] in terms of tens of centrifuges, and then in terms of hundreds of centrifuges. But nobody even tried to engage them on these offers. Now Iran has 5,000 centrifuges. The line was, "Iran will buckle under pressure." But this issue has become so ingrained in the Iranian soul as a matter of national pride. "

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/05/22/mohamed-elbaradei-they-are-not-fanatics.html

Beware the NONSTOP SPECULATIVE Propaganda Campaign for War against Islamic Republic of Iran

This is all nonstop propaganda lies of nonsense like in IRAQ with WMD by zionist US aggressor from Iraq, Afghanistan to Libya.
Iran has no nuclear weapons program and has been consistent all times.
For about 12 years, Israel has claimed that Iran will have a nuclear bomb within 6 months or a year.
The USA constantly issues accusations about Iran's "nuclear weapons" but to this day, has not produced one shred of evidence to support those accusations.
So, why should one believe anything they say now? any potential delay in it is just imaginary.
Iran wants to enjoy the benefits of NPT for peacefull nuclear energy that's why Iran is to remain in NPT
Otherwise, Iran has quit from NPT a long time ago.

In principle, however, nothing in international law or in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty forbids the enrichment of uranium. Besides Iran, several other countries, parties or not to the treaty, enrich uranium without being accused of "threatening the peace." And in Iran, this activity is submitted to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. These inspections, it is true, are constrained by a safeguards agreement dating from the 1970s. But it is also true that the IAEA has never uncovered in Iran any attempted diversion of nuclear material to military use.

While the US possesses and has used nuclear weapons in the past, Washington, in a politically-motivated move, is imposing unilateral sanctions against Iran, which does not possess nuclear weapons nor does it seek to develop such weapons.
WikiLeaks – A fabricated conspiracy of nonstop propaganda lies to isolate Iran from other Muslim nations for US's benefits on behalf of unbreakable bond Israel.

"NOTHING CAN DEPRIVE IRAN OF ITS NONSTOP INALIENABLE RIGHT AND KNOWHOW FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY."
BUT, YOU CAN KEEP TRYING BY ALL MEANS TO SABOTAGE IT SUCH AS SANCTIONS, VIRUS, ALL KINDS OF PARANOID MEDIA PROPAGANDA LIES IN THE NEWS VIA FAKE DOCUMENTS LIKE WIKILEAKS, WMD IN IRAQ, TERRORISMS, IRAN IS A THREAT OR YOU NAME IT LIKE THE WAY THE BIBLE WRITTEN TO BE READ, ASKING FOR SACRIFICES ON ISRAEL'S BEHALF.
UN CHARTER VII ARTICLE 51:
Provides for the right of countries to engage in military action in self-defense, including collective self-defense (i.e. under an alliance) FOR IRAN TO NONSTOP FIGHT FOR ITS RIGHTS AND FREEDOM, LIBERTY. IRAN IS A LAND OF THE BRAVES.

ElBaradei: US, Europe Weren’t Interested in Compromise With Iran
Officials Withheld Key Info From IAEA Chief in Push for Regime Change
by Jason Ditz, April 20, 2011

Former IAEA Chief and current Egyptian Presidential candidate Mohamed ElBaradei has given a high profile interview to Der Spiegel this week. Though the interview largely centers around domestic politics, it also delves into his IAEA experience, particularly with respect to the attempts to broker a deal on Iran.

ElBaradei reported that he was “on the verge of a solution on several occasions” and that politics had always foiled the efforts. In particular he accused US and European officials of withholding important documents.

“They weren’t interested in a compromise with the government in Tehran, but regime change – by any means necessary,” reported ElBaradei. He also noted the difficulty of trying to broker talks under these circumstances.

ElBaradei is releasing his memoirs of his time as IAEA chief in a book to be released next month. It is expected to detail his diplomatic efforts with Iraq (before the 2003 US invasion) as well as Iran and North Korea.

Mr. Kupchan omits relevant facts, such as west's failure to provide nuclear fuel for the Tehran medical reactor, thus prompting Tehran to engage in 19.75% enrichment, and then in light of external threats opting to use the Fordo facility to protect against any strike. Nor does he bother to mention that Fordo once operational, i.e., nuclear material introduced, then it will be under IAEA safeguard, which includes surveillance cameras at Natanz facilities, as well as short-notice inspections (dozens per IAEA reports). Furthermore, Kupchan needs reminder that Iran is not violating its international obligations by enriching, as confirmed by 6 former European ambassadors to Iran in their recent oped article. Kupchan's hypotheticals about "if" Iran does this or that and the repercussions are matters of academic exercise not prudent policy-making. Fact is there is no shred of evidence of Iranian proliferation as Mr. El Baradei explicity stated in the June 6 New Yorker, and all the hoopla about Israeli strike is a smokescreen for the US's soft war on Iran. I doubt if Mr. Kupchan even knows that the IAEA agreed in its 2007 workplan with Iran to normalize Iran's dossier once the six outstanding questions were setlled, which are in Iran's favor. The real risk is ignorance.
Kaveh Afrasiabi
author: Iran's Nuclear Program: Debating Facts Versus Fiction

In principle, however, nothing in international law or in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty forbids the enrichment of uranium. Besides Iran, several other countries, parties or not to the treaty, enrich uranium without being stavkove kancelarie accused of "threatening the peace." And in Iran, this activity is submitted to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. These inspections, it is true, are constrained by a safeguards agreement dating from the 1970s. But it is also true that the IAEA has never uncovered in Iran any attempted diversion of nuclear material to military use.thus prompting Tehran to engage in 19.75% enrichment, and then in light of external threats opting to use the Fordo facility to protect against any strike. Nor does he bother to mention that Fordo once operational, i.e., nuclear material introduced, then it will sázkové kancelá?e be under IAEA safeguard, which includes surveillance cameras at Natanz facilities, as well as short-notice inspections (dozens per IAEA reports). Furthermore, Kupchan needs reminder that Iran is not violating its international obligations by enriching, as confirmed by 6 former European ambassadors to Iran in their recent oped article. Kupchan's hypotheticals about "if" Iran does this or that and the repercussions are matters of academic exercise not prudent policy-making.