The controversial and highly sensitive Iranian nuclear issue, coming in the spotlight for more than three years, was stuck at a standstill by the end of 2006 due to the hardline stance pursued by both Tehran and the Western countries.

The sticking point between the two sides was uranium enrichment activities, which Iran claimed for generating electricity while the West feared might be used to make nuclear weapons. Despite great efforts that the international community had paid to defusethe crisis, the whole situation was still inevitably fell into a deadlock.

IRAN'S URANIUM ENRICHMENT AND ITS NUCLEAR STANCE

Shortly after Tehran decided to resume uranium enrichment work, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared on April 11 that the country had successfully produced 3.5 percent enriched uranium with its first group of 164 centrifuges.

Western countries, especially the U.S. feared that Iran's nuclear program was aimed at making nuclear weapons, but according to many experts, including the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA), uranium with 3.5 percent purity was at a pretty low level and was actually not enough to make a bomb.

However, Iran's top officials have made a lot of flinty comments on Western demand to freeze uranium enrichment, saying Iran was already a nuclear country and it was deserved to be respected as a powerful country by the international community.

Accompanying these remarks, an Iranian heavy water plant dived into circulation on Aug. 26, which was used to feed a neighboring nuclear research reactor under construction. The research reactoris going to be completed in 2009 despite IAEA's opposing attitude,and could produce plutonium for what Iran said of medical use at the appointed time.

What is more, Tehran confirmed the country's experts had installed the second group of another 164 centrifuges on Oct. 25 and said Iran had gained the product (uranium) several days later.

More over, President Ahmadinejad also disclosed Iran would install 3,000 centrifuges by the end of this year, and would finally have 60,000 for the whole program.

INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS, PRESSURE TO DEFUSE CRISIS AND IRAN'S RESISTANCE

In the face of Iran's uncompromising position, the international community outspread both persuasion and squeeze play, beginning a persistent effort to seek diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue.

Due to Iran's insistence to enrichment activities, the IAEA board of governors on Feb. 4 adopted a resolution at an emergency meeting to report Iran's nuclear issue to the UN Security Council.Iran immediately slashed at that decision and vowed it would not bend to such a "pressure".

In order to ease the tension between Iran and the international community, chief of UN nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei paid avisit to Tehran in April, he urged on Iran to abide by UN requestand to suspend its nuclear activities for a specific period of time, but Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani told him the UN Security Council statement on March 29 demanding Iran to freeze the enrichment-related activities was "not so important".

In June, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council(Britain, China, France, Russia, and the U.S.) plus Germany agreed a new package over Iran's disputed nuclear issues. The proposal included both incentives aimed at persuading Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and possible sanctions if Iran chooses not to comply.

Later, European Union (EU) foreign policy chief Javier Solana visited Tehran to present Iran the new six-nation proposal, and Iranian President Ahmadinejad promised to give a formal response on Aug. 22.

However, the international community seemed to have no patience to wait for Iran's answer for two months. The UN Security Councilon July 31 adopted a resolution by a vote of 14 to 1, urging Tehran to "suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development" by Aug. 31 or face the prospect of sanctions.

As a response, Iran's top leaders, especially Ahmadinejad have repeatedly said the country would not accept it and "the Iranian people do not give in to language of force".

On Aug. 22, in its formal response to the package, Iran didn't mention anything about "suspension", a huge slash to the world powers' effort. Soon, the UN deadline of Aug. 31 also passed, the UN Security Council received nothing from the Iranian government but Ahmadinejad's pledge "not to back down an inch from its legal rights in the face of intimidation".

In order to prevent the situation at that time from moving into further crisis, EU's Solana met with Larijani several times in September to discuss Iran's possibility to halt enrichment.

But after the month-long contact, the EU was disappointed with Tehran's uncompromising stance. On Oct. 17, the EU foreign ministers issued a statement which virtually admitted the failure of negotiations, saying that if Iran does not comply with UN Security Council's requirements, the EU would "work for the adoption of measures under Article 41 of the UN Charter," which stipulates economic and diplomatic sanctions.

Iran's top officials subsequently criticized EU's statement,saying it would destroy the opportunity to resolve Iran's nuclear issue peacefully and worsen the crisis in Mideast.

THE U.S. SANCTION, MILITARY THREAT AND IRAN'S CORRESPONDING MEASURES

The United States was the most firm country to push sanction proposals in the UN Security Council for a long time. Iran's Islamic Revolution in 1979 was a big blow to the U.S. interests and its confidence in the Mideast region, therefore these two countries almost have no trust in each other for a long time. The U.S. believed Tehran's final object of developing nuclear technology was to make nuclear weapons to destroy the current international political and economic system, and no explanations from Iran can make it give up this idea.

Since Iran's rejection to compromise by Aug. 31, U.S.ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton immediately started persuading other countries to act together on a draft resolution to impose sanctions against Iran.

Facing the U.S. sanctions threat, Iranian officials did not retreat from their tough position. President Ahmadinejad and chief nuclear negotiator Larijani have warned that Tehran may "reconsider its cooperation policy with IAEA" and may "recast its commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)". Iran's Vice Foreign Minister Sheikh Attar also said the global oil-consuming nations' interests would be harmed if UN decided to impose sanctions, because oil was one of Iran's powerful weapons to resist the Western bluster.

The possibility of military attack against Iran's nuclear facilities has never been removed from the desks of U.S. and Israeli leaders. Since the war between Israel and Iran-backed Lebanese Hezbollah guerilla broke out this summer, and Israeli threat to launch pre-emptive attacks on its nuclear facilities,Tehran became increasingly impatient and stewed.

Following by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's commentsthat U.S. global interests may get revenged if it launches an attack on the Islamic republic, Iranian armed forces launched three large scale military maneuvers in the country and the Gulf region this year. According to army commanders, the drills'purpose was to "show Iran's capability and determination to resistany possible aggression", which clearly referred to the U.S. and Israel.

During these exercises, Iran test fired several models of whatit called "advanced missiles", including "Shahab-3" with a range of 2,000 km which could cover Israel and U.S. military base in the Mideast.

LITTLE CHANCE TO BREAK THE CURRENT IMPASSE

An obvious turning point for EU policy on Iran's nuclear case was the statement issued by EU foreign ministers on Oct. 17. Since that day, both European countries and the United States came to an agreement that Iran should be punished if it continues enrichment work. Even Russia, a longtime supporter of Tehran over its nuclear dispute, also highly evaluated it.

Obviously, uranium enrichment was an issue concerning Iran's national pride and the related activities have reached a considerable scale. As a consequence, there's little chance for Tehran to abandon the key process of its nuclear research.

On the other side, it was almost impossible for Western countries to believe Iran's nuclear program was completely peaceful.

The diplomatic game between the two sides has inevitably moved in to a deadlock. In the near future, there's almost little chance for the international community and Iran to break the current impasse, and efforts to resolve Iran's nuclear issue would be along time process.