The people who need to be 'stopped' by the IAEA are not Iran and the Japanese but the US and Israel.

First of all, the IAEA has explicitly stated that none of the so-called hidden activities by Iran had any relation to a nuclear weapons program. Iran was forced to engage in some clandestine activity which was otherwise quite legal (to import nuclear centrifuge technology for example) because the US was busy pressuring other countries to not cooperate with Iran's nuclear program - the same nuclear program that the US encouraged Iran to build in the first place. Fordow was not "built in secret" and furthermore, Iran was not even required to declare its existence under the terms of its safeguards agreement, which only requires disclosure of a facility 180-days prior to the introduction of nuclear material in it, and not when it is in the planning/construction phases. In fact, the duties of Iran with respect to the IAEA are explicitly spelled out in Iran's safeguards agreement, which in its very first paragraph states clearly that its "exclusive purpose" is to ensure that no nuclear material has been diverted to non-peaceful uses - something the IAEA has certified to be the true in every single report it has issued on Iran, meaning that Iran is and always has been in full compliance with its obligations under the NPT.

Iran and the IAEA made a list of issues to be resolved in Aug 2007, and by Feb 2008 all of them had in fact been resolved with zero evidence of nukes found. Even the US accuses Iran not of having an actual nuclear weapons program, but of seeking the "capability" to make nukes at some indefinite point in the future - a nonsense charge that can be applied right now to about 40 other countries and soon to over 100 since any country with even a civilian nuclear technology could in theory use it to make nukes. Despite this, Iran has repeatedly offered to place additional restrictions on its nuclear program well beyond its legal obligations under the NPT - such as the offer to cap enrichment, to ratify the Additional protocol, and to open its nuclear program to joint participation with the US - but these and many other Iranian compromise offers have been ignored simply because the nuclear issue is just a pretext, just as WMDs in Iraq were pretexts, and even former IAEA head Elbaradei has noted that the US is using the nuclear proliferation claim as an excuse for its real goal: regime change in Iran. Thus, no matter what Iran does, no matter how many inspections it allows etc. the issue will not be resolved to the satisfaction of the US. This was already proven when Iran suspended enrichment for 2.5 years as a good faith gesture of compromise, only to face moving goalposts and increasing demands from the US.

The author is also wrong when he says that nuclear-armed countries are happy to export nuclear know-how. In fact since the late 1970s the US has led an effort to attempt to deny developing countries the technology to produce their own nuclear fuel thru enrichment, ostensibly on the grounds that thjs would allow them to make nukes but in fact it creates an illegal monopoly on the supply of reactor fuel by the few countries that have granted themselves the right to it whilst attempting to exclude everyone else. This has been the subject of a continuing dispute between developing and developed countries for a long time, a dispute and conflict that the West is not keen to acknowledge but which exists nonetheless.

Furthermore, the author seems to conveniently forget that in addition to sharing nuclear technology, and not making nukes, there is a third element to the NPT: the obligation of nuclear-armed countries to disarm. With all the emphasis on non-proliferation we forget that disarmament is also a part of the NPT, an obligation that the nuclear-armed states have blatantly declared to be non-binding. The US has in particular violated other duties under the NPT, the duty to NOT share nuclear technology with non-signatories - such as India and ISrael.

I suggest the author read and address the points made by 6 former European ambassadors to Iran on the nuclear question (note that this op-ed was totally ignored in the US media)

Iran is not in breach of international law
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/09/iran-nuclear-power-un-threat-peace

No, there are 4 countries that haven't signed the NPT. Israel, Pakistan, India & Republic of China. North Korea did sign it, but later they withdrew - while developing nuclear weapons. ROC follows the treaty even though they didn't sign it. The NK status is highly troubling for those that see Iran heading down the same path.

Obviously the writer has just one mission viilify Iran. How many NUCLEAR bombs does tha U.S have; is the U.S. a signatory to the NPT and has the U.S. kept faith with the Treaty on Israeli weapns programme?
This whole facade of Iranian bomb is taking credulity too far. Yes Iran signed the NPT, does that in anyway make it subservient to U.S. interests? The issue is simply beyond Israeli fears, no, it is more to do with the reckless American policy in the Middle East and unfortunatelybecause the U.S. has kindled the Sectarian divide, it must be seen to be on the Sunni side no more no less!
I am really suprised that the Iranians have NOT withdrawn and dare the U.S on this issue. The whole world knows the facts but because of the dominant power status of the U.S. or economic interests, many are cowed,

Ashamed of these Jewish nutcases like JGARBUZ whose mouths are watering to start Holocaust II, this time on the Musiims.

This whole facade of Iranian bomb is taking credulity too far. Yes Iran signed the NPT, does that in anyway make it subservient to U.S. interests? The issue is simply beyond Israeli fears, no, it is more to do with the reckless American policy in the Middle seslichat East and unfortunatelybecause the U.S. has kindled the Sectarian divide, it must be seen to be on the Sunni side no more no less!

The issue is the next IAEA set of the Iranian nuclear threat is a result of be published the following month. Before he is able to disclose the surveillance data on Tehran’s nuclear development programme, Yukia Amano must obtain a permission to do this. Meanwhile, the U.S. Britain and France are pressing for that disclosure from the data. This is because the info could make up-thevisual impact muscle building reviewfoundationfor the discussion on new UN Security Council sanctions on Iran. Based on the Associated Press, Russia and China think that this kind of action would drive Iran right into a corner and lower its readiness to cooperate using the IAEA, says a Russian-Chinese document.