**1. IVAN ELAND, senior fellow at THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE: "If economic sanctions are placed on Iran, they should be narrowly focused on nuclear technology and materials. The number of supplies of these items is restricted, and so there is a better chance of keeping prohibited items out of Iran's grasp. Yet there probably will still be some evasion. Broad sanctions, as were imposed unsuccessfully in Iraq, merely hurt the population for a limited time and allowed the regime to redirect the hurt from the regime to the poorest people. They also allow the regime to blame the foreign meddlers (the West) for its economic problems. Narrowly focused sanctions may slow down Iran obtaining the bomb, but will probably not stop it. Like radical Maoist China, the world may eventually have to deal with a nuclear Iran."

**2. THOMAS ALAN SCHWARTZ, professor of history at VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: "As leaders of Western Europe and President Bush have made clear, Iran's determination to acquire nuclear weapons poses a global security threat. If Iran continues to refuse the generous package of incentives that the Europeans have offered, the issue should be taken to the UN Security Council for consideration of sanctions. This procedure would make clear that it is not just the U.S. that no longer trusts Iran’s assurances. The U.S. should put a priority on remaining united with the Western Europeans on this issue, but it will certainly challenge U.S.-European unity -- witness Chancellor Schroeder's refusal to even consider military force."

**3. SCOTT JONES, senior research associate at the UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA’s Center for International Trade and Security: "Iran’s ability to complete the nuclear fuel cycle, while lawful under NPT provisions, is synonymous with its ability to develop nuclear weapons. The 'European' approach to the Iranian nuclear crisis, characterized by engagement and incentives, has intersected that of the American position -- sanctions and absolute transparency -– now that Iran has declared its unwillingness to abandon enrichment. Iran’s decision to re-start the Isfahan facility has consolidated the EU and the U.S. final position, leaving almost no option but sanctions." Jones has published extensively in the area of security and nonproliferation.

**4. MITCHELL REISS, vice-provost for international relations at the COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY, is an expert on nuclear non-proliferation: "At every step of the two-year negotiating process, the EU-3 has merely reacted as Tehran has set the pace and terms of engagement. Rather than 'defining danger down' by ignoring Iran's latest move to become a nuclear weapons state, what is required now is for the EU-3 to take the initiative and bring this issue directly to the UN Security Council -- a step it can take without the approval of the IAEA Board." Reiss was also director of policy and planning at the State Department under Secretary Colin Powell.

**5. CHARLES PENA, director of defense policy studies at CATO INSTITUTE: "Economic sanctions -- like economic incentives -- are unlikely to have much effect on Iran's nuclear ambitions because economics is not the motivating factor for the Iranians. Ultimately, what Tehran wants is a security guarantee to stave off possible preemptive regime change by the United States, which is something the Europeans cannot give the Iranians and that the Bush administration will apparently not give. Sanctions will likely be interpreted as a prelude to possible U.S. military action and may provide further incentive for the Iranians to accelerate their nuclear efforts to deter U.S. preemptive regime change."

**6. ILAN BERMAN, vice president of the AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY COUNCIL and author of "Tehran Rising: Iran's Challenge to the United States," is an expert on regional security in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Russian Federation: "Iran has emerged as a major player in the Middle East and a growing challenge to the United States. In the Persian Gulf, Central Asia and the Caucasus, Iranian policymakers are busy cobbling together alliances intended to marginalize the U.S. and its European allies. In Iraq, Iran is spending millions to bolster an insurgency that may transform the former Ba’athist state into another Islamic Republic. Through its nuclear advances, Iran is gaining the capability to catastrophically alter the balance of power throughout the region. All of this is by design: to make the Iranian regime the center of gravity in the post-Hussein Middle East."

**7. MAHMOOD MONSHIPOURI, Ph.D., professor of political science in the College of Liberal Arts at QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY, is available to discuss the Middle East, terrorism and human rights. Monshipouri received his Ph.D. from the University of Georgia, an M.A. from Allamah Tabataba'i University's College of Political and Social Sciences, Tehran, Iran, and a B.A. from Teachers' Training University at Pars College in Tehran. Monshipouri is a visiting fellow at the Yale Center for International and Area Studies. He is the author of "Islamism, Secularism and Human Rights in the Middle East" and co-editor of a volume entitled, "Constructing Human Rights in the Age of Globalization."

**8. ANDREW KARAM, research assistant professor of biological science at the ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, can field questions on the scientific aspects of uranium enrichment. Karam has been following uranium enrichment for some time, and has some direct experience with uranium enrichment in the U.S. He also visited Iran for a scientific conference in 2000 and was interviewed on Iranian TV.