Out of their own mouths

So what is the difference between 'peacefully and legally enriching Uranium for nuclear reactors', and 'keeping one's self in a position to make the decision to make a bomb' ?
None that I can see.

Japan, for example, is in the same position (only more so, since it also reprocesses Plutonium), and yet the US doesn't think it necessary to impose sanctions on them.
Of course the Japanese have renounced nuclear weapons as evil, but then so has Iran.

The difference, of course, is that the US doesn't like Iran, and wants to bring about regime change. A more compliant Iran would de-nationalise their oil industry and open their economy to the west, giving huge opportunities for US oil companies and others to make more profits.

The US thinks it could work with Mir-Hossein Mousavi, for example, who was the leader of the unsuccessful "green revolution" after he lost the last Presidential election. He was Prime Minister in 1981 when the Iran-Contra affair was hatched, so he has proved he can work with the US.

Mousavi was also the one who negotiated with Pakistan's AQ Khan over the acquisition of enrichment technology, but I'm sure the US could overlook that - in fact it seems to have disappeared from the pages of history already. The US also seems to have forgotten its commitment to human rights, as Mousavi also oversaw the execution of over 3,000 (some say 6,000) political prisoners in 1989.

Of course long forgotten is the uncomfortable fact that the US supported Ayatollah Khomeini's return from exile in 1979, to replace their former puppet, the Shah. Those were the days of Brzezinski's "Arc of Instability" strategy, when being anti-Soviet more than made up for being fervently Islamic.

Having obtained the leadership with the aid of the pro-Soviet Iranians, Khomeini then turned on them, and with CIA assistance, exterminated them. Unfortunately for the US, he then turned on them too, and nationalised the oil industry. Still, you win some and you lose some.

That same Brzezinski strategy also gave rise to support for the mujihadeen in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, who subsequently became the Taliban and Al Qaeda, you know - REAL TERRORISTS !

Oil sanctions

So with the US relying only on sanctions to persuade the Iranians to not do what they already say they are not going to do, the question then becomes "How are the oil sanctions going ?"

The Europeans have agreed to apply the sanctions, although they need time to get other sources of oil in place. What they weren't counting on was Iran deciding to stop exports to Europe straight away. Although the Iranian measure has been passed by the Parliament, it hasn't been formally announced by the Government yet. Diplomatic language seems to imply that individual European Governments are to be asked if they intend to take part in the sanctions before deliveries are terminated. That way Iran cannot be accused of not honouring contracts, and there is even the possibility of splitting the Europeans.

Meanwhile Turkey is now relieved to say it is not part of Europe, and is not bound by European sanctions. It gets half of its oil imports from Iran, and has asked the US for an exemption from the sanctions.

Iraq too relies heavily on fuel and electricity from Iran.