The White House has said it is disappointed that UN nuclear inspectors were barred from a site in Iran, calling the visit a "failure" for Iran.

"It's another demonstration of Iran's refusal to abide by its international obligations," said White House spokesman Jay Carney.

IAEA inspectors had sought to clarify the "possible military dimensions" of Iran's nuclear programme.

Tehran insists its nuclear intentions are purely peaceful.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17133879

Stumbling into war
"A negotiated climbdown by both sides is the least likely option," says an editorial in The Guardian. There are two possible outcomes of the barrage of words being launched against Iran: a war could start inadvertently; or a war could start after an attack by Israel.

As the sabre rattling, crippling sanctions and covert attacks increase, so do the risks of stumbling into an accidental war, says Seumas Milne, also in The Guardian. There has been bluff and bluster from both sides, but “the mood music has become more menacing”. An attack by Israel or the US would be an act of criminal aggression, adds Milne, and one of “wanton destructive stupidity”.

Have we learnt nothing from Iraq?
Western leaders seem to have a shocking lack of imagination, says Mark Steel in The Independent. The most common argument for promoting war against Iran seems to be that they have “weapons of mass destruction”, or at least they “aspire” to have them. How pathetic to pick the same excuse twice in a row. It’s as if the last outing in Iraq was “such a laugh they want to do everything exactly the same”.

If Iran obtains nuclear weapons capability, "I think other nations across the Middle East will want to develop nuclear weapons".

Thus thundered our beloved Foreign Secretary, William Hague, in one of the silliest pronouncements he has ever made. Hague seems to spend much of his time impersonating himself, so I'm not really certain which of Mr Hague-Hague's personas made this statement.

Flaw number one, of course, is Hague-Hague's failure to point out that there already is another Middle East "nation" that has, in fact, several hundred nuclear weapons along with the missiles to fire them. It's called Israel. But blow me down, Hague-Hague didn't mention the fact. Didn't he know? Of course, he did. What he was trying to say, you see, was that if Iran persisted in producing a nuclear weapon, Arab states – Muslim states – would want to acquire one. And that would never do. The idea, of course, that Iran might be pursuing nuclear weapons because Israel already possesses them, did not occur to him.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-new-cold-war-has-already-started--in-syria-7440620.html

Iran condemned production of atomic weapons as a "great sin" as it called for more talks with the United Nations (UN) nuclear watchdog.

The country is facing growing international pressure over its nuclear program, which it says is peaceful but Western powers suspect could have a military dimension.

Last week the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said it had been denied access to a key Iranian military site where it is suspected nuclear activities have been carried out.

Negotiations with the IAEA have stalled, but Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi said he expected talks to continue and that he was optimistic they would proceed in the right direction.

"I would like to re-emphasise that we do not see any glory, pride or power in the nuclear weapons," he said in a speech to the UN-sponsored Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

"Quite the opposite - based on the religious decree issued by our supreme leader, the production, possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons are illegitimate, futile, harmful, dangerous and prohibited as a great sin."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-29/iran-says-nuclear-weapons-are-a-great-sin/3859360

Relations between Israel and its staunchest ally, the United States, appear increasingly strained after Israeli officials said they would not give Washington any advance warning of a decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, according to US intelligence sources.

Israel's message was conveyed during recent high-level talks with Pentagon officials and is apparently aimed at absolving Washington of blame for failing to prevent an Israeli strike, the Associated Press reported, citing an anonymous US intelligence source. Israeli officials declined to comment on the report.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/we-wont-give-us-advance-warning-of-iran-strike-says-israel-7462560.html

Iran is to accept gold instead of dollars as payment for its oil, the country's state news agency has said.

The move comes as US and European Union sanctions against Iran have made it difficult for buyers to make dollar payments to Iranian banks.

Mahmoud Bahmani, the governor of Iran's central bank, is reported to have said that the country would accept payment in gold "without any reservation".

As part of the sanctions, the EU has passed a ban on buying Iranian oil.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17203132

President Barack Obama has assured Israel that the United States will always stand by it in a display of unity between allies who often disagree.

He told visiting prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu they agreed that diplomacy is the best way to resolve the crisis over potential Iranian nuclear weapons.

"Both the prime minister and I prefer to solve this diplomatically," Mr Obama said as he Mr Netanyahu began several hours of White House consultations. The US will consider all options in confronting what it sees as the unacceptable outcome of an Iranian bomb, Mr Obama said.

"Israel and America stand together," Mr Netanyahu said. He added that Israel is a sovereign nation with the right to defend itself, a pointed reference to the main question hanging over the high-stakes meeting: Whether to try to stop an Iranian bomb by with a military attack in the next several months.