The UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, will convene on Nov. 25 to mull Iran's nuclear issue, and solving the issue within the IAEA instead of referring it to the UN Security Council is needed.

On Nov. 6, Iran announced that a "preliminary agreement" had been reached between Tehran and the European Union (EU) after two days of "complicated and difficult but constructive and progressing" negotiations in Paris.

The details of the "preliminary agreement" have been kept confidential so far, but a cautious optimism was touched off.

Some diplomats said that Iran should submit its written statement about the compromise on uranium enrichment to the IAEA in a bid to gain a positive response from the agency, which would prevent the issue from being referred to the Security Council.

On the contrary, The United States insists on its position that Iran's case should be referred. It also expressed doubts about Iran's pledge on the suspension of its nuclear activities, saying that Tehran's commitment to the peaceful use of nuclear technology lacks fidelity.

The US stance, along with the negative development of discussions held in Tehran on Nov. 11-12, has diluted the budding optimism.

Indeed, the Iranian nuclear issue has hit the crucial stage, where the Islamic Republic will make no easy yielding, so will the EU and the IAEA.

Iran is desperately defending its "legal rights on civil nuclear technology," with its core intention lying in rejection to turning its "voluntary" and "temporary" suspension of uranium enrichment to legal and eternal ordain.

After prolonged bargains, Iran and the EU failed to achieve any obvious breakthrough. As to the recent "preliminary agreement", it remains uncertain to what extent it can help forward a solution accepted by all parties, let alone the negative tendency in the sequel discussion.

There is no need to deny that the current route provides just a slow and ambiguous solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. Nevertheless, many analysts believe that it is the sole rational and safe choice, for nobody can guarantee that the case would be resolved properly if it were referred to the Security Council.

The case would result in hot and long disputes if referred to the Security Council before it could inflict harsh sections on Iran. There is no idea about how long the disputes would last or what new problems they would raise. Furthermore, it is also uninsured as to whether the harsh sanctions would take effect, as what the United States believed.

Additionally, the referral would lead to severe chain reactions, some of which might go beyond the nuclear area.

In fact, the Islamic Republic has adopted many positive measures to show its cooperation with the international community since Oct. 2003, when it held negotiations with the European trio of France, Germany and Britain in Tehran.

The measures included the signing of the protocol of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and suspension of uranium enrichment as well as centrifuge assembly, which were violently opposed by hardliners in the country, especially after last June, when Iran's expectation of closing its file at the IAEA was frustrated.

What is more notable is that Tehran is still continuing to expand the scope of negotiations and compromise.

Hassan Rowhani, chief nuclear negotiator, has said that Iran will consider the European proposal on unlimited suspension, only stressing that Tehran did not equate "unlimited" suspension as being forced to carry out a permanent halt.

Rowhani's semantic measure does hold some drawbacks, but it at least indicated that the Iranian government was forging ahead toward a positive end.

The stance has provided Iran with necessary international support and sympathy. As a result, many countries have called for addressing Iran's nuclear issue within the framework of the IAEA.

The current situation is not ideal, but not too disadvantageous for Iran. It prevented Tehran from adopting any substantial backward measures, which have long been advocated with great enthusiasm by the hardliners.

Under such circumstances, the referral would damage, or maybe extinguish, the determination and influence of the pro-dialogue voice in the country. Subsequently, the hardliners would undoubtedly obtain the floor.

This worrisome possibility and next year's presidential election, underlaid by increasing conservative trends in the country, may portend a further backward movement in Iran.

Such a movement would inevitably have a significant impact on the economic and political situation of the country, the Middle East and the rest of the world. Its damage can never be overestimated.

Due to the above-mentioned concerns, it is widely believed that the referral is not conducive to properly resolving the Iranian nuclear issue.

The current route, addressing the issue within the framework of the IAEA, is the best choice for now. Anyway, the dialogue is still going on.