Iranian Crisis: The Run-Up To Negotiation

On the eve of the first formal negotiations between America and Iran in 30 years, there's been a flurry of activity on all sides. Especially so since the sides include the other parties to negotiation -- Britain, France, China, Germany, and Russia -- as well as Israel.

All this comes on the heels of last Friday's dramatic announcement by President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy of the existence of a secret Iranian nuclear facility. The facility was only disclosed, in vague terms, in an Iranian communication with the UN's nuclear agency as the Obama Administration was briefing foreign governments about its existence.

The Obama Administration is planning sanctions against Iran's energy, telecommunications, and finance sectors if it's not satisfied with negotiations.

What we see in the flurry of activity since then is Iran putting out decidedly mixed messages, and perhaps playing for time. And, apparently, and I do mean apparently, the American intelligence services lagging behind the European intelligence services and, naturally, Mossad, in seeing war-like intent in the Iranian nuclear program.

Let's start there. According to the New York Times, and other sources, it's not the CIA and other American intelligence services pushing the idea that Iran is embarked on a nuclear weapons program. It is, instead, MI-6, DGSE, BND, and Mossad. The intelligence services, respectively, of Britain, France, Germany, and Israel. The French, according to the Times, even say that the International Atomic Energy Agency has information about the Iranian program it's not sharing.

What about the Russians? They supposedly were shocked to learn of the new Iranian nuclear facility. Which is a bit hard to believe. But they're not happy about it, either. Just how unhappy we are going to learn.

This intelligence debate, with Americans the skeptics, generally flips the pre-Iraq War debate on its head.

On the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, following the revelation of its previously undisclosed nuclear facility, Iran fired off a variety of missiles, some of which it says can reach Israel and US bases in the Middle East.

Of course, it may be misdirection. Since it's the Americans who are driving big power global concern about the Iranian program.

Still, there is the existing National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear program from 2007. The one which pulled the rug out from under Rudy Giuliani's then front-running, neoconservative-backed presidential campaign. The one that said that Iran is not embarked on a nuclear weapons program.

Here's where semantics come into play. Is Iran on a path to nuclear weapons-capable technology? Yes. Is it producing nuclear weapons? No. Does it intend to produce nuclear weapons? Mixed signals from Iran. How far off might an Iranian nuclear weapon be? That's the question.

The British intelligence service says that Iran has been secretly designing a nuclear warhead since late 2004 or early 2005, according to today's report in the Financial Times. The FT reports on documents on Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, ordering the resumption of Iran's nuclear weapons program in "late 2004 or early 2005." The lack of specificity about the date is worrisome, perhaps to protect a source, perhaps because they don't really know.

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev says that Iran is violating UN Security Council resolutions.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration insists that the formerly secret Iranian nuclear facility will be discussed on Thursday. And Iran says no, and there will be no negotiation over its "nuclear rights."

Of course, if Iran has nothing hide, why wouldn't it discuss the facility?

Incidentally, Iran withdrew from its earlier agreement to reveal the beginning of construction of nuclear facilities, which is why the world learned of this only last week, rather than a few years ago. And it is, as Russian President Dmitri Medvedev pointed out over the weekend, in consistent violation of UN Security Council resolutions on its nuclear program.

In other words, Iran follows all agreements, as it says. Except when it doesn't.

While Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi says that the newly revealed nuclear facility is off limits for discussion, he did say yesterday that Iran will discuss the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which can be a backdoor way into discussing Iran's nuclear program.

President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy charged Iran with building a secret facility to further a nuclear weapons program.

And Iran did yesterday allow Swiss diplomats, who represent American interests in Iran, to visit with three UC Berkeley graduates who wandered across the border while out hiking.

Incidentally, what is it with my fellow Californians wandering over the borders of hostile nations? First it was the two California-based journalists for Al Gore's Current TV wandering over the North Korean border and being seized by border guards. Obama had to send Bill Clinton to get them back. Now it's these three. Next time, boys and girls, pay more attention to your surroundings.

Another Iranian official reminded that Iran can be helpful to the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is true. It can also be unhelpful.

These conciliatory gestures were accompanied by more saber rattling, naturally, in the wake of Iran's weekend firings of short-range, medium-range, and long-range missiles, the latter of which can apparently reach US bases in the Middle East and Israel.

On Monday, Iran's defense minister warned that if Israel strikes against its nuclear program, Iran will cause "the Zionist regime's last breath."

We've also learned, incidentally, that the just revealed nuclear facility is heavily guarded by Iran's Revolutionary Guard troops.

Why is that? Well, the nuclear facility was built next to a big Revolutionary Guard ammunition dump. And, according to what Iranian nuclear chief Salehi said yesterday, that was done to make it simpler to protect both facilities.

Casting further doubt on the peaceful intent of this facility, a top aide to Ayatollah Khamenei, Mohammad Mohammadi Golpayegani, said: "This new facility, God willing, will become operational soon and will blind the eyes of the enemies."

Iran says that it will open the facility to inspection. But hasn't said when. In any event, since it's not yet operational, inspecting it now may not be a very relevant exercise.

The Obama Administration is preparing sanctions on Iran targeted at its energy, finance, and telecommunications sectors if negotiations fail.

The Israelis, however, are growing impatient. Obama's original timeline on this was for Iran to demonstrate progress in negotation by the end of September. But negotiations are only beginning this week.

Iran, of course, has been delayed by its own internal disarray. There was the June presidential election, in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, backed up by Khamenei, claimed a landslide win. That triggered many demonstrations against the regime, followed by a brutal, and highly effective crackdown by regime forces.

In many ways, this was a detour and distraction from the central issues of the moment. The protest movement was too demographically isolated to effect the revolution that its supporters here and elsewhere fervently hoped for. We shouldn't indulge ourselves into thinking that folks with iPods and Internet accounts represent majority opinion in Iran. It's very possible that Ahmadinejad really did win the election. A shrewd character, he did win the presidential debates.

Incidentally, it's been a longstanding neoconservative conceit that the people of Iran want to get rid of their leaders. Just another way to try to delegitimize the regime in service of their regime change goal.

Then there was the more serious matter of sharp internal disarray among Iranian ruling elites. The internal power struggle took up a lot of time. But the end result, at least for now, is that the same people are in charge as were in charge before.

Evidently displeased by these delays leading to a negotiating process that is only now getting underway, Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has called a number of ranking American politicians, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

So Los Angeles Congressman Howard Berman, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, says the time may be now for Congressional legislation to cut off Iran's gasoline supply. Iran, having the achilles heel of having to import much of its gasoline due to lack of refinery capacity.

And Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd says he will introduce such legislation in the Senate.

We'll know a lot more when these negotiations get underway. We'll also get an idea about whether Iran intends to use them to stall. Ahmadinejad said yesterday that Iran wants to use the negotiations to "build up friendship and understanding" and is "prepared for long negotiations."

You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.

 

Comments

[ray01]

William Bradley...it is apparent whose interests you serve...your agenda is far too transparent.
Other blogs are less concerned about the posts fitting a preconceived mold, a manufactured response if you will. As a result of limited time i.e. watching reruns of the Munsters, surfing &
practicing yoga, my posts will in the future be less frequent.
In the interim, with regards to Iran, I pray that America's 51st state in the Middle East will behave less like a pit bull on steroids and more like a civilized country that follows international law.
Au revoir to my following.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

I see that you finally noticed my comment discouraging repetitive posting.

Which, naturally, in your zeal, you imagine means that I am really pro-Israel.

Au revoir.

[joabear]

It's apparent whose interest you serve ray01: It's neither Iran or Iranians, nor Israel or America but only your paymasters, the Islamic Republic of Rapists.

Chants of Ya Hossein, Mir Hossein emerge from stands during live broadcast of today's soccer match at Azadi Stadium in Tehran.

More videos here.

At least 14 students arrested
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/10/selected-headlines-35.html

[Caracoid]

Iraq and Iran. This is one of the only times in history when two extremely similar situations are occurring at approximately the same time and being dealt with in two very different ways. From the beginning Iraq was handled militarily and Iran through negotiation. Realistically, you can't ask for a better case study of one approach compared to another.

As far as I know, no one knows when Sadaam gave up his nuclear program. Was it 10 years before the invasion or 10 minutes? Anyway the only way to be sure when a country is not forthcoming is to go in and find out (ie. invade). There was certainly a stiff price to be paid for this assurance in Iraq, but at least we have that.

Iran has been treated very differently from the outset. The Europeans insisted on and were granted the lead position in dealing with Iran's nuclear program. They have chosen negotiation and sanctions over military intervention. Hopefully their method will succeed, and we will end up with a bona fide nuclear weapon-free Iran on the cheap.

But this should not be confused with the safe way of going about problems of proliferation. This is an extremely risky venture. Those who advocate it are saying we can get what we want by talk alone and that savings in blood and treasure over cede the risk of global nuclear annihilation. That's one BIG risk, and the possible resulting blood-bath will be on each of their hands.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Well, you know, we simply can't attack every country that supposedly has WMD. There is much more evidence of an Iranian program, much of it secretive, to create nuclear weapons-capable technology than there was with regard to Iraq.

And, of course, we now know that the intel on Iraq WMD was sexed up for the cameras.

Tragically, we've been stuck in a morass in iraq, which has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands or Iraqis, for over six years as a result of this historic disaster.

[LizM]

I have to question your assertion that the only way to be certain that Iraq was a threat, imminent or otherwise, was to invade it. That just seems to me to be a kind of 'ass-backwards' way to go about dealing with an issue like this.

Aside from that and contrary to the false premise promoted by then Vice President Cheney and others that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear program, the real basis for military action in Iraq was to bring the Iraqi regime into compliance with several UN Security Council resolutions dealing with chemical and biological weapons. The Bush administration chose a 'rush to war' before it had seriously exhausted all other options.

More importantly, the situation in Iraq remains, as they say, fragile and reversible...and will remain so until there is a concerted effort to move toward national political reconciliation. In other words, the jury is still entirely out on the efficacy of the military option in Iraq. And, we are painfully aware of the limitations of this option as it relates to Afghanistan, a whole other can of worms.

...continued...

[LizM]

...continued...

You seem to be arguing that the best way ( or 'safe' way, as you say) to go about ensuring that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapons capability is to go straight to military action and that the risky venture would be to make every attempt to avoid military action beginning with a process of negotiations to encourage concrete actions by Iran. I couldn't possibly disagree more with that assessment which I find to be without any basis - certainly not in Iraq!

Bottom line - I think you will be (pleasantly) surprised by how effective tough and firm negotiations can be. We have already seen, after just the first day of this new round of negotiations with Iran, some very positive results.

[Caracoid]

Well, the number of Iraqis killed in the war is very much in dispute. Hundreds of thousands? Maybe 100,000. Now granted that's a lot of people dead. We did try sanctions that Unicef said resulted in an estimated 500,000 dead children alone. That, at the time, was considered the civilized way to deal with a rogue state. While we count that number that died in the war and insurgency, we forget the millions who died as a result of Sadaam's regime. True, you didn't have to worry about reading about them with your coffee and paper in the morning, but die they did and would certainly have continued to do so under his rule.

And true it may not be over yet. But on a moral ground, you have to ask yourself if what you do to others is what you would want to have done to yourself. This is obviously a personal choice depending on your personal values--but for me--I would happily incur the risk of death for a chance to get out from under the yoke of a horrible dictator with ultimately a chance to live in a peaceful, democratic world to follow.

[Caracoid]

(cont.)

As far as whether or not we "leaped into war," that was a pretty long leap. Over ten years of negotiation, broken promises from Iraq, and no way of really knowing what their WMD program was doing. Let's face it, Sadaam said, "we have no WMDs, prove otherwise." The only way to know would be for one of two things to happen. Sadaam could have followed established practices for decommissioning his nuclear program, as did South Africa where all paperwork and materials were accounted for, scientists freely interviewed. Shy of that you just don't know. Certainly chasing around the desert playing Who's Got Nemo is no way, nor is trusting a maniac's word.

I hope you're right about how "brutally effective" negotiations can be. I assume you have examples of it from history. Though I can't think of any without ransoms being paid or an extreme existential threat.

This time you seem to be about to get what you want. By God, I hope your right. And I don't know of two more similar situations occurring in history that can be so clearly scrutinized. All I can say is, you guys have a lot more guts than I do.

[LizM]

It's not about how gutsy I am! It's about how much faith I have - that would be A LOT- in the Obama-BIDEN administration.

The previous administration couldn't successfully negotiate their way out of a wet paper bag, if I may say, let alone engage and persuade Iran to give up any intention it may have to acquire a nuclear weapons capability.

Although, there was the Libya deal that resulted in the dismantling of their nuclear program. Come to think of it...who was it now that President GW Bush called upon to help with these negotiations...oh, yes...that would be none other than Senator Biden.

So, you see...we are all in very capable hands. In fact, I'm willing to bet the farm - even if it's in Iowa - that you will be very pleasantly surprised by how these negotiations with Iran proceed.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

A few people keep posting in a very repetitive manner here.

It is not conducive to discussion.

[MARNIE2]

ALL-THESE ..TALKS ....Are great [if]... they lead to a fair -policys with resonable trust in IRANIAN'S
WORD ? ? .................IF IRAN .....isn't hidding anyting .....WHY/ ?.....NOT.....LET THE ....INTERNATIONAL
ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY ........come-and-take-a-peek........VERIFICATION !.......

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Indeed.

And despite the energetic Iran apologists here, who insisted there would be no discussion of Iran's nuclear program, because Iran must face down the all-evil known as Israel, Iran is acceding to the legitimate pressure.

Now we will see how serious Iran is about all this.

[ray01]

Why is there so much attention on an alleged Iranian nuclear capability and so little on an actual Israeli program? Could it be that a certain foreign lobby controls our government’s Middle Eastern policy? Our government & Israel lied about WMD in Iraq & they are lying about Iran & the bomb. It has more to do with the fact that Iran has been trading in euros as opposed to dollars. This can wreak havoc with our financial stability.
Iran has invaded no one in the past 200 years. Israel on the other hand has invaded Lebanon, Jordan,
Egypt, Syria & bombed Iraq & Tunisia. She has threatened all Arab capitals with annihilation if threatened with defeat. She has even targeted European capitals & Russian cities with nuclear strikes.
Let’s disarm the existing nuclear power in the Middle East. Try diplomacy, then sanctions, a boycott and finally a military option. It’s time to neutralize the greatest threat to world peace.

[LizM]

So, are you suggesting that the Iranian leadership has been acting responsibly and that they have earned your trust?

[ray01]

I'm suggesting that Iran contains 11% of the world's oil supply, has recently started trading in euros & refuses to open up to Western oil interests. That's the reason for
banging the war drums. They have a non-existent nuclear capability just like Iran had non-existent WMD. It's all a smokescreen!

[Winning09]

More anti-Israeli nonsense that can't even keep its argument straight.

On what planet do you live to suggest that Iran trading in euros instead of dollars is bad for America?

The Iranian economy isn't important enough and America is already blocking trade with Iran.

Stop fantasizing.

Also, Iran has backed terrorist groups around the world, and regularly has it Friday prayergoers chant: "Death to Israel!"

And Ahmadinejad is such a peace-loving guy he keeps denying the Holocaust.

This is an extremist country, period.

[ray01]

In case you haven't made the realization, all of the Arab countries have been trading in dollars as opposed to euros. This keeps America's economy from faltering. Saddam Hussein would still be around today if he had played ball. i.e. opened up to American & British oil companies & continuing to trade in the euros. He refused, The US & Israel made a case for war based on WMD which was & is a lie.
Should all of the Arab countries switch over to the euro, our economy would head into a tailspin the likes of which we haven't seen since 29.

What part of my argument is not clear?

[ray01]

So you are justifying a murderous assault on yet another oil rich Muslim country
because of chanting & Holocaust denial? Very peculiar set of values.

[ray01]

OK North korea has threaned to turn our troops in South Korea & Japan into charcoal briquets with a nuclear attack. They hate us & no doubt chant death threats, yet we do not
attack them. How can this be?

Notice how quickly Bush sent the troops into Darfur to prevent the genocide. Not!
Could it be because there is no oil under that country's sand? Or that we could care less about human rights & democracy when we have no interests in a particular nation?

Think about it. Why are we so interested in villifying & attacking Iran?

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Ask yourself this question.

Why should Iran have nuclear weapons?

You know why Israel needs them.

[ray01]

William-Why in your opinion does Israel need nuclear bombs?

[ray01]

William-Why Israel should not have nuclear weapons...

"High profile Israel supporters also brandish such threats. Martin Van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem stated: "We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: ‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.’...We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under."[27] In 2002 the Los Angeles Times, published an opinion piece by Louisiana State University professor David Perlmutter in which he wrote: "What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away--unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans--have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?"[28]

[ray01]

part 2 why Israel Should Not HAve Nuclear Bombs

'
In 1998 Israeli defense analyst Zeev Schiff opined in Haaretz: "Off-the-cuff Israeli nuclear threats have become a problem, even before the onset of the Iraqi crisis."[22] David Hirst notes that “The threatening of wild, irrational violence, in response to political pressure, has been an Israeli impulse from the very earliest days.” and “Israel will remain at least as likely a candidate as Iran, and a far more enduring one, for the role of 'nuclear-crazy' state.”[23] Some “Samson Option” threats seem to be directed against nations which have not attacked Israel. Ariel Sharon has said: "We are much more important than (Americans) think. We can take the middle east with us whenever we go."[24] and "No longer 'Masada Option' - now 'Samson Option.’”[25] A “former Israeli govt official” with “first hand knowledge of his government’s nuclear weapons program” told Seymour Hersh: “You Americans screwed us for not supporting Israel in its 1956 war with Egypt. "We can still remember the smell of Auschwitz and Treblinka. Next time we will take all of you with us."

[joabear]

Bradely: you're wrong about Ahmadinejad winning the election by extension, You're trying to demonize all Iranian.

Israel will not dare to attack Iran. US is too broke to attack Iran. Stop the warmongering.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-23/how-to-keep-iran-in-check-without-war/full/

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Let me get this straight. I say that the president of your country is a legitimate figure, and seriously question the stereotypical Western view of Iranian politics, and I've demonized all Iranians?

Nonsense.

[joabear]

"For nearly two decades, Israel and the U.S. have warned about Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the need to “do something” preemptively. With Ahmadinejad at the U.N., Gary Sick argues for a safer response."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-23/how-to-keep-iran-in-check-without-war/full/

[joabear]

Talks on Nuclear Issue Unlikely with 'Unsettled' Iran

http://www.cfr.org/...

[Winning09]

They're going to talk tomorrow, sport.

[Khirad]

Read the article above, sport.

[Khirad]

From this article:

"While Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi says that the newly revealed nuclear facility is off limits for discussion, he did say yesterday that Iran will discuss the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which can be a backdoor way into discussing Iran's nuclear program."

In essence you are both right and wrong.

[Winning09]

They are talking RIGHT NOW.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Correct.

[joabear]

The US will be seeking bilateral talks with the IRI:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

""Some have argued that the hardline consolidation at home is the ticket to compromise abroad. This argument is part and parcel of a pathology emanating from the traumatic history of foreign intervention in Iran. Ahmadinejad, for example, has gloated that what he alleges were "childish acts of interference" by the West in the election will let Iran "enter the global stage several times more powerful." Conversely, it is often said in Iran that whoever makes a deal with powerful outside players, above all Washington, to end the Islamic Republic’s international isolation will tighten his grip on the state for good



So it may be the case that the hardliners are united in the belief that their toughness will impel the US to cut them a deal that will assure their political dominance for years to come. But, so far, the hardliners seem more concerned with eviscerating reformist and centrist forces than with cutting a deal""



http://www.merip.org/...

[Khirad]

There is a counterintuitive truth to it. Who railed against the reformists for even making passing niceties towards the West? The hardliners. Some even apparently innocuous situations come to mind - which the hardliners and their state-run TV echoed making a mountain out of a molehill for political points. So, who would actually be positioned the best to make such moves? This, however; will possibly open them up to ridicule from the opposition (not like they aren't already objects of scorn), and possibly alienate their base. I am, in the end, skeptical.

[joabear]

It's ironic, isn't it?

Obama coming to Ahmadinejad's rescue and he has no choice but to accept it. But as you keenly observed, it will be advantageous for the green movement.

[LizM]

I suspect that many of the Iranian people, including a number of the ruling elite, will be watching these negotiations with cautious optimism. Let’s hope that the P5 + 1 process will be successful in persuading the Iranian leadership to begin to act responsibly.

In any event, let’s also hope that, if Iran’s leaders do not change course, a strong and united front - including Russia and China - will act accordingly to isolate them without alienating the Iranian people.

It’s going to be very interesting - fascinating, even - to watch as these negotiations unfold under the guidance of Obama-Biden and what is arguably the most capable US leadership we have ever seen...a little over the top, perhaps...but, I’ve been waiting for this caliber of US leadership for what now seems to be nothing short of an eternity!

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Here is the sort of comment that is very non-serious. In leaping to the defense of the Iranian regime, the commenter claims that it is OBAMA who is violating the Nonproliferation Treaty. Through his non-existent attacks or threats of attack on nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes.

Which, again, completely distorts what Obama is doing, and uncritically accepts the notion that the previously secret Iranian nuclear facility exists for peaceful purposes.

BTW
After reading the NPT again, I find that not only is IRannot violating the terms
But Obama is

". Attacks or threats of attack on nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes jeopardize nuclear safety and raise serious concerns regarding the application of international law on the use of force in such cases, which could warrant appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations."
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:rAG2OzhsIkIJ:www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/prin_obj.htm+site:www.fas.org+inalienable+discrimination&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[111]

Iran is acting within international law. Glenn Greenwald had an excellent post illustrating the double standards applied to Iran and Israel. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

e.g.
NYT - Iran was reported Monday to have test-fired long-range missiles capable of striking Israel and American bases in the Persian Gulf in what seemed a show of force.

Telegraph - Israel has carried out the successful test launch of a long-range, ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, in what was intended as a clear show of strength to Iran.

and

USA Today-"President Obama said today that Iran has been building a covert nuclear enrichment facility for several years and warned that Tehran would be "held accountable" if it did not immediately demonstrate its peaceful intentions by opening the site to international inspectors

Foreign Policy-"The UN nuclear assembly voted on Friday to urge Israel to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and place all atomic sites under UN inspections. . . .This is a major victory as the Israel's representative on the council has already promised to "not cooperate in any matter with this resolution..."

The truth is the US wants to use an economic weapon that can be as deadly as any bomb in order to prevent Iran from building a weapon that can deter the US/Israel from attacking them. I am again ashamed of the government of my country and disappointed in the media that plays along.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

While Glenn Greenwald may be your ultimate arbiter, the fact is that Iran is in violation of UN Security Council resolutions, as even erstwhile ally Russia notes, kept this facility secret for years in violation of its earlier agreement with the IAEA, and Israel is not the issue here.

It's very important not to let your emotions get the best of you in analyzing a situation.

[WarSkeptic]

Considering they have not violated the terms of the NPT, sanctions seem unwarranted

Personally I found Obama's stunt at the G20 incredibly disgraceful. To the point where I will have problems voting for him again

He claimed to expose something which had already been exposed, demanded inspections which had already been granted. And then he really dug a hole for himself by claiming he knew about this new site since 2006. Well if you knew about this site in 2006, and in 2007 you issued a NIE saying there was no evidence of a weapons program, then that includes this site doesn't it?

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

This comment is shot through with inaccuracies.

For starters, the nuclear facility was not revealed until last week. It was revealed, in the vaguest terms, by Iran in a private letter to the IAEA only because Obama was already briefing world leaders on the situation.

Next, inspections had not already been granted. Iran agreed to inspections of the facility only after the Obama/Brown/Sarkozy event.

Third, Obama does not say that he's known about this facility since 2006. Intelligence agencies got wind of it around then. He was a freshman senator of the oppposition party, and not a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Fourth, Obama did not release the NIE in 2007. He wasn't the president then.

Did you actually read this piece before you launched into all these inaccuracies?

[WarSkeptic]

1. "It was revealed by Iran" Yes that's what I said. But thanks for confirming

2. My understanding is that Iran did agree to inspections before the speech. I could be wrong but I don't think so. In any case, by them revealing the site to the nuclear inspectors, you are essentially agreeing to future inspections aren't you?

3 & 4 Don't be foolish. Obama is the US president. So when I said Obama knew about the site, you knew exactly what I meant
But I notice you didn't respond to the substance of my statement. Since The US knew about this site in 2006. and concluded that they had no weapons program in 2007. It includes this new site

[Winning09]

Here comes the fringe... lol

This is an ignorant distortion of reality.

[Winning09]

Oh, Lord, what is this, here we go with the Israel haters.

Duuude ... did YOU know about that nuclear facility?

Iran didn't even tell the UN about it till a week ago.

Try making some sense.

>>>> Dramatic? This facility has been known since 2006, where were you? Too busy being spoon fed by the U.S. media I take it?

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/iranian-crisis-the-run-up_b_304290.html

[Winning09]

Obama looks pretty resolute making that announcement.

I love Obama, but his original plan sure hasn't worked out. He'd talk with Ahmadinejad without preconditions, and all that. He wouldn't let the guy get within 100 feet of him last week at the UN even to say hi!

But I think Obama is right to try negotiations before very tough sanctions.