if I thought any enrichment facility I was in the process of spending multi-billions on was subject to bombing at no notice (and dependent on something as far out of my control as the unstable political climate in a foreign nation) it probably wouldn't make much difference to me whether or not I was trying to hide something in it. I'd likely spend the extra money to build it under a mountain anyway in order to avoid facing taking a dead loss on an extremely costly facility.

But the timing with which the announcement was made is the most interesting part for me. First thing that popped into my head was "why announce now, with Ahmadinejad in front of the camera in NYC? Is someone in Iran trying to stick the shiv in him?"

But this analysis from the comment thread at ACW is a more interesting take:

A smart move by Iran.

1. Under the NPT obligations Iran signed it has to announce nuclear facilities to the IAEA only 6 month before introducing nuclear material to such a facility. The alleged “secrecy” is thereby a non issue as the facility is not yet in use and was announced to the IAEA on Monday.

2. The NYT says it is a small site for only 3,000 centrifuges. Such a site does NOT make sense to be used as a secondary for the big 50,000 centrifuges (planned end state) site in Natanz.

3. Ahmedinejad asked yesterday for U.S. supply for the Tehran research reactor which was launched with U.S. help in 1968. That 5 MW reactor has medical and scientific use. It runs with medium enriched Uranium – i.e. 18-20% enrichment – and is under IAEA control.

4. Iran can not make, without some serious re engineering, such fuel in Natanz.

5. An extra 3,000 centrifuge site makes perfect sense to enrich especially for the Tehran research reactor.

6. Now Iran can say: “Either sell us fuel for the research reactor or we, unfortunately, will have to make that fuel ourselves at the new site.”

Clever chessplayers …

But I agree, a good starting point for a solution of the situation.

— b · Sep 25, 10:02 AM ·

I love the "secret facility" and "confession" lede in the articles, since it would seem that as per its treaty obligations Iran just declared it publicly well in advance of filling the centrifuges (can something publicly announced be "secret"?). Will we be getting a similar declaration about Dimona soon (he wondered aloud rhetorically)?

...his press conference. If this disclosure was planned on their part, that conference would be the rollout and rather than rolling it out, he's folding tents - because it's actually the guys back home that have the authority to figure out what Iran's response is going to be.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

Iran doesn't think there is anything to discuss

...in the October talks, MHO - and I sure hadn't seen any prior indication that that was the case. Quite the contrary, in fact.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

from the sense they have nothing to discuss right now because they don't feel there is anything wrong in their actions.

...over how the other side of the table would be likely to react would override any moral "high horsedness" for lack of a better term and I'd expect some sort of response. My guess, they're still hashing out how the disclosure affects the state of play.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

from a position of in Iran to avoid any reporters question

...any centrifuges - if the notion was to launch this sort of "take it or leave it" gambit, they could also have installed the centrifuges and still respected the letter of the declaration of introduction of nuclear materials and there would be strong reasons to do so. I think they got blown - they made the disclosure to the IAEA on Monday, hoping it would stay under wraps rather than get spilled out on the floor at the UN GA. The fact that it didn't and the ad hoc western response leads me to suspect that both sides got blown and that it leaked from some other source, probably tracing back to the IAEA.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

Certainly could be taken as evidence that this was an embarrassing revelation for A, but I don't rule out that the game runs much deeper than we're seeing. I just don't think it's beneficial to jump to "worst-case" conclusions.

They would have had a lot more room to maneuver had this stayed covert. I have some sneaking suspicions about who would benefit from a disclosure that would harden the positions of the relative sides, but nothing concrete.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

the comments are interesting too

— b, Sep 25, 10:02 AM:

1. Under the NPT obligations Iran signed it has to announce nuclear facilities to the IAEA only 6 month before introducing nuclear material to such a facility. The alleged “secrecy” is thereby a non issue as the facility is not yet in use and was announced to the IAEA on Monday.

2. The NYT says it is a small site for only 3,000 centrifuges. Such a site does NOT make sense to be used as a secondary for the big 50,000 centrifuges (planned end state) site in Natanz.

3. Ahmedinejad asked yesterday for U.S. supply for the Tehran research reactor which was launched with U.S. help in 1968. That 5 MW reactor has medical and scientific use. It runs with medium enriched Uranium – i.e. 18-20% enrichment – and is under IAEA control.

4. Iran can not make, without some serious re engineering, such fuel in Natanz.

5. An extra 3,000 centrifuge site makes perfect sense to enrich especially for the Tehran research reactor.

6. Now Iran can say: “Either sell us fuel for the research reactor or we, unfortunately, will have to make that fuel ourselves at the new site.”

------

The idea of Iran accepting intrusive inspection procedures is very dim and Geoff's idea of a Multinational Iranian-based Enrichment Centre lacks appeal to suspicious western countries. In addition, China rejected US proposals for more sanctions being placed

- eom

the west targets Iran.

I read another article that implied that tied into the US dropping of its Russian Missile Shield with improved co-operation by Russia of more sanctions against Iran. From the sounds of China rejecting US proposals to tighten sanctions, the US didn't succeed in bribing China to get on board. L0L What games of leverage these super powers play!

...the west targets Iran". Ditto that. Iran is an ancient culture and I don't believe for one minute they are suicidal. As everyone here already knows, Iran is within it's legal right to pursue the use of nuclear energy. I'll at least give Obama credit for stating that reality.

www.iauthorbooks.com
http://iauthorbooks.blogspot.com/

...is all of 20 years old, represents a radical departure from the thousands of years of history that preceded it, and has a pronounced tendency to maximize its sense of external embattlement as a means of enhancing its legitimacy. Quite apart from that there's no simple "they" there.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

...Christian crusaders bent on keeping them "under control". Honest engagement (which hasn't happened) will probably garner some results. Persians seem to be a bit more independent than their cowed Arab neighbors. We have been and remain our own worst enemy. The day of the gun (so to speak) should be over. I'm far more concerned with Israel. Iran hasn't attacked anybody for centuries.

...that are Christian, again? If painting with such a big brush, one should use more shades and accept that the other actors aren't without their flaws. At a start, it's important to acknowledge the notion that Iran's major concern in the modern era has been and continues to be seeking to be the paramount player in the region and that it has a pretty major interest in neighbour cowing of its own. Although Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a goodly while, it's gotten its ass kicked on a pretty regular basis and that tends to lend a certain urgency to the notion in their eyes.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

...but we effectively control, to a greater or lesser extent, every country that borders Iran. The Persian Gulf and the Gulf Oman are treated like our own private water ways dominated by our navy. We have effectively encircled Iran. Frankly, as a sovereign country under siege; their behavior is not so unexpected or irrational. I'm not buying into the Israeli hysteria or the jingoistic rhetoric of the U.S. either.
IMO, this whole thing can be settled by mutual respect, honest brokering, and a cessation of threats. All lacking under the present climate. As to their internal politics; we are not wholly without a hand in that either. We are the problem because we want a hegemonic solution.

...Tontos aren't part of the problem. ;) There is some truth to what you're saying, but it is vital to understand that that is not all of it. A good deal of what comes out of the current Iranian regime falls into the category of "even paranoids have enemies". Although the key elements required for success are as you say, it's important to understand that they do not constitute a quick or even potentially an effective solution - there are myriad reasons why various of the the Iranian factions would work against the most open, most reasonable approach. For lots of them, balanced on the razor blade at the apex of a society that actually doesn't like them much, the US is way more useful to them as an enemy than as a friend. As to the threat, be skeptical but don't presume that these guys aren't a threat either - again, even paranoids (in this case the US and Israel) have enemies.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

...of which I'm not a part of either. I'll get back with a reply soon (about 12 hours). As I've just cracked my third can of beer I'd rather not go on now. Sleep awaits shortly. ;)

...(which would be a good idea). Scott Ritter is interviewed regarding this very issue. He speaks as an expert on this and this is worth a listen.
http://www.democracynow.org/

...one accepts the notion that Iran could unilaterally withdraw from its Subsidiary Arrangement (which the IAEA takes the position it cannot) they still didn't actually live up to the terms of the agreement, in that the facility was in existence prior to the unilateral withdrawal of 2007 but was not disclosed per the terms of the 2003 Subsidiary Arrangement.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

We seem to agree the rhetoric has been unnecessarily hotted up. I'll say that; short of any aggression by Iran, I am categorically against any military action against them. I include, even if they "get the bomb", which I don't believe is their intent; at this time. We'll just have to live with it. Israel is a rogue nation that is far more dangerous to the Middle East as has been demonstrated by their war crimes against the Lebanese and most recently the Palestinians. This isn't hyperbole, this is documented and quite serious and seemingly; Iran is being used as a distraction from other more important things, IMO.

I think all this is bluster, what was the G20 meeting about again?

It's not empty now, WTF??? Something new here? Body? ;(

...titled A MANUFACTURED CRISIS, Part 1; yup, U.S. doing to Iran. Gareth Porter also has an article in the same issue; very good stuff IMO.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KI30Ak01.html

...finally be getting it, have they finally come to understand the win-win potential of a manufactured confrontation with the West for powerful factions within the Iranian polity? Sadly, no.

I do wish folks would read something of Iranian history other than 1953.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

read the initial story my brain itched that all is not what it seems(which is why I also didn't jump on the ACW's satelite pics), I thought that Iran would reveal a totally different spot lol. I also thought this might be a carrot from Iran. Instead Obama and friends went all blustery saying they revealed the plant and not Iran and ratcheted up the rhetoric. I think the moment has been lost and hope Russia & China check the increased sanctions ideas.(and I'm really pissed at Dodd!)

now we could argue whether they revealed the site too late to the IEAE but it is still hypocritical for Obama to say Iran has to follow the rules that everyone else does, when he obviously overlooks Israel, Pakistan and India and also the proliferation of free walking Khan. So now we have the West walking right into what could be Iran's trap.

edit: I bet you can't wait for part three :D

Key difference. Iran's trying to have its cake and eat it too while milking the issue for domestic legitimation and regime stability for as much as it's worth. Very overtly right back to the consolidation of Khomeini's aspect of the Revolution by using the hostage crisis that we saw back in the day.

I think that impulse to "the story's not what it seems" neatly encapsulates what's at the root of this. Folks simply don't trust the "official" story and don't have the expertise to search through the spin for what's real and instead let their political convictions substitute in - this seems to me to be real dangerous. If we want to find some middle ground, first we gotta have a good understanding of what the situation is.

I look at this and I see good and legitimate reasons for racheting up the rhetoric - they absolutely have to get across to the Iranians that they can't keep peddling the same old shit in the P5+1 meetings. It may play on the streets of Tehran, but the rest of the world's less impressed. Any viable diplomatic approach on this is going to involve a delicate tension between coercion and encouragement - commentary that seeks to de-legitimate either end of the spectrum strikes me as potentially dangerous and definitely short sighted.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

of the rhetoric, it didn't do jack with dealing with NK. The others may not have signed the NPT and what did we do about it? We throw money at them like crazy and protect their sorry programs. It is ridiculous to keep askign iran for proof when nothing they say or do can overcome what people believe, even in spite of govt reports.

So if this site started in 2007 with Bush in office, who can blame iran. The neocons and Israel have been wanting to make a parking lot of the country for ever, why wouldn't any nation wait until the last minute to reveal anything. All of this just plays into separate standards for those considered friends or not. see your pm

...in this apparently well researched article, here's a link;
http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m9d29-Irans-Nuclear-Program-Iran-in-treaty-compliance-USIsrael-lying-and-out-of-compliance

I look at it when I get off work :)

...Feedback would be interesting. ;D

I had time to read all the links, but it does look like a pretty concise history.

...them as timeless snapshots like you're doing above doesn't help bring clarity, MHO. At various times the United States actually engaged in significant policy initiatives aimed at hindering all of these powers in their proliferation activities. Much of the rest of it is to my mind due to the fact that post-weapons development the genie can't be put back into the bottle and interests have a habit of piling up. Not least, the effects of any of this are quite unpredictable - as an example, current Pakistani actions in Afghanistan are in no small part related to the fact that they view themselves as having been bladed by the US over the nuclear issue [among others] once they were no longer needed after the Soviet withdrawal; they back the Taliban because they believe the US is going to withdraw, perversely helping ensure that withdrawal.

As the imagery makes clear [or at least the imagery billed as this site - which I've seen reproduced on Iranian media sites], the site started well prior to 2007.

I'm obviously not a believer in the parking lot "solution" - the reason I argue so strongly against the naive acceptance of the Iranian position on these matters is because I think that accepting that position makes conflict significantly more likely. Undercutting the foundations on which interim measures short of military action rest is highly counterproductive. Strive to ensure that the only tool left in the cabinet is a hammer, one helps make the problem a nail - even if a screwdriver would have been more effective.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

I'm not sure it is fair to call the position naive when there is no proof given that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. That is why I am against the rhetoric, especially since Obama and the west have been one step behind since Iran's letter announcing the site. I think it is silly to guess what they have going on at the site without anyone have seen it. I think it is silly for all the headlines to say Iran will allow inspections, especially Iran was the first to say they will. I think it is silly for the West to act like they broke the story when it is looks to me that they were caught flat footed. Iran has every reason to doubt the credibility of the west as the west does to distrust them. I still say the way we act to the nuclear powers not members of the NPT just plays well for the Iranians, there are double standards at play and does nothing to help solve the problems. As much as you think Iran wants their cake and to eat it too, I think the same applies to the west.

...much or any qualification the Iranian position on things - I don't mean it in the common sense usually used as a brickbat.

We are simply not in a position where the fact that there's no proof that Iran has an active weapons program means that they don't have to put up with more intrusive measures. They were found to have breached their safeguards agreement on numerous occasions and that then means that they have to prove to the IAEA's satisfaction that they don't have an active weapons program. They put themselves in the position; they're going to have to extract themselves - but the measures that we've seen thus far are less than perfect, even leaving aside the recent developments. Contrary to Iran's objections on the matter this is not unique - five other countries have been found to have violated their safeguards to this extent over the years and they had to put up with more intrusive measures than their original safeguards agreements provided for.

Sorry that so much of this strikes you as silly - me, I think it's the last 8 years that are "filling in" much of the silliness; this is how the meme of "Obama is Bush-lite" gets interpreted and disseminated by the commentariat when templated over the events. All those silly things, when I look at them from the perspective of the events as primary drivers, seem to me to be quite reasonable developments.

In the abstract I don't like how we inter-related with non-NPT signatories either, but I understand the set of reasons - some of them pretty good, all with non-nuclear drivers - that explain why we don't hammer them. Pakistan has us over a barrel over Afghanistan; India's key to getting off said barrel; Israel's a sacred cow. Two of those I get (no points for guessing which two). The fact that we end up in these types of positions is all the more reason for seeking to ensure that Iran's nuclear capability (or anyone else's) remains as latent as possible, frankly.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

definitively that they don't have a weapons program but that we do not have a smoking gun. I think to approach Iran with the attitude they are lying about everything is the wrong way to go, it is not like we have a lock on honesty(Iraq has WMD!). I still don't think the aggressive rhetoric from the west(especially since it was baseless) does nothing but play into Iran's plans.. as Iran suggests an IEAE visits and reasserts sweetly we have only a peaceful civilian nuclear program.... Round One: Iran

looks that way. They, rightly, want some respect. This antagonistic rhetoric goes nowhere. Duh........

...this specific set of circumstances, I'm not. [and for my next rhetorical trick, I will dance between raindrops in a deluge and not get wet! ;)] More seriously, I agree that we don't have a smoking gun, but we do have some cartridge casings and the persistent smell of cordite hanging in the air - and it's up to Iran to establish that they reflect legitimate hunting activity rather than a homicide. That they have been less than forthcoming in doing so means that western suspicion is not without some reasonable basis - though it can clearly be overdone.

Me, I think that the "aggressive rhetoric" can also be overdone, but that some is necessary. The whole strategy here is about demonstrating to Iran that developing even a latent nuclear capability has political costs and that it's in their interests to stop as far short of that as we can manage. I tend to think that the commentariat's relentless focus in playing up the unreasonableness of those costs can only help those inside Iran who benefit politically from a sense of external embattlement. Me, what I most want to see is what the carrots are.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

...with Just Plain Dave. Sorry Dave, I don't mean to speak behind your back; but, your position seems intransigent and you have spoken about history before '53, so? What's the point; I did a refresher and have no idea of your point. Tina; you and I appear to be on the same page. The U.S. is stuck in first gear and can't dump Israel in forging ahead to a realistic position in the present reality. I wait with trepidation on how Obama will deal with this historic moment; will he grab it or trash it?

...not "before" 1953 - in the additional sense that there are other actors beyond just the United States in the relationship and that events in all other periods pertain. I would recommend Trita Parsi's work on Iran-US-Israel relations as a start - I would also recommend abandoning the notion that a refresher on this particular relationship can be obtained in a few days. I'm at about three years and counting...

As to the "intransigence" of my position, MHO, it's intransigent primarily because you do not accept some of the fundamental principles behind behind (or alternatively do not understand the more technical bits of) what I'm saying.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

...and as to your "technical points" I don't understand? I don't agree with your arguments/points; simple. I'm familiar with Trita Parsi but not like you apparently. Unfortunately, the people who understand Iran the best aren't the ones making the decisions or driving policy. I'm more interested in and concerned by, the very bad policies pursued in the real everyday world we live in. I also understand Iran wants and expects to be a power in their sphere of influence and there will be no stopping that, nor should it be. I have not lived in the U.S. for many years and no longer see the world through that lens. I would add this; nothing between the U.S., Israel, and Iran is as it seems. Given we have no real say in how this will play out; only time will tell and that's the unfortunate truth.

A certain degree of presumption is pretty much unavoidable - that's just a reality of high latency relations based on writing. From my perspective, the stuff that you identify as being well researched doesn't signal what I would immediately identify as a deep familiarity with the issues. I'm biased, but it reads to me as the same old stuff that everybody trots out when they're painting the typical "US bad" picture of the relationship, sorry. When you label my perspective "intransigent" having cited Ritter, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that you don't understand or don't accept the stuff deep behind what I'm saying - the differences between Acton's position and Ritter's are technical to a high degree. I mean, c'mon - you're saying I'm unreceptive to new data when from my perspective you're the one not changing your views, approvingly citing material full of what I consider "the same old stuff", when the new "sekret nuklear facility" gets revealed! ;) That I made some presumption in trying to mentally reconcile that, well mea culpa. As a peace hookah for thought, I offer this.

Me, I think the relationship between the United States, Iran and Israel is exactly as it seems. Each Iran-related relationship is shallow and all parties use manufactured visions of the other to their own ends far more than they actually depend on the relationship. Neither the behind the scenes, episodic, covert relations nor the in front of the scenes shallow manufactured relations are actually "real" in any meaningful way because everyone wants it that way - I hope that's changing. Where I depart from your view on Iran's desires is that I tend to think they want to be the paramount actor in their chosen sphere, not just a major actor - and that means that they need not just to maximize their influence, but also to reduce the competing American influence.

As to our say in all this, I actually think we have a little bit of a say in that if we are able to advance more nuanced views of the history and current status of the relationship, we can help generate more political space for its future development. Conversely, if we keep arguing the simple "US bad" / "Iran bad" dichotomy, all we're doing is helping those political partisans who benefit from being able to whip up support based on caricature and near as I can tell, none of those folks stands to much benefit from going beyond the manufactured relations, compared to their domestic competitors.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

...no response to you.

...bollocks to conventional wisdom here. More tomorrow; it's bed time now. ;D

...a couple of ways. Beyond the immediately obvious, this is the event that's going to increasingly highlight why China and Russia are hindmost on the issue (and it doesn't have much if anything to do with doubts about the intelligence).

Me, I'm increasingly disgusted (I tried for a gentler word, but none of them were true and god knows I've tried and failed to cultivate an air of detached bemusement / fatalism) with the commentariat and the folks they feed off of for being so unwilling to take new information on board. Instead of taking an opportunity to gracefully pivot and drive for rational discussion of what a sane Iran policy would look like (and this is a great opportunity for that if played well), it looks to me like they're hunching back into their hardened positions and helping ensure that this continues to be a polarized he said / she said spectacle. Way to cede the playing field to the other team, guys. Hope they can live with the butcher's bill this lost opportunity may run up.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

...I need to go back and re-read that article; I'll be back.

...interpreting it differently. IF the U.S. had proven itself an HONEST player/broker then we wouldn't be in this stupid, manufactured situation. If the U.S. didn't supply arms to Israel and then ignore their illegal use; thereby further reducing their own credibility; I might be inclined to grant the benefit of doubt. I do not believe my government, period. They have too much invested in hegemony of not just the M.E. but the world in general. At this point further discussion is probably pointless and time will tell how this all plays out. I can agree to disagree. Further this has been a very interesting debate; thanks. ;D

...that's at issue here - it's Iran's relationship with the international community and the IAEA. To reflexively lay all this at the feet of the Americans? No wonder you're looking at what you think is the same material and coming to different conclusions. To the contrary - I think you're looking at a mass of material that's been spun to hell and gone and ending up at the conclusion the authors want you to end up at - polemics, in other words. Wade through the IAEA archive - the reports, the INFOCIRCs, it's all there - then see if you end up in the same place.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

Obama, Netanyahu and the UK PM dropped this one like a stink bomb on Ahmadinejad's head, and boy, did it stink after Ahmadinejad's rant denying the Holocaust. Suddenly Ahmadinejad and the whole, rotten Iranian government look like total assholes for keeping a secret nuclear facility.

Of course this was a setup to embarrass the Iranians, and it worked perfectly. Now Ahmadinejad gets to go home with his tail between his legs. Unfortunately, this also makes it easier for Netanyahu and his henchmen to pressure Obama to do nasty military things to Iran.
.
Good times for Smiley! :-D

assess countries with nuclear weapons in a variety of ways. Pakistan, India, and Israel never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It's a conundrum that Iran did and does allow the IAEA to conduct inspections on Iran's facilities and undoubtedly will agree that this latest nuclear plant will conform. Does anyone approve of North Korea having nuclear weaponry capability? L0L

There are arguments both for and against Total and Selective Proliferation My country doesn't have nuclear weaponry capability, but could very quickly arm itself if necessary! US exceptionalism, from my point of view, does get tiresome!

Weirdest post I ever read. It is 2009 and we got most countries on board on this. Your post makes about zero sense.
The facility was revealed today and never been inspected. You read the news today?

Remember that Israel is not itself on board with the inspections regime. That's an extremely important omission in this particular context; Iran's far more in "compliance" (insofar as the term is meaningful/non-politicized) with the expressed will of the international community than Israel could be said to be.

Getting personal is discouraged here.

...powers decided that a nuclearly ambiguous Israel was a net force for stability. (Also worth noting that it wasn't the usual suspect that supported a nuclearised Israel.) Since she became militarily dominant in conventional terms during the 80's and 90's (and given the behaviours that dual spectrum dominance appears to have spawned), many are less certain of that precept.

Similarly, if one cares about the continued viability of the counter-proliferation regime, Iranian propaganda aside, Iranian actions are at least as concerning as Israel's. Saying that one is outside the NPT construct is one thing (and in fact every state's right) being inside the construct and beating the crap out of its letter and spirit on a continual, ongoing basis is quite another.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

...a number of countries that folks don't typically think of that are far closer to nuclear weaponization than is commonly believed, yet the earth continues to revolve and orbit. In the specific example of Canada, on a crash basis, ignoring the political and based purely on technical means, we are a period most conveniently measured in weeks from producing a gun type weapon. It wouldn't be elegant and it'd be in the category of "Ryder-deployable" but that's the capability.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

North Korea has shown Iran an interesting lesson about having a nuclear weapon; have it, and U.S. backs way down. Iran is the poster child for U.S. exceptionalism, IMO.

...is nearly operational, but with the "nearly" at about 18 months seems to me to still be roughly consistent with them possibly starting with no centrifuges installed. Referring to Lewis' post of a couple of months ago gives a clearer understanding of the potential pace of installation. Salient graphic excerpted below [18 cascades is 2,952 machines]:

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

in the news, most from the West ;) AJ might be right, the West might regret their words

...tentatively that they're doubling down (though I'm surprised that the decision making could be working this fast - a lot of folks in the apparatus have to have been unaware of this and it's really shifted the state of play; these may simply be factional statements) and boy does that worry me. Looking a lot like they're maybe not going to miss this opportunity to miss a chance at improved relations. Joy.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

must be thinking of those who make assumptions :D
I'm sure there is much more to come out on the positioning and timing, I'm willing to wait. lol

Iranian Leader Offers U.S. Access To the Country's Nuclear Scientists
Ahmadinejad Says Talks Could Build Trust Over Issue

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 24, 2009

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 23 -- Iran is willing to have its nuclear experts meet with scientists from the United States and other world powers as a confidence-building measure aimed at resolving concerns about Tehran's nuclear program, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday.

At international talks next week on its nuclear ambitions, Iran also will seek to buy from the United States enriched uranium needed for medical purposes, Ahmadinejad told reporters and editors from The Washington Post and Newsweek. Agreement by the Americans, he suggested, would demonstrate that the Obama administration is serious about engagement, while rejection might give Iran an excuse to further enrich its stock of uranium.

"These nuclear materials we are seeking to purchase are for medicinal purposes. . . . It is a humanitarian issue," Ahmadinejad said in the interview. "I think this is a very solid proposal which gives a good opportunity for a start" to build trust between the two countries and "engage in cooperation."

Nuclear research reactors are used to create radioactive isotopes for the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. The Iranian president said that about 20 medical products are created at a reactor in Tehran but that more fuel is needed.

Ahmadinejad made his proposal against the backdrop of increasingly urgent efforts by the United States and other major powers to prod Iran to fully disclose its nuclear program or face stricter sanctions. On the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday discussed the possibility of what Obama called "serious, additional sanctions," while France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, told French television that the "dialogue is achieving nothing. There will be a timeline, a date limit. In my mind, it's the month of December."

Medvedev, echoing a statement he made last week, said: "Russia's position is simple: Sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable."

On Oct. 1, a senior Iranian diplomat will meet counterparts from the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany in Geneva to discuss the nuclear program, and Ahmadinejad said he will bring the new proposal. In a meeting Wednesday evening at the United Nations, foreign ministers and senior officials from the six countries met to plot strategy for the session.

"We expect a serious response from Iran" and will decide on "next steps" if it is not forthcoming, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said in a statement approved by the six nations.

Obama singled out Iran and North Korea as nuclear outliers in his speech before the General Assembly on Wednesday. "If they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East, then they must be held accountable," he said as Ahmadinejad sat in the fifth row of the chamber. "The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced. We must insist that the future does not belong to fear."

Iran's medical reactor was supplied by the United States during the shah's rule. But according to David Albright, a former weapons inspector who is president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, Iran received additional uranium only from Argentina after the 1979 revolution. Argentina cut off those supplies sometime in the 1980s.

Albright said Iran's latest move is "clever" because there is "implied blackmail" behind the idea. If the material is not supplied, Iran could announce that it has no choice but to make the material, which is nearly 20 percent enriched; the material Iran is now producing is 3 to 5 percent enriched and suitable only for energy purposes. Allowing Iran to purchase the new material would require a waiver of international sanctions.

While weapons-grade material is more than 90 percent enriched, making material for the medical reactor could put Iran on the next step to reaching that level.

Albright said the proposal to make Iran's nuclear experts available to answer questions from international scientists is also potentially significant because Iran has not previously allowed such a meeting, even in an unofficial setting.

more

..."business as usual" part of the build-up to negotiations as in they would have made the offer with or without Friday's public disclosure of Monday's message. For me the key would be which specific Iranian experts they're talking about - if it turns out to be the folks that the IAEA has been seeking contact with for yonks, it could be very significant indeed.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

envision Iran saying, we became more transparent and allowing access and this is what we get...I guess it will come down to who is playing who and what one considers in violation of the NPT. lol

it's chess at its best.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

Has this all been for public consumption in Iran? to unite behind the disputed leadership?

Iran to stage missile defense exercise Sunday: report
Sat Sep 26, 2009 11:19am EDT

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards will stage missile defense exercises starting on Sunday, Iranian media reported on Saturday.

The announcement of the war games coincides with increased tension in Iran's nuclear dispute with the West, after this week's disclosure by the Islamic Republic that it is building a second uranium enrichment plant.

"The Revolutionary Guards' air force will tomorrow start missile, defensive war games ... as part of regular annual defense plans to maintain and upgrade defense capacities of ... Iran's armed forces," a Guards statement said, quoted by the Mehr and IRNA news agencies.

General Hossein Salami, head of the Guards' air force, said the games would include simultaneous firings of missiles at targets. The exercises will last several days and take place in various locations.

(Reporting by Hossein Jaseb; writing by Fredrik Dahl; editing by Robin Pomeroy)

Last update - 20:04 26/09/2009
Iran to hold missile defense exercise on Yom Kippur
By Reuters
Tags: Yom Kippur, Israel News

Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards will hold missile defense exercises on the upcoming Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur on Sunday, Iranian media reported on Saturday.

Israel, U.S. plan drill to combat missiles

Published: Sept. 21, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Order reprints

TEL AVIV, Israel, Sept. 21 (UPI) -- The Israeli and U.S. militaries are expected to launch joint exercises in October to counter the nightmare scenario of coordinated missile and rocket attacks against the Jewish state from Iran, Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

The maneuvers are part of the biannual Juniper Cobra exercises on missile defense conducted by the two allies since 2000. These are designed to integrate the two countries' missiles, radars and other systems.

...made the offer before they made the IAEA disclosure. Now it kinda comes off like "here's what we get for being retroactively transparent and allowing access". ;)

These guys sure have made things a lot more complicated. I would dearly love to know whether Forden's assessment that it was started during the suspension is correct - might be quite a different take on things if it was started during the suspension then suspended or greatly slowed down when they re-started at Natanz and they've been sitting on it for a goodly while. No matter what the context however, pretty hard for them to maintain that this is an okay thing.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

More correctly, "if it is the will of God," an expression of submission to the Will that rules the world. If rednecks could say "Man proposes, God disposes" in three syllables, they'd do it, and wouldn't spare the expression, either.

Why don't news reports from Japan use the word "honorable" three times per sentence? Oh, I know, the buck-toothed squinty-eyed sneaky Jap was retired half a century ago. It would embarrass even Jonah Goldberg to play that linguistic game. We're squaring off against eagle-nosed ragheads this time. (Persians speak Arabic, you know. They hide it, but they do.)

What am I, stupid or something? I'm like, duh. For a second I forgot who was the enemy of civilization. Excuse me while I stand in the corner.

GPS isn't that precise. If cruise missiles had a Circular Error Probable of 200 feet (deep or wide, you choose), they'd damn well use GPS for navigation instead of a look-down system that automates a Vietnam-era bombardier's strip chart and uses GPS as a double-checking backup.

People have this semi-conscious idea of a laser bomb going down a chimney left over from the First Gulf War, and it doesn't work like that. I don't doubt the efficacy of brute force and ignorance, but I mock the ability of the USAF to put Tab A in Slot A, instead of Slot D or Slot R or anything that looks like a slot from 40,000 feet. Anything dropped from a B-52, especially, is close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades, pretty much by definition.

If this Gung-Ho Rodeo article doesn't leave you laughing through your tears, you might want to clear your mind and refocus on first principles. Here's a fun exercise. If the E.U. got tired of being tapped and bugged, and wanted to reduce the threat, how many miles from the dead center of Langley and Ft. Meade would they be justified in firebombing? How many "innocent" civvies per spook, say, would be worth burning alive? Shouldn't the E.U. kill 'em all and let God sort them out? Why not turn loose thousands of Russian and Chinese "diplomats" to inspect every square inch of Virginia, equipped with inertial navigation laptops and satellite uplinks? If the USA is innocent, we have nothing to be afraid of. Right?

how long it took for this to hit MSM

(not sure what he is up to in the Middle East) who started the hyperventilating at the Obama-Brown-Sarkozy "whatta we say about this?" meeting. He certainly was the speaker at the UN session who undercut Obama's generalities by talking specifically about a deadline for Iran.

Of course there is also "Netanyahu urges US to act immediately against Iran" and the WSJ's
An Israeli or U.S. military strike now, or a nuclear Tehran soon helping to keep the pot boiling.

_{I feel the American worker has been sacrificed to the capitalist idols in the ancient Mayan fashion. - Sue Lamb, NYT reader}

Iran: More accomplished in one day of negotiations than in 8 years of threats

Salon.com, By Glenn Greenwald, October 2

Here are two stories from the last 24 hours which provide an interesting and glaring contrast:

McClatchy, reporting on yesterday's meeting with Iran in Geneva:

Iran also pledged that within weeks it would allow the inspection of a previously covert uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, announced that he'd head to Tehran to work out the details.

Eli Lake, The Washington Times, this morning

President Obama has reaffirmed a 4-decade-old secret understanding that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections, three officials familiar with the understanding said.

[...]

Steve Hynd explains why Iran's willingness to agree to this process was both so surprising and so significant. As is true for any tentative agreement with anyone, there is always the possibility that something could happen prior to compliance, but this was a deal reached after a single-day meeting. Just consider that, as Hynd said on Twitter, the "Obama WH already got more from one buffet lunch with Iran than Bush WH did in 8 years of saber-rattling." For that reason, it's hard to disagree with this: "In Washington, President Barack Obama said the talks marked 'a constructive beginning' and showed the promise of renewed engagement with Iran . . . ." Charles Krauthammer picked a bad day to haul out the tired neocon "appeasement" platitude and apply it to Obama, claiming -- as always -- that negotiations and diplomacy can accomplish nothing, while railing like a madman against Obama's "naivite," "fecklessness," and "wasting time with feel-good posturing.

Clinton welcomes Iran move to admit IAEA inspectors
Posted: 27 September 2009 0602 hrs

NEW YORK - US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Saturday welcomed Iran's decision to admit International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to a newly disclosed uranium enrichment plant.

"It is always welcome when Iran makes a decision to comply with the international rules and regulations, and particularly with respect to the IAEA," Clinton told reporters at talks with Gulf Arab foreign ministers.

She was reacting to comments from Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's atomic energy chief, who said on Iranian state television, "we have no problem for inspection within the framework of the agency regulations."

Clinton said she had earlier discussed the issue of the uranium enrichment -- which was publicly disclosed Friday -- with her counterparts from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

She spoke to reporters as she met again with the same ministers at a meeting exanded to include her counterparts from Iraq, Egypt and Jordan.

"We are very hopeful that, in preparing for the meeting on October 1, Iran comes and shares with all of us what they are willing to do and give us a timetable on which they are willing to proceed," she added.

The United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany are sending diplomats to meet their Iranian counterpart in Geneva on October 1 in order to test how serious Iran is about coming clean on its uranium enrichment programme.

Clinton said the disclosure of a second uranium enrichment plant near the holy city of Qom adds urgency to the talks next week.

The White House's Michael Hammer pressed Iran for results.

"We call on Iran to cooperate fully and immediately with the IAEA," Hammer said.

"As our partners in Russia and China made clear yesterday, we all support the authority of the IAEA to conduct a full investigation," he said.

"After hiding this site from the international community for years, full transparency is essential, and it is time for Iran to play by the rules like everyone else," he added.

- AFP /ls