US Demands Inspection of Iranian Plant in 3 Mo.

[dilettante]

It looks like things are on the verge of heating up again with Iran in light of their secret nuclear facilities. Given the domestic unrest there, I'm not sure how much the government is in a possession to give in to foreign demands. On the other hand, maybe foreign accusations are just what the doctor ordered to re-unite Iran's dissenting faction in alliance against 'the West'.

Any thoughts on how this will play out?

U.S. Demands Inspection of Iranian Plant in 3 Months

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration plans to tell Tehran this week that the nation has three months to open its numerous nuclear sites to inspection, turn over notebooks and computers, and answer detailed questions about its suspected efforts to build a nuclear weapon, according to United States officials.

The demands, following the revelation Friday of a secret nuclear enrichment facility at a military base near the holy city of Qum, set the stage for the next chapter of a diplomatic drama that has shifted the West’s posture and heightened tensions with Iran (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), even drawing rebukes from allies like Russia.

So far, the administration has not laid out, in public, the extent of the demands it will put on the table on Thursday, when Iranian representatives are scheduled to meet in Europe with the Western powers. It will mark the first time in 30 years that the United States will join the talks as a full, direct participant, fulfilling President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s campaign pledge for “full engagement” with Tehran.


But interviews over the past three days with administration officials, senior intelligence officials and international nuclear experts suggest near-unanimity that disclosure of the covert facility at an Iranian Revolutionary Guards (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/islamic_revolutionary_guard_corps/index.html?inline=nyt-org) base is a potential turning point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/world/middleeast/27nuke.html?pagewanted=1&hp

[Lasher]

It looks like things are on the verge of heating up again with Iran in light of their secret nuclear facilities. Given the domestic unrest there, I'm not sure how much the government is in a possession (sic) to give in to foreign demands. On the other hand, maybe foreign accusations are just what the doctor ordered to re-unite Iran's dissenting faction in alliance against 'the West'.

Any thoughts on how this will play out?
Not now.

[Lasher]

Why is Israel the only power in the M.E. "allowed" to have nuclear power?

[Americano]

Why is Israel the only power in the M.E. "allowed" to have nuclear power?

Israel didn't sign the non-proliferation treaty the US forced every other non-nuclear nation it could into signing. Iran at the time was governed by the US/England seated dictator, the Shah of Iran, and he signed it. Iran is holding the card that its government changed after a revolution (gee, just like the US) and the current government has not formally agreed to be bound by past agreements. They have yet to use it, but in international court it would make US driven demands look silly. Unless, of course, the US agrees to revert to agreements imposed by the Brits when they governed the US.

[Lasher]

Israel didn't sign the non-proliferation treaty the US forced every other non-nuclear nation it could into signing. Iran at the time was governed by the US/England seated dictator, the Shah of Iran, and he signed it. Iran is holding the card that its government changed after a revolution (gee, just like the US) and the current government has not formally agreed to be bound by past agreements. They have yet to use it, but in international court it would make US driven demands look silly. Unless, of course, the US agrees to revert to agreements imposed by the Brits when they governed the US.
How is it that Israel wasn't also forced to sign the non-proliferation treaty? Is Israel supposed to be outside the jurisdiction of the U.N.?

[Michael]

It looks like things are on the verge of heating up again with Iran in light of their secret nuclear facilities. Given the domestic unrest there, I'm not sure how much the government is in a possession to give in to foreign demands. On the other hand, maybe foreign accusations are just what the doctor ordered to re-unite Iran's dissenting faction in alliance against 'the West'.

Any thoughts on how this will play out?

Qom? Oh shit. That doesn't bode well at all. That's got to be the holiest place in Iran and sacred to all Shi'ites.

I admit that Obama has been acting like a typical American 'establishment-hawk' all along, so no suprises are there on that account. He's also a total rookie so its hard to predict what he's going to do about anything. I also note that Obama has been acting rather lame-ass and hesitant of action as well, as if expecting his words alone can solve problems.

Also, Obama has been trying to push the Israel-Palestine "two-states policy" issue and that has ignited an establishment shit-storm in Tel Aviv and Washington. That issue makes Israel look like the aggressive party.

This "Iranian nuke" business is a classic PR move to shift the ground here because it has Israel playing the role of 'victim'. Israeli domestic politics is as disfunctional as American domestic politics - both have sacred cows and electoral systems that tend to favor the interests of the extremist rightwing. And Israeli hawks have LOTS of friends in the Washington establishment - always willing to fan the flames for Israeli benefit.

From a geostrategic perpsective, I can't see anything more stupid than trying to push Iran on nuke weapons at precisely this time. I suppose, that's why the neocons are doing it - they have an unerring ability to favor the absolute worst policies at precisely the worst time. Strengthening the regime in Iran, and/or giving China/Russia the opportunity to act the role of spoiler is not smart policy for the US.

[Michael]

Why is Israel the only power in the M.E. "allowed" to have nuclear power?
Israel is not the only nation in the M.E. to possess nuclear power. It is the only nation in the M.E. that possesses nuclear weapons.

Why was the US allowed to develop nukes?

Why was the US allowed to actually use nuclear weapons on Japan?

Why was USSR allowed to develop nukes?

Why were France and Britain allowed to develop nukes?

Why was China allowed to develop nukes?

Why was India allowed to develop nukes?

Why were Pakistan and North Korea allowed to develop nukes?

Any answer to any of these questions supplies the answer to your question.

[Americano]

How is it that Israel wasn't also forced to sign the non-proliferation treaty? Is Israel supposed to be outside the jurisdiction of the U.N.?

It was a voluntary treaty opened in 1968. Israel started nuclear weapons development in 1952 and at the time of the treaty had an estimated 10-20 nuclear weapons.

As long as Israel remains the US ME gunslinger it will always ignore UN sanctions.

[andrewl]

It looks like things are on the verge of heating up again with Iran in light of their secret nuclear facilities. Given the domestic unrest there, I'm not sure how much the government is in a possession to give in to foreign demands. On the other hand, maybe foreign accusations are just what the doctor ordered to re-unite Iran's dissenting faction in alliance against 'the West'.

Any thoughts on how this will play out?

I doubt Iran will give an inch. Now that Obama has played his card, its almost 100% certain that there will be military action.

Andrew

[Americano]

I doubt Iran will give an inch. Now that Obama has played his card, its almost 100% certain that there will be military action.

Andrew

Who will initiate it, Israel?

[andrewl]

Who will initiate it, Israel?

It might end up being more of a coalition. US, France, Germany, Britain, some Arab countries.

Andrew

[Donkey]

It might end up being more of a coalition. US, France, Germany, Britain, some Arab countries.

Andrew
I'm not seeing it.

[Michael]

It might end up being more of a coalition. US, France, Germany, Britain, some Arab countries.

Andrew

Germany to support military action in Iran? I don't think so.

And France allied with USA on a policy issue? I don't think so.

US is always alone on every foreign policy issue. The question is, how many allies can she bribe to stand by for the photo op? Israel? Marshal Isands? Guam?

[Donkey]

I just don't believe that Obama is stupid enough.

Now I'm sure he'll be quick to prove me wrong.

[Americano]

Iran is now receiving payment for over 70% of its exported oil and LPG in non-USD funds, the same path that lead to Iraq being subjected to US military invasion. Japan was the latest to join a movement away from USD as a global standard for oil purchases in using Yen to pay for Iranian oil purchases.

Iran publicly states being tired of paying the world tax incurred by accepting battered USD for finite resources and doesn't want to further erode its purchasing power. That's a dangerous statement to make to a declining US with foreign policy controlled by the MIC. I view the nuclear weapons scenario as a red herring to the real issue, USD, same as it was played in Iraq's WMDs.

[Americano]

Germany to support military action in Iran? I don't think so.

As I recall Germany's constitution won't allow it.

And France allied with USA on a policy issue? I don't think so.

When was the last time that happened, Indochina in the late 40s early 50s?

US is always alone on every foreign policy issue. The question is, how many allies can she bribe to stand by for the photo op? Israel? Marshal Isands? Guam?

To earn its $5B a year in visible aid Israel will pose for any US photo op.

[Americano]

Another thought, where will ideologically joined at the hip to Iran Shia dominated Iraq stand if Iran is attacked?

[andrewl]

Germany to support military action in Iran? I don't think so.

And France allied with USA on a policy issue? I don't think so.

US is always alone on every foreign policy issue. The question is, how many allies can she bribe to stand by for the photo op? Israel? Marshal Isands? Guam?

Obama has played his card, once that fails the only way to give military action the perception of legitimacy would be to have a coalition.

France is already part of the war in Afghanistan, and they were a major coalition partner in '91.

Germany... i don't know. They seem hawkish on this particular issue.

Ultimately it might not work out, but i suspect Obama will try to form a coalition like Bush Sr. did. Obama does not strike me as the type to take unilateral action, but i could be wrong on that.

Failing all of that i would expect a nod towards Israel to go ahead and do it themselves.

Andrew

[andrewl]

Another thought, where will ideologically joined at the hip to Iran Shia dominated Iraq stand if Iran is attacked?

They have already stated clearly they will not allow their territory or air space to be used against Iran.

Iraq is also part of what will make further economic sanctions ineffective. They are already smuggling gas to iran.

Andrew

[Michael]

Obama has played his card, once that fails the only way to give military action the perception of legitimacy would be to have a coalition.

France is already part of the war in Afghanistan, and they were a major coalition partner in '91.

Germany... i don't know. They seem hawkish on this particular issue.

Ultimately it might not work out, but i suspect Obama will try to form a coalition like Bush Sr. did. Obama does not strike me as the type to take unilateral action, but i could be wrong on that.

Failing all of that i would expect a nod towards Israel to go ahead and do it themselves.

Andrew
I think Obama is a rookie and in way over his head on foreign policy issues. He's also a typical US establishment hawk. All this was known before the election.

But even still, the man is not stupid, moronic or an idiot. A nod towards Israel could trigger WWIII.

[andrewl]

I think Obama is a rookie and in way over his head on foreign policy issues. He's also a typical US establishment hawk. All this was known before the election.

But even still, the man is not stupid, moronic or an idiot. A nod towards Israel could trigger WWIII.

Yes, i feel that any military action against Iran has the potential to escalate out of control rapidly.

But after the theater of making such a big deal in regards to this enrichment facility - which is nothing new to Israeli or American intelligence and does not change the reality of the situation one little bit, its very clear that once this fails to make Iran budge, the only option left is useless economic sanctions followed by military action. Nobody is willing to back down, and all the weapons are in place.

Andrew

[Michael]

Yes, i feel that any military action against Iran has the potential to escalate out of control rapidly.

But after the theater of making such a big deal in regards to this enrichment facility - which is nothing new to Israeli or American intelligence and does not change the reality of the situation one little bit, its very clear that once this fails to make Iran budge, the only option left is useless economic sanctions followed by military action. Nobody is willing to back down, and all the weapons are in place.

Andrew

As I said before, Obama is just getting played by the Israeli-hawk Washington insiders. Obama raised the stakes on Israel and the Israel & American hawks don't like that. So the game is now "stop looking at Israel and look at Iran instead" (the media will always play along with this game).

That's the game being played. Obama being the rookie thinks he needs to 'act tough' on the Iran issue in order to earn credibility to address the Israel issue. No doubt this is exactly what the Israeli-hawk Washington establishment is telling him. "Act tough on Iran and then maybe we can talk about Israel later".

This is a game of 'Lucy with the football' because the "we can talk about Israel later" part never comes. But in the meantime, Israeli-hawk Washington establishment gets exactly what it wants - warmongering talk against Iran (and silence about Israel's illegal occupation and illegal settlements).

It would be more pathetic if it wasn't so predictable.

The dysfunctional political relationship between US and Israel is at the heart of many of the most pressing problems in the M.E.

[Donkey]

Yes, i feel that any military action against Iran has the potential to escalate out of control rapidly.

But after the theater of making such a big deal in regards to this enrichment facility - which is nothing new to Israeli or American intelligence and does not change the reality of the situation one little bit, its very clear that once this fails to make Iran budge, the only option left is useless economic sanctions followed by military action. Nobody is willing to back down, and all the weapons are in place.

Andrew
I think the Iranians will just go ahead with whatever they are doing with relative impunity.

If they want nuclear weapons they are eventually going to get them. If they don't then they won't. North Korea did...

[andrewl]

As I said before, Obama is just getting played by the Israeli-hawk Washington insiders. Obama raised the stakes on Israel and the Israel & American hawks don't like that. So the game is now "stop looking at Israel and look at Iran instead" (the media will always play along with this game).

That's the game being played. Obama being the rookie thinks he needs to 'act tough' on the Iran issue in order to earn credibility to address the Israel issue. No doubt this is exactly what the Israeli-hawk Washington establishment is telling him. "Act tough on Iran and then maybe we can talk about Israel later".

This is a game of 'Lucy with the football' because the "we can talk about Israel later" part never comes. But in the meantime, Israeli-hawk Washington establishment gets exactly what it wants - warmongering talk against Iran (and silence about Israel's illegal occupation and illegal settlements).

It would be more pathetic if it wasn't so predictable.

The dysfunctional political relationship between US and Israel is at the heart of many of the most pressing problems in the M.E.

I agree, i just think its crossed the threshold at this point on this issue, and now the inevitable is going to happen sooner rather than later.

Andrew

[andrewl]

I think the Iranians will just go ahead with whatever they are doing with relative impunity.

If they want nuclear weapons they are eventually going to get them. If they don't then they won't. North Korea did...

Certainly. But because Israelis have whipped themselves up into a frenzy about Iran as an existential threat, i don't see much hope in them accepting coexistence with a nuclear capable Iran.

Andrew

[Michael]

Certainly. But because Israelis have whipped themselves up into a frenzy about Iran as an existential threat, i don't see much hope in them accepting coexistence with a nuclear capable Iran.

Andrew
The "existential threat" from Iran serves the same domestic political purpose in Israel as it serves in the USA.

The primary goal is to get the topic changed from Israel's illegal occupation and illegal settlements.

Iranian nukes serve this purpose for both US and Israel. Both have unpopular domestic policies they need to hide from.

[dilettante]

The "existential threat" from Iran serves the same domestic political purpose in Israel as it serves in the USA.

The primary goal is to get the topic changed from Israel's illegal occupation and illegal settlements.

Iranian nukes serve this purpose for both US and Israel. Both have unpopular domestic policies they need to hide from.

I think you're definitely right about how the threat of a nuclear Iran is being used to achieve domestic political objectives. But I don't doubt that there's a significant amount of sincere fear in Israel and the US (among politicians as well as the public) over the threat of a nuclear Iran. Any policy decision or public stance needs to take that into account.
I don't believe that concerns expressed over Iranian nuclear ambitions can be entirely attributed to Israel's desire to avoid criticism. Ignoring, or casually dismissing, the very real fear that also contributes to those concerns is a recipe for disaster.

[andrewl]

I think you're definitely right about how the threat of a nuclear Iran is being used to achieve domestic political objectives. But I don't doubt that there's a significant amount of sincere fear in Israel and the US (among politicians as well as the public) over the threat of a nuclear Iran. Any policy decision or public stance needs to take that into account.
I don't believe that concerns expressed over Iranian nuclear ambitions can be entirely attributed to Israel's desire to avoid criticism. Ignoring, or casually dismissing, the very real fear that also contributes to those concerns is a recipe for disaster.

Most israelis want to bomb iran.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/24/poll-51-percent-of-israelis-want-immediate-attack-on-iran/

Andrew

[Michael]

I think you're definitely right about how the threat of a nuclear Iran is being used to achieve domestic political objectives. But I don't doubt that there's a significant amount of sincere fear in Israel and the US (among politicians as well as the public) over the threat of a nuclear Iran. Any policy decision or public stance needs to take that into account.
I don't believe that concerns expressed over Iranian nuclear ambitions can be entirely attributed to Israel's desire to avoid criticism. Ignoring, or casually dismissing, the very real fear that also contributes to those concerns is a recipe for disaster.
But I haven't yet addressed the issue of Iranian nukes or Israeli fears about that (in this thread).

I approach every topic as an analyst. First one needs to assess the situation from a reality perspective. Once one has reasonably figured out what is going on, only then can one reasonably be expected to assess the proper or best policy response.

At the moment, the key issue going on is "why now?" All indications are that this information has been on the table for several months (Obama allegedly knew about it in June). But just this week it all pops up and goes public. Why now?

That question has to be answered first. Its not like that Iranian nuke plant in Qom just popped up like a mushroom - but the political world news cycle all of a sudden puts this issue up as number one. I want to know why this topic all of a sudden becomes more important than any other particular Israeli news that is highly topical given the Israeli PM was in Washington just last week to address the specific issue of Israeli settlements - a topic that has been pressed by Obama and Secretary Clinton and opposed by the Israeli PM and this has been very prominent in the world news cycle for the last couple of weeks. Now it is bumped off the front pages and it is gone...

The issue of what to do about Iranian nukes (and Israeli fears of same) is a whole different topic (one I've addressed previously in various pieces) but I probably have never addressed as a direct application to current events.

[dilettante]

But I haven't yet addressed the issue of Iranian nukes or Israeli fears about that (in this thread).

I approach every topic as an analyst. First one needs to assess the situation from a reality perspective. Once one has reasonably figured out what is going on, only then can one reasonably be expected to assess the proper or best policy response.

At the moment, the key issue going on is "why now?" All indications are that this information has been on the table for several months (Obama allegedly knew about it in June). But just this week it all pops up and goes public. Why now?

That question has to be answered first. Its not like that Iranian nuke plant in Qom just popped up like a mushroom - but the political world news cycle all of a sudden puts this issue up as number one. I want to know why this topic all of a sudden becomes more important than any other particular Israeli news that is highly topical given the Israeli PM was in Washington just last week to address the specific issue of Israeli settlements - a topic that has been pressed by Obama and Secretary Clinton and opposed by the Israeli PM and this has been very prominent in the world news cycle for the last couple of weeks. Now it is bumped off the front pages and it is gone...

The issue of what to do about Iranian nukes (and Israeli fears of same) is a whole different topic (one I've addressed previously in various pieces) but I probably have never addressed as a direct application to current events.

Can you send me some links on how far in advance we knew about the existence of this site? I wasn't aware of that and all my news searches now are taken up with Iran's missile test.

[dilettante]

Can you send me some links on how far in advance we knew about the existence of this site? I wasn't aware of that and all my news searches now are taken up with Iran's missile test.

Scratch that; I found it. Interesting.

WRT the "Why now?" question, my guess would be the primary reason was to put Iran on the defensive going into the upcoming international talks.

Also found this:
Iran atomic chief says nuclear inspections soon
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ixeFBxfLzaSjs8Mb8cuFmtPOT6-wD9B0S8SG0

[Michael]

Scratch that; I found it. Interesting.

WRT the "Why now?" question, my guess would be the primary reason was to put Iran on the defensive going into the upcoming international talks.

Also found this:
Iran atomic chief says nuclear inspections soon
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ixeFBxfLzaSjs8Mb8cuFmtPOT6-wD9B0S8SG0

So Iran is to be confronted by USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China and therefore needs to be put on the defensive before the meeting?

That defies logic. :ummm:

Iran is on the defensive in this issue because the western allies are choosing to act aggressively. PR news cycle isn't going to change that dynamic (or create it).

No, Iran wasn't the target of that news coming out. Iran by definition already knew about it.

[dilettante]

So Iran is to be confronted by USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China and therefore needs to be put on the defensive before the meeting?

That defies logic. :ummm:

How so? Doesn't every negotiator want to go into negotiations with their opponent on the defensive, trying to explain himself? I'm not sure what you mean by "need", but I think it makes perfect sense from a negotiation that the US would want Iran to look sneaky and suspicious going into the talks.


Iran is on the defensive in this issue because the western allies are choosing to act aggressively. PR news cycle isn't going to change that dynamic (or create it).

No, Iran wasn't the target of that news coming out. Iran by definition already knew about it.

I disagree. The news is meant for the public, but the target was Iran. This last minute revelation focuses all attention on this new facility, what is it for, and why didn't Iran inform everyone about it sooner?
The questions may be hypocritical and Iran's actions may be turn out to be faultless, but the point is that Iran must begin these negotiations be by answering those questions and explaining those actions in order to have any credibility. These revelations means that the West gets to set the agenda. And that's precisely the situation the Western negotiators want Iran to be in.

Or at least that strikes me as the most likely scenario; I can't pretend to know the minds of the people involved and I'm sure they have more information than I do.

[Michael]

How so? Doesn't every negotiator want to go into negotiations with their opponent on the defensive, trying to explain himself? I'm not sure what you mean by "need", but I think it makes perfect sense from a negotiation that the US would want Iran to look sneaky and suspicious going into the talks.
The US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China starring down at Iran puts Iran on the defensive by definition.

The whole issue is entirely (and always has been) defined as the West confronting Iran.

Thus, Iran is on the defensive by definition here and cannot be anything but 'on the defensive' on this issue.

Ergo, PR efforts to 'put' Iran on the defensive ring hollow. Such acts are entirely superfluous to the process.

Besides, PR & media is a public strategy. Ergo, the pubic is the target, not Iran.

If Iran was the true target of this PR campaign, then mass media wouldn't be the ideal 'medium' for the message. Third party interlopers are used for that at high level diplomatic levels.

I disagree. The news is meant for the public, but the target was Iran. This last minute revelation focuses all attention on this new facility, what is it for, and why didn't Iran inform everyone about it sooner?
The questions may be hypocritical and Iran's actions may be turn out to be faultless, but the point is that Iran must begin these negotiations be by answering those questions and explaining those actions in order to have any credibility. These revelations means that the West gets to set the agenda. And that's precisely the situation the Western negotiators want Iran to be in.

Actual high-level political messages are NEVER delivered via mass media. High level diplomacy doesn't work that way.

If US wants to send a 'real' message to the Iranian government, they use a trusted third party to deliver the message personally to the Iranian leadership.

Mass media reports are always considered propaganda by foreign governments. US considers Iranian television entirely untrustworthy source for understanding Iranian government. Why would Iranian government consider US television media anything different?

Fact is, if the mass media is the 'medium', elite diplomacy is not being played. That's a domestic political strategy by definition!

Or at least that strikes me as the most likely scenario; I can't pretend to know the minds of the people involved and I'm sure they have more information than I do.
I think the WMD and Iraq issue makes it plainly obvious that our elite leaders are serial liars in public.

I see no reason to ever trust the government's word on anything without rational analysis and independent verification. Their track record for honesty is particularly poor on this particular political issue.

[Americano]

This article agrees with your assessment:

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