In a surprise announcement, President Obama today accused Iran of building a secret underground plant that could be used to make fuel for nuclear weapons. This brings a plethora of questions. Just how close is Iran to having a nuclear weapon? Could US intelligence regarding this nuclear program be incorrect ala Iraq? Is Iran bluffing? How will the rest of the world react? Will China and Russia support sanctions? Will they condemn Iran's actions? Will sanctions and inspections turn into another charade ala Saddam Hussein? How long will Israel wait for US/UN diplomacy until they (and if they) take military action against Iran? What about the political fallout in the US? How will the politicians/pundits react to Obama's actions (or lack of action)? Which pundits will accuse Obama of utilizing the situation to divert attention to domestic issues such as health care and the economy? Which pundits will accuse the president of being too soft on Iran? Or perhaps of being too hawkish if this leads to military action? Who will blame Obama for the situation? Who will blame Bush, or Clinton, or Bush Sr., or Reagan, or whomever for what is happening today? Personally, I think Iran is bluffing, that Russia and China will downplay the situation and try their best to stay out of it, Israel may launch an air strike against Iran if, and only if, Iran doesn't cooperate with UN inspections, the right wing radio will accuse Obama as being too soft, unless Obama deploys the military, in which they'll accuse him of being too hawkish, the republicans will blame Obama and possibly Clinton while the democrats will blame Bush Jr and Reagan, and Fox News will have record ratings.

Ahmadinejad was just on Larry King. King asked him point blank if the Holocaust happened and Ahmadinejad could not say yes. Instead he claimed he was an academic and used that excuse to sidestep the question while still trying to make his point about injustices against Palestinians. It was frustrating to watch.

At any rate, news of the secret plant came yesterday: Iran admits to secret second nuclear plant built inside mountain. The full text of President Obama, President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown's remarks can be found here: Iran Reveals Previously Undisclosed Nuclear Plant. Iran seemed to be softening it's position: Iranian Leader Offers U.S. Access To the Country's Nuclear Scientists. Last week Ehud Barak down played the Iranian threat to Israel: Report: Barak says Iran is not existential threat to Israel. Earlier this week Ayatollah Khamenei again denied that Iran was working on a bomb: Iran's leader says US nuke accusations wrong. Questions about evidence supporting earlier accusations against Iran remain unanswered: IAEA Conceals Evidence Iran Nuke Docs Were Forged. Last week a former Israeli deputy defense minister said an attack would come before the end of the year if talks failed: Iran attack: Israel ex-min sees end-yr deadline. And Juan Cole asked: Does Iran want to be a pariah?


I think that President Obama's foreign policy actions this week have paid off. He took heat from the right for announcing the withdrawal of missile shield from Poland and the Czech Republic, but that move allowed Russia to pivot on the issue of bringing pressure to bear on Iran. Russia has more leverage on Iran than does the United States (because Russia trades with Iran and the US doesn't). And with Russia on board, China will likely follow (China may not want to be seen as the lone supporter of Iran). President Obama's personal handling of UN Security Council earlier this week also helped. The right wing in the US is marginalizing itself. The corporate news media is slowly but surely coming to realize this, even if they invite John Bolton on to chat this weekend. The Israeli-Russian meeting last week probably had some influence on these developments (too). I think all of these moves were meant to build pressure on Iran leading up to next Thursday's talks. I can't help but think that the post-election crackdown in Iran contributed to the exposure of this new Iranian research facility (that is, someone angry with the crackdown and with access to secrets passed them on to intelligence agents). Iran looks like it's been caught with it's pants down. Obama looks like the leader of planet Earth: Obama scores twin coups on Iran, economy.

[Edited by - LessBread on September 26, 2009 6:39:54 AM]

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I think that President Obama's foreign policy actions this week have paid off. He took heat from the right for announcing the withdrawal of missile shield from Poland and the Czech Republic, but that move allowed Russia to pivot on the issue of bringing pressure to bear on Iran. Russia has more leverage on Iran than does the United States. And with Russia on board, China will likely follow. President Obama's personal handling of UN Security Council earlier this week also helped.

Yes,something like that - Medvedev give Iran several days to think about this problem:

Quote:
"In light of the newly-revealed evidence that Iran is building a new enrichment plant, we are counting on Iran to present convincing evidence of its intent to develop nuclear energy strictly for peaceful purposes."

You can see also Russian Ambassador's in UN interview for Blumberg here

[Edited by - Krokhin on September 26, 2009 4:52:31 AM]

Quote: Ahmadinejad was just on Larry King. King asked him point blank if the Holocaust happened and Ahmadinejad could not say yes. Instead he claimed he was an academic and used that excuse to sidestep the question while still trying to make his point about injustices against Palestinians. It was frustrating to watch.

Next time Ahmadinejad side-steps the Holocaust question this way, someone needs to ask the follow-up question "So, do you think the Rape of Nanking really happened?" Let's see how the Chinese react to having the authenticity of their own national tragedy questioned. That should get them on the side of Western UNSC members pretty quickly.

LessBread, thanks for the link to the president's transcript. I was completely unaware from the G20 sound bites shown on the news last night that Iran admitted to, in writing, building another nuclear facility.

According to this NY Times article, president Obama knew about the facility soon after winning the election in 2008 but withheld disclosure until the Iranian government sent a letter Monday to the IAEA that they were building a nuclear plant.

This other article from the NY Times goes into much greater detail on how both the former Bush administration and the Obama administration knew of the construction of the facility.

This poses the question to why both administrations were withholding this information from the international community? Was the fallout over the lack of WMD's in Iraq so bad that no country trusts the US intelligence agencies?

Quote: Original post by Straudos

Quote: Ahmadinejad was just on Larry King. King asked him point blank if the Holocaust happened and Ahmadinejad could not say yes. Instead he claimed he was an academic and used that excuse to sidestep the question while still trying to make his point about injustices against Palestinians. It was frustrating to watch.

Next time Ahmadinejad side-steps the Holocaust question this way, someone needs to ask the follow-up question "So, do you think the Rape of Nanking really happened?" Let's see how the Chinese react to having the authenticity of their own national tragedy questioned. That should get them on the side of Western UNSC members pretty quickly.

That would be interesting to see. I doubt it would happen. Ahmadinejad might stand up and walk out and reporters generally don't want to become part of the news. And that's assuming that the reporter knew about the Rape of Nanking and felt comfortable that his audience did too. Do you remember when Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia a few years ago? That would have been a very good forum to ask him about Nanking -- and about whether he thinks the moon landings were fake too. Thinking about it a little more, just because he denies the Holocaust doesn't mean he'll deny the Rape of Nanking. Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust because he believes that acknowledging it somehow legitimizes the state of Israel. That's his whole shtick. He's unable to sever the linkage between the two, so he denies the one in order to deny the other.

Larry King's interview with Hugo Chavez on Tuesday was far more interesting. Chavez can talk a lot, so much so that I'd say he out talked Larry King. In contrast with Ahmadinejad, it's difficult to say that Chavez is a tyrant and so on - but I digress.

Quote: Original post by cyansoft
This poses the question to why both administrations were withholding this information from the international community? Was the fallout over the lack of WMD's in Iraq so bad that no country trusts the US intelligence agencies?

Distrust was likely a factor, but not the decisive factor. I think it was a matter of timing. What advantage would Obama have gained by releasing that information sooner? Would he have been able to act on it? If not, then he looks weak. If so, then he looks like Bush lite. Instead he held back, engaged the world diplomatically, made progress with Russia, made progress with China, and then released the information at a time when it would have maximum impact and give him tremendous leverage as he prepares to meet with Iran next week. He played it smart.

England and the US have had a thing with Iran and middle-east in general the entire XX century, regardeless of if middle-east can pose an imminent threat or not.

My personal oppinion is that I preffer the western governments being in a dominant position before any eastern one I can think of.

And also: A government which it's political speech includes murdering people from other cultures should in fact cese to exist ASAP.

Quote: Original post by owl
England and the US have had a thing with Iran and middle-east in general the entire XX century, regardeless of if middle-east can pose an imminent threat or not.

The middle-east is only relevant because of its oil and its proximity to Europe. It may be tempting for aging European nations to draw upon the far more youthful labor pools of the middle-east, but I think Europe may be becoming increasingly skeptical about this now that multiculturalism has been effectively refuted as a valid concept. Time will tell what will happen but the future for the region does not look bright. Despite enormous demographic advantages, middle-easterners (Arabs much more so than Persians and Turks) are none too enthusiastic about the prospect of working and building industry with their own hands.

A nuclear armed Iran could certainly do a lot of damage in the region if it wanted to, particularly if it set off a wave of proliferation in the Arabian peninsula. History is replete with examples of leaders and nations making foolish and futile grasps for power only to leave millions dead in their wake. If ever there was a worrisome hot spot of irrationality, it can definitely be found here. In the short-term, Western analysts often bring up Iran's ability to wreak havoc in the Straits of Hormuz, which could easily disrupt global oil prices and production.

Quote:
My personal oppinion is that I preffer the western governments being in a dominant position before any eastern one I can think of.

Agreed.

cyansoft in answer to your questions, since there are some 'maybes' there

replace iran with north korea

they saiz they have nuclear weapons or are developing them
have tested long range launchers

A few less maybes there
Now what has the world done about this?

Perhaps the single biggest failing of the bush jr government was the decision to goto iraq instead of the NK, I think I said this back in my blog in 2001