Dr. Lynch, I think the case made by David Brooks today is sober and clear-headed about the biggest issues facing America. Don't you agree?

you make no sense. Russia, China - their positions are not capricious - they seek to gain influence at America's expense and this does not change that at all - if they were going to oppose sanctions before in order to further their interests they're still going to now. If Obama was looking to 'spring' this info with perfect timing, wouldn't that have been during the reform protests when the regime was at its most vulnerable? They're doing it now quite obviously because Iran knows and they have no choice, staging a news conference so people like you will mistake it for a clever negotiating tactic. In fact one could make the argument that they didn't want this info revealed at all because if Iran still refuses to negotiate and Russia and China still balk at legitimate sanctions Obama will be under extreme pressure to stop what even the most naive liberals must now admit is Iran's determined effort to get the bomb.

The regime in Iran has given no indications that they're open to negotiating away the bomb so why do people like you keep throwing out opinions premised on the assumption they are?

There are only three scenarios that make sense of this: Obama is delusional or naive or both; they've know all along Iran can't be stopped [but if that's the case why were they conflicted on how to respond to the reform protests?] and so everything has been done for appearances sake; they don't know what they're doing or there's a fundamental confusion somewhere in the pipeline.

But it seems rather more likely that the administration chose to go public as part of a calculated effort to ratchet up the credibility of the threat of tough sanctions ahead of the October 1 meeting between Iran and the P5+1 in Geneva.

No doubt. But why didn't the US inform the IAEA about the potential violation as soon as they learned of it?

Listening to the news today, I thought the intelligence agencies have suddenly discovered a secret facility that's been covertly building a nuclear bomb. Unfortunately, most of the news presenters today are nothing more than bunch of advanced-drama-class-drop-outs that had decided to enter news and communication instead of trying to make it in the Hollywood. So it's very refreshing to hear another side of the story without the agenda-driven hype. Can we say Iraq 2.0?

One would say that Iran's recent revelations, is a step on setting a positive tone for the October 1st. meeting with G5+1 in terms of an attempt at transparency, while the fact that President Obama has withheld information he previously had till now, indicates that he is willing also, to prepare for the next october negotiations, giving a good will gesture to Iran. After all he could have revealed what he knew much earlier on, and created tensions that might have jeoperdised the prospects for holding the October meeting.
Ultimately, I don't think anyone believs that Iran will negotiate the future of its nuclear programme, but what might be negotiable, is the prospects of Iran's cooperation with the international community over its nuclear programme.
This cooperation is subject in my humble opinion, to first of all, internal developments within Iran; whether it develops politically as a Mullah dominated country; in which case, it's nuclear cooperation will be most likely a bargaining chip, for a wide international role for itself as a superpower and Islam's number one country (whether this image is justifiable or not, becomes irrelevant when Iran sees itself in such terms), or, a militaristic-nationalist country; albeit in Islamic guise (a possibility which one foresees). In this case, Iran's cooperation will be subject to the extent it can extract a major role from the international community in regional terms, and a major say in the developments in the Middle East. The second factor, is obviously whether the USA and the international community believe that, Iran's cooperation is an adequate bargaining chip for having a reciprocal relationship with Tehran.

khairi janbek.paris/france

Bush had this intel too - why didn't he act on it, reveal it to the inspectors? Because in order to keep the site clandestine Iran would have to sacrifice security against an Israeli or American attack should such be deemed necessary. Therefore, either Obama has revealed it now because Iran found out and he had no choice, or, convinced of his brilliance, he has seriously compromised a military option in order to negotiate a deal that cannot be negotiated.

Bomb Iran Now!!! Bomb them now!!! we cannot live with this existential threat!!!!

A new Usama bin Laden audio message about Afghanistan was released hours ago:

New Usama bin Laden Audio Message "To the People of Europe" Released Today, Listen to It

I know, sanctions is a very fashionable term to throw around always. However, if idle yours sincerely, has thought about the questions related to a possible policy of sanctions against Iran, then President Obama and his NATO allies, must have thought about the same questions and probably much more. The most obvious sanctions are of course, fuel sanctions against Iran. Knowing the Iranian extreme cold winters, I am sure this is not a prospect which the Iranian people would look forward to at all. But what answers would President Obama and his allies give, if Iran decides that the fuel sanctions are a casus belli, and decide to block the shipping in the Straights of Hormuz with missile attacks?. After all, almost over 40% of the worlds oil is transported through those straights and a good percentage of the overall world shipping also. Will President Obama and NATO decide on going to war against Iran then, adding Israel to the bargain?. What if Russia decides, after the October meetings with Iran, that there are no sufficient grounds for sanctions, and continues to ship fuel to Iran, will the US and NATO take military action against the Russian shipping?. Even if Russia complies, what about China?. It seems still oblivious to all this sanctions threats. While at it, why not add Venezuela to the fun also. If it holds its promises and exports fuel to Iran, will the US Navy be instructed to block Venezuelan ships?, or will President Obama consider a coup against Mr. Chavez?. How will all that Affect US-Latin American relations?. I guess, in the manner of "hoping against hope that hope will create, from its own
reck, the thing it contemplaits", that something positive will emerge from the October meetings, or, that President Obama has a direct relationship with the spirit of Nostradamus, whom has told him, in the case of sanctions, there will be no sanctions-busters, and that Iran will sit tight and take it on the chin with a stiff upper lip.

khairi janbek.paris/france

"It also demonstrates to the Iranians the quality of Western intelligence and the difficulty of deception and denial -- especially in the atmosphere of (quite warranted) mistrust of their intentions."

Let me suggest another possibility. Iran never mentioned the site because it had no obligation to do so until 180 days prior to introducing uranium. Period.

That does not mean they designed the site to be 'secret' or invisible to satellites.

The Iranians might have announced it now because, as b from the former Moon of Alabama blog suggested, it gains them leverage in the upcoming negotiations. Recall that Iran has requested to buy 20% enriched uranium for medicinal purposes. If the U.S. refuses to sell? Then I guess the Iranians will have no choice but to make it themselves in their new facility, probably containing the newer IR2 centrifuges.

They U.S. and her allies are making a lot of noise about it because that's exactly what they have always done.

Of course the U.S. can turn the tables by agreeing to sell the uranium, but they really aren't that clever.

Two interesting questions:(i)Why did "Obama chose to go public with this information now"?, and (ii) why did Iran disclose the existence of the facility last Monday?

(i) Obama's timing was dictated partly by the Iranian announcement on Monday and partly by his style of conducting foreign policy. He conducts foreign policy as if it is a domestic political campaign. With regard to Afghanestan, Israel-Palestine, and Iran, Obama declares an appealing policy objective and then campaigns for it domestically and internationally expecting to produce results. That approach is yet to work in AfPac or Israel-Palestine. In the case of Iran, Obama send them "new-year greetings" a few month ago, traded missile defense for Russian corporation last week, staged one publicity show at the UNSC on Wednesday and another one in G-20 meeting today. All these shows will succeed if one assumes that Russians have a lot of powers vis-a-vis Iran, and that Iran can be frightened into submission by raising hysteria in Western press. We will have to wait and see if the policy works.

(ii) Why did Iran disclose the existence of the facility now? Iran took note of US-Russia deal, was aware of the UNSC meeting on Wednesday, and has dealt with Russian duplicity for centuries. Iran disclosed the existence of the facility now --long before it was obligated under NPT -- to nullify the effect of the Russian card. In recent years, US and Israel have repeatedly threatened to destroy the Natanz facility, and have asked Russia not to deliver S-300 air defense system to Iran. The new facility is deep into a mountain and does not require S-300 for its defense. Should US-Israel attack and destroy Natanz, Iran can kick out IAEA inspectors and use the new facility for whatever purposes it wishes to. And, Iran knows that Russian support for sanctions will not make them more biting. But that additional sanctions can be used to crash domestic dissent in Iran.

As far as intelligence gathering on the Iranian nuclear program it seems likely that some western intelligence agencies have penetrated the regime in Tehran. It is not surprising that there may be elements in the Iranian power structure that might like to bring Ahmadinejad down a peg or two. Using MI6, Mossad or even the recently inept CIA for this purpose seems pretty plausible.

When one considers that Iran is the great strategic winner in the Gulf region as a result of the USA removing the Iraqi threat to their western flank is seem logical to assume that more prudent Iranians may want to consolidate their gains rather than letting Ahmadinejad initiate a nuclear arms race with the resultant risk of drastic military or economic action. My guess is that Ahmadinejad is expendable.

I do beg the readers patience because I am digressing here from what I intend to say. The issue of heating in the cold winters of Iran (indeed such winters are extremely clod)was just a small talk on my part.

One remembers from the days of sanctions on Iraq, that the theory of fuel sanctions disrupts the patterns of fuel supplies, forces many suppliers to stop dealing, and forces the sanctioned country to pay much more for those suppliers whom do not mind taking the risk of sanctions-busting. In essence, the whole operations became just very expensive and uncomfortable as well as corrupt. For a country like Iran, if I remember correctly (I am relying here on plenty of memory, for someone at the age of fifty one, and feels getting on eighty)that Iran did at one point limit the imports of Gazoline, and limited also the numbers of those whom benefitted from the government subsidised fuel prices, in order to stop the strain on its budget from continuelly having to subsidise fuel; which sold as one of the cheapet prices in the world, without causing major unrest and without affecting negatively the developments in other sectors due to budgetary strains, and perhaps also, conveniently to bring the price up in order not to make it worthwhile for smugglers to carry on smuggling.

What I wish to say now, is that, one is certainly no Cassandra, but unless a compromise by a divine intervention is reached with Iran, inevitably war will happen, perhaps as early as next spring or next summer at the latest. Sanctions at the best of times do not work, because there will be always sanctions-busters for the right price, let alone with a country like Iran, as the example provided kindly by Mr. Don Bacon indicates, that there will be many whom would be more than eager, to actually bust those proposed extra sanctions. The way I see it is that, if the US, its allies and Israel, are seriously convinced that Iran is actually intending to develop nuclear weapons, and there is indeed no chance of a miraculous compromise, how long will they wait to see that, the extra sanctions did not bring around the desired change in attitude by Tehran; especially that they feel they are working against the clock before Iran tests its first nuclear weapon?.

Alternatively, if also by some miracle, the proposed extra sanctions of finance and fuel, could be made watertight, enough to de-stabalise the regime in Tehran, what is there to stop Iran unleashing itself on its neighbours or even beyond, in a destructive war, in order for the regime to survive the sanctions?. I mean if an organisation like Hamas in an entity like Gaza, with no military means to talk about when compared to Iran, manages to provoke a war with Israel in order to survive the economic asphexiation imposed on the Gaza strip, would we be all resonable to expect the regime in Iran to sit tight and take economic collapse on the chin with a stiff upper lip?.

That is, if Israel does not pre-empt everybody and undertakes unilateral military action against Iran on its own, and with Iranian likely retaliations, heaven knows how wide the circumference of the conflict would be. I suppose if one is to be cynical, maybe after the carnage and destruction, there may will be a possibility for another Middle East Conference. But war?, unfortunately I think we are slip-sliding towards it very rapidly.

khairi janbek.paris/france

So many contributors to these pages seem to start with the assumption that the Iranian regime is irrational and incapable of calculating their own strategic interests. I see no evidence of that. In fact it’s the United States that seems to have acted in the most irrational manner and the past six years. Who screwed up the strategic balance in the upper Gulf to our own disadvantage the Iranians? I think not.

Sec. Gates has said to ABC Netwrok [to be aired today], that in his opinion Iran's intention is to develop nuclear weapons, but he is not sure if they have already taken the decision to do so. Unfotunately, this is just like saying in a layman's terms that, since Iran has the technical know-how, as well as the technological means, it is only a matter of political decision to start developing nuclear weapons any time. I don't know if this is a hint for the return to the principle of "pre-emptive strike"? or not.

One would say that, even if an inspection regime is installed, in order to regularly inspect Iranian nuclear installations, and Iran is determined to circumvent the inspections, I think it will be able to manage doing so, or/and, if they chose to, they can stop the inspections at a moment's notice. So, I just hope that, if a war is to break out, it will not be based on a matter of opinion and on speculations of future intentions.

khairi janbek.paris/france

Time is on Iran's side and the West is playing into their hand. Iran has no intention of relinquishing it's nukes. Take Ahmadinejad at his word. He has also made it clear that he intends to destroy Israel. Iran can simply continue 'engaging' Europe and now the US without doing anything meaningful. They'll anounce that the IAEA can inspect and then they'll debate the terms of the inspections and then they'll only let inspectors from certain countries in, etc... They'll 'bargain' in 'good faith' all the while continuing to build nuclear weapons capacity. Meanwhile, the US media and the pacifist foreign policy establishment will espouse the benefits of our enlightened 'engagement' of the international community, the threat of UN sanctions and the importance of international consensus. And then, after continued months of 'negotiations' and pointless threats of hollow sanctions, Iran will detonate a nuke and we will discover that the administration's plan all along was to 'adapt' the npt and our own non proliferation policies to the reality of a nuclear Iran. And North Korea. And Venezuela and Saudi Arabia and...
Our European allies who the Democrats claimed as the vital link in creating a consensus for action have no stomach for any action. They are pacifists and simply want to maintain their contracts with Iran. Russia and China will veto any sanctions that have any teeth. Obama is in the process of equalizing our relationship with the rest of the world. China, Russia and the Democratic Party all want to see a multipolar world where America is but one voice amongst our equals in the general assembly. Where our power is constrained by international institutions. Iran is today's Sudetenland and the UN is the League of Nations. Presumably, Bibi won't sit around and wait for the Obama administration to serve Israel up.

I'd just like to know how many of you war mongerers who shout bomb this or bomb that have ever actually been in combat, or if you understand that dropping a bomb is not the answer to everything. Who knows how this will play out, I can only guarantee it's not going to be nice any which way it goes.
I only look forward to a not so distant time when we'll forget
how to kill and learn how to live. From one whose been there and back.

I think this is a matter of trust.Western countries do not trust Iranian politicians.There are many countries having the same nuclear sites without making headlines.
Like Moonofa,I believe that Iranian politicians will keep playing this dangerous chess game.Like the cold-war period, they seem to think that there is no need for trust in order to play to the end.

Only slightly OT, today august Senator Lindsey Graham calls for 40,000 more of our teenage kids for the meat grinder in Afghanistan, and will call for the second $100B installment this year 'emergency funding for Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iranistan and other UNDISCLOSED national security purposes' (like bailing out US treasuries).

This to support the corrupt Karzai NarcoMafia in Kabul:

1. Former "Gucci Guerilla", and Ambassador to the Taliban;
2. Known, and proven ballot stuffer, exactly like Tehran's;
3. Known Narco Lord through his brother Ahmad Wali Karzai;
4. Closing newspapers and creating a State media monopoly;
5. Thief aiding and abetting theft of $100Bs in resources;

Now Senator Graham and SecDef Gates are fully briefed. They know SA Holbrooke flew off to Kabul to scream at Karzai he must not announce his victory on 25 August, as he did to his administration. They know about the ballot stuffing and paid off the UN Election Committee at G20. They know Ahmad Wali is a narco lord and have seized large quantities of product on his estates. They know, or should know because their people do, Karzai is creating a State media monopoly, and they most certainly know US firm Gustavson Associates is privately shortlisting and auctioning off $100Bs of the natural resources which are the birthright of all Afghans.

So back to the topic, if our Defense is that corrupted we will expend 40,000 more of our precious kids and $100B more of our precious treasure (our 'public option healthcare), to support a corrupt State dictatorship **exactly like the one in Tehran**, then why would anyone think or believe, as some suggest here, that our foreign policy is inept?

We've got it dicked! Oil is still 500% more expensive than when BushCo took office, and it ain't going down anytime soon, not with the psyops hysteria over Iranian research.

Yes,according to that source you are right.Now that Moussavi is not in power, don't you think that even for the continuity of peaceful nuclear programs,a non aggressive approach and gaining trust would be better as far as international relationships?

If the Iranians are serious [as they seem to be spreading around] about considering, what the Russians had proposed a while ago, for them to accept Uranium enrichment in a third country, then it is very important for the 5+1 to play ball. I think President Obama would be entitled then, to pat himself on the back.

khairi janbek.paris/france