US may cede to Iran’s nuclear ambition

[darrels joy]

US may cede to Iran’s nuclear ambition

By Daniel Dombey in Washington
Published: April 3 2009 17:29 | Last updated: April 3 2009 17:29

US officials are considering whether to accept Iran’s pursuit of uranium enrichment, which has been outlawed by the United Nations and remains at the heart of fears that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons capability.

As part of a policy review commissioned by President Barack Obama, diplomats are discussing whether the US will eventually have to accept Iran’s insistence on carrying out the process, which can produce both nuclear fuel and weapons- grade material.

“There’s a fundamental impasse between the western demand for no enrichment and the Iranian dem­and to continue enrichment,” says Mark Fitzpat­rick, a former state depart­- ­­ment expert now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “There’s no obvious compromise bet­ween those two positions.”



The US has insisted that Iran stop enrichment, although Mr Fitzpatrick notes that international offers put to Tehran during George W. Bush’s second term as president left the door open to the possible resumption of enrichment.

“There is a growing recognition in [Washington] that the zero [enrichment] solution, though still favoured, simply is unfeasible,” says Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council. “The US may still have zero as its opening position, while recognising it may not be where things stand at the end of a potential agreement.”

Mr Fitzpatrick adds: “Obviously, no country wants to flag its fallback positions in advance. As soon as you let your falback position be known, it becomes the new position.”

On Friday, Mr Obama summarised the US message to Iran as, “Don’t develop a nuclear weapon” – a form of words that would not rule out a deal accepting Iranian enrichment. Mr Bush was much more specific in calling Iran to halt enrichment.

A series of UN Security Council resolutions since 2006 has forbidden Iran from enriching uranium, with the European Union, Russia and China backing US calls for Tehran to halt the process.

But Iran has sped up its programme during that time and has installed more than 5,500 centrifuges to enrich uranium and has amassed a stockpile of more than 1,000kg of low-enriched uranium – enough, if it were enriched to higher levels, to produce fissile material for one bomb.

“Across the political spectrum in Iran, enrichment as a right has become a non-negotiable position,” Mr Parsi said.

Asked last month whether the administration was considering allowing Iran to keep a limited enrichment capability, Robert Wood, a state department spokesman, said: “I don’t know . . .  Let’s let the review be completed and then we can spell out our policies.”

Some analysts say priority should be given to winning greater access for UN inspectors, to acquire more information about Iran’s enrichment plant in Natanz and fill in gaps in knowledge on Iran’s nuclear-related activities across the country.

That could provide warning of any move to enrich uranium to weapons grade levels at Natanz and ease fears of clandestine facilities.

Privately both US and Israeli officials say that even the current, more limited inspection regime at Natanz would provide sufficient warning of any “breakout” towards a nuclear bomb. Outside Natanz, by contrast, information on Iran’s programme is diminishing.

Indicating possible space for negotiations, Dennis Blair, Mr Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, said last month that he believed Iran had not yet made the decision to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a wearhead for a bomb. He added: “Iran at a minimum, is keeping open the option to develop deliverable nuclear weapons.”

The US line that Iran is seeking the capability to develop nuclear weapons – but not necessarily such weapons themselves –contrasts with Mr Bush’s insistence while in office that it sought nuclear weapons.

Iranian regime insiders have said they would expect a compromise by the US on enrichment to be reciprocated. Such a move before the Iranian presidential elections in June would also be seen as a huge victory for President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, who has accused his internal critics of submitting to western pressures.

Additional reporting from Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/87571cc6-2...44feabdc0.html

[SEATJERKER]

...

...That's the sound of the bastard puking away any world security the U.S.A. had in defining supremacy of a free nation,...

...A "change" we all been waiting for, him to chicken shi+ out,...

...buy, and stock, and hide your family's future somewhere secure folks,...

...

[Arrow]

Director of "National Intelligence"


Definitely an oxymoron: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness) ; broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements

[SuperScout]

So what I'm reading is that The Bastard will be making up foreign policy, and ultimately our reaction to crises, as he goes along. So its nothing we as citizens can hang our hat on, nothing our allies can rely on, and nothing our enemies have to fear.

America deserves better, much better.

[phuloi]

Netanyahu: U.S. Must Stop Iran or We Will

Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:06 PM

By: Dave Eberhart






Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is putting President Barack Obama and the world on notice: if nothing is done to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Israel will be forced to launch a unilateral attack to destroy it.


The former commando – one of Israel’s most experienced leaders – made that clear in an interview given to The Atlantic magazine soon after the swearing-in of his new government Tuesday. The Jewish state views Iran’s nuclear program not only as a threat against its very existence, but also a destabilizing “hinge” point that could determine the fate of the West, Netanyahu said.


It’s a significantly new and more belligerent twist on an old conversation between the hawkish Israeli and the young, inexperienced American president.


When it was still President-elect Obama, Netanyahu told Reuters that he was assuaged by Obama telling him that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons was “unacceptable.”


“I am impressed by his commitment to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold... I have no doubt that that commitment is genuine and that he will follow through with it,” Netanyahu said at the time.


Whether the Israeli Prime Minister’s belief in Obama’s commitment has frayed any since both men have ascended to the leadership of their respective countries remains hidden for now.


What is certain is that Netanyahu is holding Obama to his word, wanting the neutralization of Iran’s nuclear weapons potential to be the linchpin not only of his own new administration — but that of his friend and ally, Barack Obama’s, as well.


“The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, who garnered the exclusive interview.


Netanyahu hammered home to Goldberg that the Iranian nuclear challenge represents a “hinge of history” and added that “Western civilization” will have failed if Iran is allowed to succeed with its nuclear weapons program.


Three years ago, an out-of-power Netanyahu called for Israel to reprise — against Iran — its 1981 bombing of Iraq’s main nuclear reactor, according to a Reuters report.


As prime minister, despite generally strong rhetoric, he is apparently willing to humor Obama’s decision to first engage Iran – with the aim that negotiations might yet bring about a quick end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.


“How you achieve this goal is less important than achieving it,” he told Goldberg. But Netanyahu stressed that he was skeptical that Iran would be amenable to Obama’s entreaties.


During the 60-minute dialogue in the Knesset, Netanyahu professed that nonmilitary measures could yet succeed. “I think the Iranian economy is very weak, which makes Iran susceptible to sanctions that can be ratcheted up by a variety of means.”


But that’s no excuse for allowing the regime to acquire nuclear weapons.


“You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs,” Netanyahu said. “When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.”


“You see a country that glorifies blood and death, including its own self-immolation,” Netanyahu continued.


Meanwhile, the Atlantic reports that while Israeli and American intelligence officials agree that Iran is moving forward in developing a nuclear-weapons capability, they have different takes on the progress thus far.


Israeli military intelligence is of the opinion that Iran has crossed the technological threshold, while American officials say not so.


The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, has advised that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would undermine stability in the Middle East and endanger the lives of Americans in the Gulf region.


The Obama administration agrees with Israel that Iran’s nuclear program is a generalized threat, but it also looks for Israel to drag its focus to the Palestinian question.


Netanyahu said his new government will dutifully move forward on negotiations with the Palestinians, but he made it clear to Goldberg that he believes peace will be difficult to achieve if Iran continues to threaten Israel, citing Iran’s sponsorship of Hezbollah and Hamas as impediments.


Netanyahu told Goldberg that he will manage Israel’s diplomacy with Washington personally, concluding: “We intend to move on the Palestinian track independent of what happens with Iran, and I hope the U.S. moves to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons regardless of what happens on the Palestinian track.”


‘Hinge of History’


The new PM explained in detail to Goldberg why Iran should lead the Obama foreign policy itinerary:



First, Iran’s militant proxies would be able to fire rockets and engage in other terror activities while enjoying a nuclear umbrella. This raises the stakes of any confrontation that they’d force on Israel. Instead of being a local event, however painful, it becomes a global one.



Second, this development would embolden Islamic militants far and wide, on many continents, who would believe that this is a providential sign — that this fanaticism is on the ultimate road to triumph.



Third, they would be able to pose a real and credible threat to the supply of oil, to the overwhelming part of the world’s oil supply.



Fourth, they may threaten to use these weapons or to give them to terrorist proxies of their own, or fabricate terror proxies.



Finally, you’d create a great sea change in the balance of power in our area — nearly all the Arab regimes are dead-set opposed to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. They fervently hope, even if they don’t say it, that the U.S. will act to prevent this — that it will use its political, economic, and, if necessary, military power to prevent this from happening.


If Iran acquired nuclear weapons, Netanyahu warned, Washington’s Arab allies would drift into Iran’s orbit. Furthermore, several countries in Iran’s neighborhood might try to develop nuclear weapons of their own.


“Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons could spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The Middle East is incendiary enough, but with a nuclear arms race it will become a tinderbox,” he said.








© 2009 Newsmax.

[SEATJERKER]

...

..."Walk with purpose, and Swing Your Big Stick",...

...Thus keeping the dog at bay as a dog only knows one solution to wrong doing, getting whipped with a big stick,...

...Those direct neighbors of Iran will not sit idle, and I for one hope they take them out,...

...