UN sanctions on Iran: A gift to the regime.

I really don't get Obama when it comes to Iran.

In pushing ahead with a new round of UN security council sanctions, the US has rendered redundant an Iranian offer to send 1.2 tonnes of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to Turkey for reprocessing as reactor fuel. Western diplomats claimed they had not rejected the idea, but it was clear to all what the effect of the UN resolution would now be. This is a mistake President Barack Obama may yet come to regret. True, this time, the US has Russia and China at its side, but neither country is risking much by going with the flow while taking the credit for diminishing its strength. The same is not true for Mr Obama, who has invested so much of his time and energy attempting to re-establish the primacy of US diplomacy over force. He will be seen by many to be walking away from the table at the very moment something appears to be on it.

Turkey and Brazil had come to deal with the Iranians which appeared to do much of what the West was demanding.

This is not to belittle the difficulties the deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil posed. They were real enough: the quantity of LEU Iran offered to export abroad only represents half of its total stockpile; Iran would continue enrichment up to 20% of fissile purity; and no date had been set for the removal van. But nor should one lose sight of the concessions Iran made in offering to trade: that the fuel would be delivered in one shipment; that reprocessing could take place outside Iran's borders; and that the fuel rods would have to be delivered in a set timeframe. These were Iran's objections to the deal when it was proposed in October last year, and ones which they dropped this time round. The fuel swap would not have ended doubts about Iran's nuclear programme, but it would have established a precedent.

Ahmadinejad was widely seen as on the ropes following his disputed re-election, but the enrichment of uranium is seen as a right even by his political opponents.

Applying further sanctions on Iran, after it had brokered a deal with Turkey and Brazil, will only strengthen Ahmadinejad's hand. One year after the protests which shook his authority, the best the Iranians can now come up with are peaceful marches.

"I understand why people are no longer willing to pour on to the streets," said the mother of a female student activist, who did not want to be named for fear of exposing her jailed daughter. "If you do so, you can be sure to face any kind of punishment, either being arrested, raped, killed or anything else. I don't think people will come out in the numbers we saw last year.

"But I don't think the absence of protesters means the opposition movement is defeated. They'll find a time again. It can't continue like this."

The Iranians actually sound even more defiant as the news of the new round of sanctions came through.

"Nothing will change. The Islamic Republic of Iran will continue uranium enrichment activities," Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's envoy to the UN nuclear watchdog in Vienna, said after the vote.

I really don't know what Obama is doing. He is trying to hurt Ahmadinejad, but - in reality - I think this will help Ahmadinejad in the long run.

Nothing unites a nation more than the feeling that they are being unjustly punished.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Iran, Obama, United Nations, Ahmadinejad

Israeli president denies offering nuclear weapons to apartheid South Africa.

Shimon Peres has denied that he ever offered to sell nuclear weapons to South Africa, but it's the way in which he has chosen to deny it which I find amusing.

"Israel has never negotiated the exchange of nuclear weapons with South Africa. There exists no Israeli document or Israeli signature on a document that such negotiations took place," it said.

If Israel was engaged in secret negotiations with South Africa there would, of course, be "no Israeli document or Israeli signature on a document" to prove that these negotiations took place.

Secret negotiations are designed not to leave paper trails. It's done with a nod and a wink, there is rarely an overt paper trail.

But Sasha Polakow-Suransky, the American academic who uncovered the documents while researching a book on the military and political relationship between the two countries, said the denials were disingenuous, because the minutes of meetings Peres held with the then South African defence minister, PW Botha, show that the apartheid government believed an explicit offer to provide nuclear warheads had been made.

Polakow-Suransky noted that Peres did not deny attending the meetings at which the purchase of Israeli weapons systems, including ballistic missiles, was discussed. "Peres participated in high level discussions with the South African defence minister and led the South Africans to believe that an offer of nuclear Jerichos was on the table," he said. "It's clear from the documentary record that the South Africans perceived that an explicit offer was on the table. Four days later Peres signed a secrecy agreement with PW Botha."

While Peres's office said there are no documents with his signature on that mention nuclear weapons, his signature does appear with Botha's on an agreement governing the broad conduct of the military relationship, including a commitment to keep it secret.

The very fact that Peres was insisting that these dealings be kept utterly secret reveals the sensitivity of what was being discussed. Now, that doesn't prove that nuclear weapons were being offered, but it does suggest that a overt paper trail for these negotiations is highly unlikely.

Although, there are records of things which make one's eyebrows raise:

Polakow-Suransky said the minutes record that at the meeting in Zurich on 4 June 1975, Botha asked Peres about obtaining Jericho missiles, codenamed Chalet, with nuclear warheads.

"Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available," the minutes said. The document then records that: "Minister Peres said that the correct payload was available in three sizes".

The use of a euphemism, the "correct payload", reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue. Armstrong's memorandum makes clear the South Africans were interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.

The use of euphemisms in a document that otherwise speaks openly about conventional weapons systems also points to the discussion of nuclear weapons.

Why are they speaking in euphemisms if they have nothing to hide? They discuss conventional weapons openly, so what is this "correct payload" which they allude to?

But Peres is, no doubt, confident that no-one can ever find any document which proves that he made an offer of nuclear weapons. That, in itself, is hardly surprising though. After all, the Israelis were insisting on utter secrecy.

But, from the documents released by South Africa, it is quite clear that the South Africans thought nuclear weapons were on offer. And, even though the documents speak in euphemisms, we should remember that we are only seeing these documents because the Apartheid regime collapsed.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Shimon Peres, Israel, South Africa, nuclear weapons

Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons.

Secret South African security documents reveal that Israel offered to sell the Apartheid regime nuclear warheads; offering the first ever documentary evidence that Israel does, indeed, possess nuclear weapons, despite it's stance of "nuclear ambiguity".

The "top secret" minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa's defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel's defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them "in three sizes". The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret.

The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of "ambiguity" in neither confirming nor denying their existence.

The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa's post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky's request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week's nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East.

Israel, whilst refusing to confirm or deny her nuclear status, has, nevertheless, always claimed that she is a "responsible" power- unlike Iran - and that she would never misuse nuclear weapons.

But here we find evidence of Israel planning to sell nuclear weapons to the Apartheid regime of South Africa, a regime which was denying rights to millions of it's black citizens.

The documents show both sides met on 31 March 1975. Polakow-Suransky writes in his book published in the US this week, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's secret alliance with apartheid South Africa. At the talks Israeli officials "formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal".

Among those attending the meeting was the South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong. He immediately drew up a memo in which he laid out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Jericho missiles but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.

The memo, marked "top secret" and dated the same day as the meeting with the Israelis, has previously been revealed but its context was not fully understood because it was not known to be directly linked to the Israeli offer on the same day and that it was the basis for a direct request to Israel. In it, Armstrong writes: "In considering the merits of a weapon system such as the one being offered, certain assumptions have been made: a) That the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in RSA (Republic of South Africa) or acquired elsewhere."

But South Africa was years from being able to build atomic weapons. A little more than two months later, on 4 June, Peres and Botha met in Zurich. By then the Jericho project had the codename Chalet.

The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: "Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available." The document then records: "Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice." The "three sizes" are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons.

The use of a euphemism, the "correct payload", reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue and would not have been used had it been referring to conventional weapons. It can also only have meant nuclear warheads as Armstrong's memorandum makes clear South Africa was interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.

Israel has been pressuring South Africa not to declassify these documents, but the ANC have no reason to protect the dirty secrets of the Apartheid regime which oppressed them.

The reporter who got hold of the documents states:

"The Israeli defence ministry tried to block my access to the Secment agreement on the grounds it was sensitive material, especially the signature and the date," he said. "The South Africans didn't seem to care; they blacked out a few lines and handed it over to me. The ANC government is not so worried about protecting the dirty laundry of the apartheid regime's old allies."

There are several points which arise from this.

1. How can the US and others expect to be taken remotely seriously whilst pretending that we don't know Israel's nuclear status?
2. Why should Iran desist from nuclear weaponry when there is clear evidence that one of it's neighbours possesses them and there is simply no serious pressure to get them to disarm?
   
3. How can there be any attempt to ensure a nuclear free Middle East whilst we continue to ignore this elephant in the room?
4. If Israel would consider selling nuclear weapons to a regime as foul as the Apartheid one in South Africa, how can we pretend that this is a country which will always be responsible when it comes to nuclear weaponry?

The timing of this revelation could not possibly be more embarrassing for the Israelis as talks begin in New York on the subject on nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Israel, South Africa, nuclear proliferation

Lieberman: Obama Won't Get Nukes Treaty Without Major Changes.

There really is nothing this snake could ever do which would surprise me, so low is the place he inhabits in my expectations.

Lieberman has let us know that he is now planning to vote against Obama's nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," the Connecticut Independent suggested that he himself would oppose ratification of the START II Treaty that Obama signed in Prague this past week, in part because, he reasoned, the language left America vulnerable to a nuclear Iran.

"I don't believe that there will be 67 votes to ratify the treaty unless the administration does two things," Lieberman said. "First: commit to modernize our nuclear stockpile, so as we have less nuclear weapons we know that they are capable if, God forbid, we need them. And secondly, to make absolutely clear that the statements by Russian president [Dmitry] Medvedev at the signing in program, that seemed to suggest that if we continue to build ballistic missile defense in Europe they may pull out of this treaty, is just not acceptable to us. We need that defense to protect our allies and ourselves from Iran."

So, he is going to demand that the US continue it's ridiculous star wars programme, the programme which many doubt will ever actually work.

And let's not forget, the deal still leaves both the US and Russia with 1,550 strategic nuclear weapons deployed and ready to fire, and to 700 deployed delivery systems (missiles and heavy bombers). How many times does Joe want to blow the planet up that he can argue that the US is somehow insufficiently covered on the nuclear bomb front?

The people of Connecticut have got to kick this creep out on his ass at the next election.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Lieberman, nuclear proliferation

Nutcases Rush To Defend Alaska's "Commander in Chief".

The lengths some on the right will go to in order to defend Sarah Palin amuses me greatly.

Palin's view of nuclear weapons was shaped by her stint as the commander in chief of the Alaskan National Guard, our first line of defense against Soviet nuclear weapons. Obama has held his same views since he was a stoner college student and has showed no signs of maturing.

He later has to append an update:

I stand corrected. Palin does not have any experience with the AANG. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion AANG, Fort Greely is (literally) the first line of defense against Soviet nukes with 25-30 anti-ICBMs, but they do not report to the governor.

But he still insists that Palin's knowledge of nuclear issues is easily as profound as Obama's, despite the record to the contrary:

Obama took fact-finding trip to former USSR to examine WMD stockpiles. In 2005, in his first foreign trip as a U.S. senator, Obama traveled to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), then-chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. The purpose of the trip was to examine facilities for the storage and destruction of conventional, biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Obama and Lugar subsequently co-wrote a December 2005 Washington Post op-ed on the issue and appeared together in a discussion at the Council on Foreign Relations on "Challenges Ahead For Cooperative Threat Reduction," in which Obama detailed ways to improve the U.S. program to control, secure, and dismantle weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union.

Obama introduced Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 2007. Obama introduced the Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 2007 (S.1977), with then-Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) as an original co-sponsor, which would "provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology."

Obama interest in nuclear policy predates his Senate career. Obama reportedly authored his college thesis on "Soviet nuclear disarmament." Moreover, Washington Monthly reported in September 2006: "On the campaign trail in 2004, Obama spoke passionately about the dangers of loose nukes and the legacy of the Nunn-Lugar nonproliferation program, a framework created by a 1991 law to provide the former Soviet republics assistance in securing and deactivating nuclear weapons. Lugar took note, as 'nonproliferation' is about as common a campaign sound-bite for aspiring senators as 'exchange-rate policy' or 'export-import bank oversight.'"

But he still applauds Palin for "shooting back":

Palin shot back in her comments Friday, mocking the president for "the vast nuclear experience that he acquired as a community organizer."

She pleases the base with these nifty one liners, but one has to have no interest in facts if one can take any comfort from them.

Tags: Palin, Obama, nuclear proliferation

Israel's "Nuclear Global Legitimacy".

Avner Cohen makes a strange point in today's Ha'aretz newspaper regarding Israel's nuclear ambiguity:

Let there be no doubt - Israel's policy of nuclear opacity is perceived by many the world over, including its best friends, as a political anachronism that is hard to swallow. To them, the problem is not the question of Israel having nuclear capacity, but the country's refusal to acknowledge it. The more Israel is viewed as a cautious, responsible nuclear nation, the harder it is to accept its policy of opacity as appropriate.

Opacity is widely perceived as concealment, an act of covering up a secret that cannot be revealed to the public. Today, however, the secret is known to all, so it's unclear why it must remain wrapped in ambiguity. In a world demanding that Iran speak the truth over its nuclear activity, ambiguity is seen as a bizarre relic from the past.

My understanding of this, and I am sure American readers can correct me if I am wrong, is that Israel's ambiguity is linked to the inability of the US to give aid to country's who possess nuclear weapons but have not signed up to the NNPT.

It is for that reason that I thought Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity exists.

Cohen appears to be arguing that Israel, by refusing to send Netanyahu to Obama's nuclear summit, is missing a chance "to win global legitimacy for its nuclear program".

I don't think that there is any such chance. Obama is moving towards nuclear disarmament. The 40 year old deal - between the US and Israel - which protects Israel from ever having to declare her nuclear status is no longer in the interests of the United States as it's currently being defined by Barack Obama.

It's inconceivable that the US and Russia would ever contemplate going too far down the disarmament road without addressing the issue of India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.

Where Cohen sees a chance "to win global legitimacy for it's nuclear programme", I see only the opposite. The US and Russia would only ask Israel to acknowledge her nuclear arsenal as a first step to asking her to dismantle it.

The notion that Israel could prove herself "as a cautious, responsible nuclear nation" seems to me to me to missing the direction in which Obama is moving.

Obviously his presidency is not going to result in a nuclear free world, but neither is it going to result in a world where the US and Russia start the process of disarming whilst India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea maintain their status quo.

This is yet another point where the interests of the US and Israel are set to clash. Cohen is kidding himself if he thinks Netanyahu is missing a chance to legitimise weaponry which two of the world's largest powers are seeking to dismantle.

Such "global legitimacy" is a myth.

Click here for full article.

Tags: nuclear disarmament, US, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea

President Obama: "Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues."

He displays an admirable amount of understatement:

OBAMA: I really have no response to that. The last I checked Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues.

[...]

STEPHANOPOULOS: But not concerned about her criticisms?

OBAMA: No.

Palin's analogy was with the playground, which I thought rather apt. There are probably children in playgrounds across America with a more sophisticated world view than Sarah Palin.

Tags: Obama, Palin, nuclear proliferation

Netanyahu cancels trip to U.S. nuclear summit.

As the US and Russia sign a new deal to limit their nuclear arsenals, Netanyahu has cancelled a visit to the US where he was expected to take part in a nuclear security summit hosted by U.S. President Barack Obama.

The reason?

"The nuclear security summit is supposed to be about dealing with the danger of nuclear terror," the official said. "Israel is a part of that effort and has responded positively to President Obama's invitation to the conference."

The official added: "But that said, in the last few days we have received reports about the intention of several participant states to depart from the issue of combating terrorism and instead misuse the event to goad Israel over the NPT."

So, it is "misusing" a nuclear security event to ask that Israel sign up to the NNPT. No doubt it's only a proper use of the event if discussions centre around Iranian nuclear weapons, which so far don't actually exist.

Bibi is becoming farcical. But his actions are going down well amongst Republicans:

In New Orleans, hundreds of party loyalists at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference applauded when they were informed Netanyahu had just canceled his visit to Washington.

At the gathering, Liz Cheney, daughter of former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, blasted Obama for his "shabby" treatment of Netanyahu at the White House recently, saying it was "disgraceful".

She added: "Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East and one of our strongest allies anywhere around this globe. And President Obama is playing a reckless game of continuing down the path of diminishing America's ties to Israel."

One hundred eighty-nine countries, including all Arab states, are party to the NPT. Only Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea are not.

As long as Obama is being opposed, even on a subject as dangerous as nuclear proliferation, Republicans will applaud. At this point they have no idea how crazy they look.

UPDATE:



Speaking of how crazy they look, Fox lead with this. It's the bomb going off at the end which makes me smirk....

Click here for full article.

Tags: Netanyahu, Israel, nuclear disarmament, Obama

Obama to limit use of nuclear weapons.

Obama will today reveal his administration's policy regarding the use of nuclear weapons and we are about to see a startling difference between his administration and the one of George W. Bush.

The Bush administration reserved the right to use nuclear weapons, even against non-nuclear states, a position which the Obama administration is set to reverse, fulfilling a commitment he first made in Prague in April 2009.

In an interview with the New York Times before the White House reveals the revamped strategy, Mr Obama said an exception would be made for "outliers like Iran and North Korea" that have violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But in a striking departure from the position taken by his predecessors, he said the US would explicitly commit for the first time to not using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that adher to the nuclear treaty even if they attack with biological or chemical weapons.

After a review of the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal that has involved, among others, the Pentagon, the Department of Energy and the intelligence services, as well as the White House, Mr Obama's much anticipated policy revamp comes as he prepares to fly to Prague on Thursday to sign the landmark Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) with President Medvedev of Russia.

Bush and the neo-cons came at this all wrong as far as I was concerned. They insisted that other nations embrace the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty whilst Bush himself, by declaring his wish to develop a new range of bunker busting nuclear weapons, remained in breach of the Treaty.

It was a classic case of "Do as I say, not as I do."

Bush's threat to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states was simply shocking. And, I would argue, gave a huge incentive for non-nuclear nations to quickly think about getting the bomb if at all possible. And certainly his threat to possibly use nukes against non-nuclear states gave no incentives at all for other countries to adhere to the NNPT.

Obama is set to reverse all that and to renounce the development of new nuclear weapons.

In other words, under Obama, the United States is once again going to embrace the NNPT and the commitments it made under international law.

And, by entering into meaningful disarmament talks with Russia, the US is showing a serious commitment to fulfilling it's international obligations under NNPT.

After the rogue years of George W. Bush, when the United States routinely ripped up previous international commitments, Obama's position is like a breath of fresh air. This is how the United States used to lead the world. As Clinton said at the DNC:

People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.

Obama is leading by the power of the United States example. He is proposing a policy which is both moral and right. Slowly, the cobwebs of the dreadful Bush years are being blown away. America is once again deciding that force is not the only - or even the best - weapon in her arsenal.

UPDATE:



Why am I not surprised that Fox News have decided that Obama is, yet again, making America less safe? Indeed, they go as far here as to state that he is "inviting attack".

How can people like Hannity claim that they loved Ronald Reagan and yet reject Obama fulfilling what was once Ronald Reagan's goal?

In 1986 at the Reykjavik summit, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, both passionate about nuclear disarmament, shocked deterrence experts with an unimaginable proposal – total nuclear disarmament. “It would be fine with me if we eliminated all nuclear weapons,” said Reagan. “We can do that,” replied Gorbachev, “Let’s eliminate them. We can eliminate them.”

However, U.S. Secretary of State George P. Shultz explained that the proposal was “too much for people to absorb, precisely because it was outside the bounds of conventional wisdom,” and “the world was not ready for Ronald Reagan’s boldness.”

Even Reagan turns out to be too left wing for these guys.

Nancy Reagan:

“Ronnie had many hopes for the future, and none were more important to America and to mankind than the effort to create a world free of nuclear weapons.”

But then Reagan was also opposed to torture. The truth is, much as they claim to love him, Ronald Reagan really wouldn't have a place in today's conservative movement.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Obama, NNPT, nuclear weapons, Russia

Palin: Nuclear Iran Would Trigger 'Second Holocaust'.

Bible Spice has lent us her extraordinary foreign policy expertise once again to slam Obama's Middle-East policy via her Facebook page. She's warning of Israel's "second Holocaust" should Obama fail to confront Iran.

"Many, many Americans and our allies know that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the consequences will be catastrophic for our interests in the Middle East, and we want our government to do everything in its power to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes," she writes.

"Israel would face the gravest threat since its creation. Iran’s leaders have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, the mullahs would be in a position to launch a Second Holocaust."

I thought the reason right wingers supported nuclear weapons was the notion of Mutually Assured Destruction which, during the eighties, was the mantra for why we had to have these weapons. The reasoning then was that we had to have them to ensure that they could never be used by anyone else, as we also had the power to destroy them.

Now, it goes without saying that we would all like a world in which Iran did not possess nuclear weapons, and no-one has yet shown that they actually want nuclear weapons, but why has the logic of MAD suddenly been turned on it's head in this instance?

Does Bible Spice really think that the Iranians are unaware of Israel's own nuclear programme? Or does she imagine that this is an entire nation of suicide bombers just itching for their own nuclear devastation?

Palin also argues that the Obama administration's actions have failed to rein in Tehran's nuclear ambitions, and that more than one year into Obama's presidency, his administration has made "no progress" on sanctions.

"The Obama administration has their priorities exactly backwards; we should be working with our friend and democratic ally to stop Iran's nuclear program, not throwing in the towel on sanctions while treating Israel like an enemy.

And she comes out with this tripe a day after Beijing agreed to begin drafting a UN resolution imposing sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear programme.

Bill Burton, a White House spokesman, yesterday said there was a sense of urgency about applying pressure to Iran.

"There are some very intense conversations happening at the United Nations right now that we're able to make some real progress on," he said.

Mark Toner, a US state department spokesman, confirmed that the telephone conference had taken place and said the US had been represented by the number three at the state department, William Burns.

The agreement came after a similar conference call a week ago, in which China participated after weeks of stalling.

Burton said the White House was confident it would be able to work with China to apply "meaningful" pressure.

With China's recent change of heart, meaningful sanctions have become possible for the first time in months, and this is the very moment Palin chooses to speak out.

Nor should we forget why Palin is so concerned for Israel's welfare:

Palin's flamboyant display of her so-called love for Israel -- she previously boasted that the Israeli flag was the "only" one she kept in her Gubernatorial office -- is almost certainly grounded in her creepy desire to mold America's foreign policy to fit her evangelical belief that God demands that "Israeli land" be unified under Israeli control in order for Jesus to return and sweep all the good Christians up to heaven in Rapture (while banishing everyone else -- including the Jews she loves so much -- straight to hell forever).

Bible Spice thinks Israel should be unified because that's when the Rapture will take place.

Tags: Palin, Israel, second Holocaust, Iran, Obama

Nuclear weapons arsenals to be cut after landmark US and Russia deal.

After more than a year in which very little happened other than talk, Obama has now passed his healthcare bill and today told us of an agreement between Russia and the US which will cut both those nations nuclear arsenals by 30%, giving us the biggest breakthrough for arms control in two decades.

The treaty, which Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev will sign on 8 April in Prague, lowers the ceiling on the number of operational strategic nuclear weapons from 2,200 to 1,550.

The total number of launchers (missiles and heavy bombers) allowed will be reduced to 800, half the existing ceiling.

"We have turned words into action. We have made progress that is clear and concrete," Obama said. "And we have demonstrated the importance of American leadership and American partnership on behalf of our own security, and the world's."

I have no doubt that the Party of No, despite their unwavering support of Ronald Reagan - another president who wanted to reduce the US's nuclear arsenal - will find fault in what Obama has done. They will forget that Reagan also wanted to abolish nuclear weapons, as he made clear in his 1984 State of the Union address:

Ronald Reagan: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?”

No doubt they will accuse him of leaving America at risk by reducing it's nuclear arsenal.

But, after his recent healthcare victory, this reduction in both the US and Russia's nuclear arsenals represents a huge win for Obama.

I remember during the campaign, when he spoke of a nuclear free world, thinking that he was pitching his rhetoric a little too high. But now, as with healthcare, he has made a significant step in the right direction.

American administrations, like huge ships, turn very slowly. But Obama is undoubtedly turning his ship in the direction which he promised.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Obama, Clinton, nuclear proliferation, Russia, nuclear arms deal

Iran president Ahmadinejad accepts nuclear deal terms.

Well, well, well...

I spoke the other day of Obama increasing the pressure on Tehran:

The US will provide new anti-missile systems to at least four Arab countries, and help Saudi Arabia triple the size of a 10,000-man force protecting its most important potential military targets from attack. America's Navy will also begin deploying ships capable of intercepting medium-range nuclear missiles off the Iranian coast at all times.

And, almost immediately, we have a result:

Iran's president has said it is ready to send its enriched uranium abroad for further enrichment under a deal to ease concerns about its nuclear programme.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told state TV that Iran would have "no problem" if most of its stock was held for several months before being returned as fuel rods.

Correspondents say that such a decision would be a major shift in Tehran's position.

The US said that if this was a new offer, it was "prepared to listen".

Now, if Obama was prepared to use that same carrot and stick approach with Netanyahu, then I am sure he could go some way towards forcing the restarting of meaningful peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

At the moment, bugger all is happening, because Obama seems unwilling to apply any pressure to Israel. But, as appears from the situation with Iran, sometimes pressure works.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Obama, Ahmadinejad, Iran, nuclear proliferation

Iran ignores deadline and takes nuclear talks to brink.

Iran have asked for more time to respond to a proposal to have its uranium enriched in Russia, saying it would prefer to give it's answer next week, rather than to adhere to the deadline set by it's most recent talks with the US.

The International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) had given Tehran until yesterday to sign up to an agreement under which it would send its uranium to Russia and France for enrichment. As the deadline loomed, state television quoted a member of Iran's negotiating team who attended this week's talks in Vienna as saying that Tehran preferred to buy in nuclear fuel from abroad. This would fail to reduce Iran's domestic stockpile from worrying the international community, which fears it could be used for weapons.

As fears grew that the negotiations might be on the brink of collapse, the IAEA issued a statement saying that Iran had asked for more time to respond to the proposal, which had already been accepted by Washington, Paris and Moscow. "Iran informed [us] today that it is considering the proposal in depth and in a favourable light, but needs until the middle of next week to provide a response," it said.

We can only hope that Iran is playing for time and that the Iranians will eventually come around to accepting the deal.

I have long argued that there is no proof that the Iranians are seeking a nuclear weapon, but any reticence on their part to sign up to this deal would mean that they would need to be treated with the greatest suspicion.

US President Barack Obama has stepped up diplomatic engagement with the Iranian regime since coming to power, and Tehran's signature on the deal would have been seen as a major triumph for this new approach. Last night, a US State Department department spokesman said: "Obviously we would have preferred to have a response today. We approach this with a sense of urgency ... We hope that they will next week provide a positive response".

Talks were continuing last night, but Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister, said: "I cannot say the situation regarding Iran is very positive."

I have not, until now, supported measures to sanction the Iranians for doing what they are allowed to do under the NNPT, but, should Iran fail to agree to have it's uranium enriched in Russia, then I would change my mind and think that sanctions should be implemented as soon as possible.

Iran have been given every chance to prove that they have no intentions of attaining a nuclear weapon and I, certainly, have been willing to grant them the benefit of the doubt; however, should they reject this opportunity to reassure the international community of their intentions, then my position would change.

David Albright of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, which monitors nuclear proliferation, said: "This is a bad sign – buying nuclear fuel abroad is a complete non-starter. They seem to be looking for modifications that would fundamentally weaken the deal."

Although the IAEA's plan has not been made public, it is understood that it entails Iran shipping out 1.2 tonnes of its stockpile of 1.5 tonnes of low-enriched uranium to the IAEA. It would then be passed to Russia for refinement to 19.7 per cent purity, and then moved on to France to be turned into fuel rods.

If Tehran signs up to the deal, it would seriously handicap the country's options for manufacturing nuclear weapons, as 0.98 tonnes is the generally accepted amount of low-enriched uranium needed for a single nuclear bomb.

Iran has a chance here to completely normalise it's relations with the international community, it would be a tragedy if she were to reject it.

Let's hope that the answer given next week is the right one.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Iran, Ahmadinejad, nuclear talks, NNPT, Obama

Krauthammer Times It Very Badly.

I wondered yesterday how the naysayers would react to the news that Obama had achieved more in one day of negotiating than George W. Bush achieved in eight years of sabre rattling.

Charles Krauthammer couldn't even wait till negotiations were over before he dismissed them as worse than useless:

Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran's nuclear program -- whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.

Don't take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama's naivete.

And, just as he dismissed Obama's chances of getting Iran to agree to nuclear inspections, likewise, he is dismissive of Obama's hopes of securing a nuclear free world. He berates Obama for deciding not to reveal the knowledge he had of the facility at Qom because Obama wanted to concentrate on the deal he had struck with Russia to reduce the number of both country's nuclear warheads. This strikes Krauthammer as typical of Obama's childishness, and he cites Sarkosy as proof that he is right and Obama is wrong:

The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports the Wall Street Journal (citing Le Monde), Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later -- in Pittsburgh. I've got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber it is not.

Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports the New York Times citing "White House officials," did not want to "dilute" his disarmament resolution "by diverting to Iran."

Diversion? It's the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?

The cynicism of the right wingers is so hard wired into them, it has become such a sign of their supposed "seriousness", that they dismiss anyone who thinks that there might be another way as naive in the extreme. Krauthammer produced this article on the very day that Iran agreed to inspections and to sending their uranium to be processed in a third country. On the very day when Obama got Iran to agree to this, Krauthammer was accusing him of "adolescent mindlessness" for daring to believe that there might be a more rational way to behave than the neo-con path of confrontation and force.

Certainly, regarding both Iran and Russian nuclear weapons, all the signs at the moment are that the Obama method is proving much more successful than the neo-con methods employed by the Bush regime. Which is why it is the greatest irony that Krauthammer should produce this cynical diatribe on the very day when Obama's positivism triumphs over the negativism and cynicism which Krauthammer has applauded for the past eight years.

The Bush years and the methods which they employed produced nothing in terms of a deal with Iran, indeed, they simply allowed Iran to go on enriching uranium because Bush insisted that Iran give up all of it's rights under the NNPT before talks of any kind could take place.

Obama, in one day, has shown that more can be achieved by treating your opponents as adults than can be achieved by bullying and threats.

Listen to Krauthammer's shock when he describes Obama's vision:

After all, just a day earlier in addressing the General Assembly, Obama actually said, "No one nation can . . . dominate another nation."

That's shocking to Krauthammer because he believes bullying is the only way. He wants the US to dominate other nations. He regards negotiation as weakness.

Thankfully, Obama is showing that there is a much more productive way to proceed. And it is the deranged right wingers with their fixation on world domination who are exhibiting "adolescent mindlessness".

Click title for Krauthammer's diatribe.

Tags: Krauthammer, Iran, nuclear weapons, nuclear disarmament, Obama, Ahmadinejad

Iran agrees to send uranium abroad after talks breakthrough.

After years of the Bush regime demanding that Iran stop spinning it's centrifuges before negotiations can take place, the new Obama policy of simply talking to Iran appears to be yielding results.

Iran agreed in principle today to export much of its stock of enriched uranium for processing and to open its newly revealed enrichment plant to UN inspections within a fortnight.

The agreements, struck at negotiations in Geneva with six major powers, represented the most significant progress in talks with Tehran in more than three years, and offered hope that the nuclear crisis could be defused, at least temporarily.

Western officials cautioned that the preliminary agreements could unravel in negotiations over the details. But if the deals are completed, it will push back the looming threat of further sanctions and possible military action.

I have been critical of the way the Obama administration made such a big deal out of the plant at Qom, which I thought was overly dramatic, but the end result is the end result, and that's not to be sniffled at.

Obama's approach appears to be succeeding, which is nothing short of jaw dropping after decades of distrust between these two nations.

A full day of talks in a lakeside villa just outside Geneva included the most senior and substantive bilateral meeting between an American and an Iranian official for three decades. At a lunchtime break in the proceedings, the US delegate, William Burns, took aside Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, for a one-to-one chat that lasted 40 minutes.

At the end of the negotiations, the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, on behalf of the six-nation group – known as the E3+3 and consisting of Britain, France, Germany, the US, Russia and China – said the meeting "represented the start of what we hope will be an intensive process".

The most concrete, and potentially most significant, gain from the Geneva talks was an agreement in principle that Iran would send a significant quantity of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium (LEU) for further enriching and processing in Russia and France respectively, so that it could be used as fuel in its research reactor in Tehran, which makes isotopes for medical uses. President Barack Obama said yesterday: "Taking the step of transferring its low-enriched uranium to a third country would be a step towards building confidence that Iran's programme is peaceful."

If Iran agree to allow a third nation to process it's uranium from below 5% purity to 20%, then it would be highly unlikely that Iran could ever use such uranium for a nuclear weapon. So, the entire question of Iran wanting to build a nuclear bomb could be answered in the negative.

Obviously we must be cautious, Iran needs to take these steps rather than simply promise that it will do these things, but the signs so far are incredibly positive.

I wonder what Joe Lieberman and Benjamin Netanyahu will do now? How will they manage to find a negative in the midst of such a positive outcome? Will they attack Obama's naivete? How soon before they argue that other sites must exist for the real task of building the bomb?

They have viewed Iran as evil for over three decades, and it simply doesn't suit their purposes for Iran to be behaving so sensibly, so I can only imagine where they are going to go from here.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Iran, talks, Obama, Ahmadinejad

'No credible evidence' of Iranian nuclear weapons, says UN inspector

It feels like deja vu all over again. Mohamed ElBaradei is saying that he has seen "no credible evidence" that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, just as he told us before the Iraq war that he had seen "no credible evidence" that Saddam possessed WMD.

ElBaradei's words were ignored six years ago by an American administration determined to remove Saddam at all costs, a decision which still haunts the US to this day. The recent language from Obama, Sarkosy and Brown makes me wonder if we are about to repeat that mistake. Oh, don't get me wrong, we won't go to war this time, but we might end up taking action based on threats rather than realities, chasing shadows rather than shining a torch and revealing what is true.

Iran insists its programme is for peaceful purposes, and that there is nothing illegal about a uranium enrichment plant under construction near the city of Qom, the existence of which was revealed last week. Iranian leaders say they did not have to inform the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) until six months before the first uranium was processed.

But ElBaradei, the outgoing IAEA director general, publicly disagreed today, saying Iran had been under an obligation to tell the agency "on the day it was decided to construct the facility". He said the Iranian government was "on the wrong side of the law".

However, ElBaradei rejected British intelligence claims that Iran had reactivated its weapons programme at least four years ago. By making the claims the UK broke with the official US intelligence position that Iranian work on developing a warhead probably stopped in 2003. They said that even if there was a halt, as reported in a US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) two years ago, the programme restarted in late 2004 or early 2005.

British officials had been privately sceptical about the NIE finding since its publication in 2007, but this was the first time they had made detailed allegations about Iran's weapons programme.

So, ElBaradei disagrees with Ahmadinejad's claim that he was under no obligation to disclose the facility at Qom until six months before uranium was introduced to the site, yet he still disagrees with the assessment of the Brits that the Iranians have restarted their nuclear weapons progamme.

This is because ElBaradei deals with facts, he deals with what can be proven. Intelligence agencies have to, by their very nature, deal with what might be.

But it really is tiresome, six years after the Iraq war, to find ourselves once again weighed down with claim and counter claim.

The US, Britain and France need to insist on inspections, and, unlike the inspections which took place prior to the Iraq war, they need to see these inspections as an ongoing way to ensure Iranian compliance with the NNPT. It would be stupid to use the inspections as a way to impose sanctions on Iran, as Iran has already made it perfectly clear that it will not stop it's uranium enrichment process as this process is legal under the NNPT.

Iranian officials say its programme remains non-negotiable, despite five UN security council resolutions calling for Iran to suspend enrichment. Western negotiators say they will push for a date for an IAEA inspection of the Qom uranium plant, and further concrete steps from the Iranian government to restore international confidence in the peaceful purpose of its programme. Failing that, multilateral talks will start on the imposition of more sanctions.

We are right to insist on inspections and to threaten to carry out sanctions should Iran not comply, but we should not go down the George Bush route of threatening sanctions unless Iran agrees to turn off it's centrifuges.

The burden of proof in this instance lies with us. We have to be able to prove that Iran is building a weapon or we have to allow them to do what is legal under the NNPT.

After the shame of the Iraq war, we have lost the right to have our suspicions treated as if they were facts. And, just has happened before the Iraq war, ElBaradei is, once again, telling us that the facts on the ground do not support our assertions.

This time, we should listen.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Obama, Brown, Sarkosy, United States, Britain, France, Iran, NNPT, sanctions

Scott Ritter: Keeping Iran honest.

Prior to the Iraq war I found Scott Ritter to be consistently right in a way that many of the right wing commentators were not. Here, he turns his attention to the recent revelations concerning Iran's nuclear facility at Qom.

The need to create a mechanism of economic survival in the face of the real threat of either US or Israeli military action is probably the most likely explanation behind the Qom facility. Iran's declaration of this facility to the IAEA, which predates Obama's announcement by several days, is probably a recognition on the part of Iran that this duplication of effort is no longer representative of sound policy on its part.

In any event, the facility is now out of the shadows, and will soon be subjected to a vast range of IAEA inspections, making any speculation about Iran's nuclear intentions moot. Moreover, Iran, in declaring this facility, has to know that because it has allegedly placed operational centrifuges in the Qom plant (even if no nuclear material has been introduced), there will be a need to provide the IAEA with full access to Iran's centrifuge manufacturing capability, so that a material balance can be acquired for these items as well.

Rather than representing the tip of the iceberg in terms of uncovering a covert nuclear weapons capability, the emergence of the existence of the Qom enrichment facility could very well mark the initiation of a period of even greater transparency on the part of Iran, leading to its full adoption and implementation of the IAEA additional protocol. This, more than anything, should be the desired outcome of the "Qom declaration".

Calls for "crippling" sanctions on Iran by Obama and Brown are certainly not the most productive policy options available to these two world leaders. Both have indicated a desire to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran's action, in declaring the existence of the Qom facility, has created a window of opportunity for doing just that, and should be fully exploited within the framework of IAEA negotiations and inspections, and not more bluster and threats form the leaders of the western world.

There should be no surprise that Iran, faced with constant threats of attack on it's facilities by both the US and Israel, should have sought to hide part of it's nuclear programme. The really interesting thing is that it has made this declaration; it has come clean.

Obama, Sarkosy and Brown have chosen to take the Netanyahu line in all of this, and I'm not sure how useful that will turn out to be.

For example, in today's New York Times we are given lists of the various ways in which we can bring this regime to it's knees:

The Obama administration is scrambling to assemble a package of harsher economic sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program that could include a cutoff of investments to the country’s oil-and-gas industry and restrictions on many more Iranian banks than those currently blacklisted, senior administration officials said Sunday.

“There are a variety of options still available,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union,” said of the potential list of targets for Iranian sanctions, notably in energy equipment and technology. He called it “a pretty rich list to pick from.”

I know that they have to prepare themselves in case Ahmadinejad refuses to allow inspections, but aren't we getting way ahead of ourselves here?

Ahmadinejad has said that he will allow inspections. Shouldn't we at least wait the few days until the talks before we start issuing threats of what we will do if we don't get our way? Indeed, the very fact that we are issuing so many threats, and making it clear that we have a myriad of ways to hurt the Iranians, makes me feel that we are actually worried that we won't get these sanctions past the Russian and Chinese veto, which is causing us to overplay our hand.

The most important thing that we need to keep in mind is that the announcement regarding Qom changes nothing at all in terms of Iran's capability to manufacture a weapon.

Simply put, Iran is no closer to producing a hypothetical nuclear weapon today than it was prior to Obama's announcement concerning the Qom facility.

You wouldn't know that if you watched Obama, Brown and Sarkosy the other day. You would be forgiven for thinking that Doctor Death had been caught red handed charging up his ray gun.

This is all hyperbolic nonsense. There will be time for talk of sanctions should Iran refuse to allow inspections, but, until we get to that point, I would prefer if Obama, Brown and Sarkosy put their George W. Bush impressions back in the box.

Click title for Ritter's article.

Tags: Scott Ritter, Obama, Sarkosy, Brown, Ahmadinejad, Iran, nuclear weapons, NNPT, IAEA

U.S. to Demand Inspection of New Iran Plant ‘Within Weeks’

Obama is using the revelation regarding Iran's new nuclear site at Qum to demand that Ahmadinejad allow inspections of all Iran's nuclear facilities with weeks.

The Obama administration plans to tell Iran this week that it must open a newly revealed nuclear enrichment site to international inspectors “within weeks,” according to senior administration officials. The administration will also tell Tehran that inspectors must have full access to the key personnel who put together the clandestine plant and to the documents surrounding its construction, the officials said Saturday.

The demands, following the revelation Friday of the secret facility at a military base near the holy city of Qum, set the stage for the next chapter of a diplomatic drama that has toughened the West’s posture and heightened tensions with Iran. The first direct negotiations between the United States and Iran in 30 years are scheduled to open in Geneva on Thursday.

I think that's actually fair enough. If Iran, as Ahmadinejad insists, have nothing to hide then there is no reason for them not to open up all of their sites to inspection.

And Obama - if I am reading this correctly and not missing anything - is going about this the right way by not demanding that the centrifuges stop turning. Bush always came at this from the angle that Iran should stop what it was doing immediately, implying that Iran was somehow already in breach of the NNPT.

Now that the clandestine site has been revealed, however, American and European officials say they see an opportunity to press for broader disclosures. Iran will be told that to avoid sanctions, it must adhere to an I.A.E.A. agreement that would allow inspectors to go virtually anywhere in the country to follow suspicions of nuclear work.

American and European officials should tread carefully here. It is one thing to insist that Iran prove that it is not developing a nuclear weapon, it is quite another to humiliate another nation and to trample on their sovereignty.

I trust Obama is level headed enough to know the difference.

Obama has every right to insist that we know exactly what is going on in Iran, and it is in Iran's interests to comply with this process. But it doesn't help to have American officials offering baseless speculation and assumptions as if they represent fact:

In an interview to be broadcast Sunday on ABC, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the hidden facility was “part of a pattern of deception and lies on the part of the Iranians from the very beginning with respect to their nuclear program.”

But he deflected a question that has been circulating inside the government: Is the Qum facility one of a kind, or just one of several hidden facilities that were intended to give Iran a covert means of enriching uranium, far from the inspectors who regularly visit a far larger enrichment facility, also once kept secret, at Natanz.

“My personal opinion is that the Iranians have the intention of having nuclear weapons,” Mr. Gates concluded, though he said it was still an open question “whether they have made a formal decision” to manufacture weapons.

That may very well be Gates' "personal opinion" but it certainly isn't based on fact. It can't be. Because the truth is that none of us know what is going on inside Iran.

So let Obama insist on inspections and lets follow the evidence where it leads us.

Let's not repeat the mistakes of Iraq, where certain people "knew" that Saddam had WMD based on nothing more solid than their own prejudices.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Iran, Obama, Ahmadinejad, NNPT, inspections