[Ninong]

What's up with Iran? What's up with that Israeli air strike against Syria?

Good questions. Do we really know what's going on right now? Probably not.

The most recent NIE on Iran was finished last year but Vice President Cheney put a hold on it because it doesn't support his personal agenda. Apparently its conclusions are about the same as the previous NIE on Iran which concluded that they were several years away from a capability to weaponize nuclear materials.

In spite of, or perhaps because of, the saber rattling coming from the Office of the Vice President, the current Secretary of Defense and the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the new CENTCOM commander have all made public comments toning down the rhetoric on Iran. There is no question that the U.S. military is dead set against any military action against Iran and little doubt that the Vice President is determined to find a way to start something before he and his acolyte, Bushie, leave office.

When last we visited this thread, the topic of discussion was the Israeli air strike against a mysterious Syrian facility. All sorts of stories were published in the weeks following that air strike. The problem with most of those published reports is that the sources were anonymous and it could very well be that the information leaked to the press was deliberately misleading.

Who would so something like that? Deliberately lie to reporters in order to get their propaganda out? How about the same people who did it to get us involved in Iraq?

Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, said he doesn't believe claims that the site contained nuclear weapons.

"I've heard so many versions of this story that I despair of ever knowing the real story," Wilkerson said in response to an email query. "However, I do not believe that the real story, if it is ever known, will have anything at all to do with nuclear weapons. In short, I believe that [former Bush UN ambassador John] Bolton, [Bush Deputy National Security Advisor Elliot] Abrams, et al. are lying again."

Before and after satellite photos of the site are now online. These photos came from a commercial satellite service. They clearly show a large building in the before photo that no longer exists in the after photo. However, both the before and after photos show absolutely no security fences or other structures one would expect for a sensitive military installation, especially if it contained sensitive nuclear materials. And there has been no nuclear signature detected after the air raid.

According to expert analysis, the photos do not depict a nuclear reactor under construction.

The United Nations is investigating that air strike but only Syria is talking to them. Both the U.S. and Israel have refused to cooperate with the UN's investigation.

Here is my point: we don't really know what was hit or why it was hit. We do know that the Bush Administration lied to get us into Iraq. Would they lie to build up anti-Syrian and anti-Iranian sentiment? Many people, including former Bush Administration insiders, say the answer is YES!

[SPasse]

Ninong,

1 Iran starts to install 6000 new Centrifuges at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility.

2 Bush gets $400 million for covert operations in Iran.

3 Israel conducts large scale “dry run” of an attack on the Natanz facility.

George Bush’s parting gift?

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]

Scott,

Originally Posted by SPasse

1 Iran starts to install 6000 new Centrifuges at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility.

It would take about that many to be able to enrich to weapons grade.

2 Bush gets $400 million for covert operations in Iran.

You left out "up to." He got "up to $400 million for covert operations" against Iran.

3 Israel conducts large scale “dry run” of an attack on the Natanz facility.

Israel can't attack Natanz by air unless we take out Iran's Russian anti-aircraft capabilities first.

George Bush’s parting gift?

I certainly hope not, but before we get into any serious discussion, did you see this?

The NIE on Iran, that was finally released late last year, said that since 2003 the evidence is clear that Iran has NOT pursued a nuclear weapons program. This is the consensus opinion of all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies. Both George W. Bush and his boss, Dick Cheney, immediately said publicly that they didn't agree with that conclusion. These are the same two guys who set up their own private intelligence service -- the Office of Special Plans under Doug Feith -- to produce "useful" intel to support their planned invasion of Iraq.

According to Sy Hersh's latest piece in the New Yorker, Bush would be more likely to attack if it looked like the Republicans were about to lose control of the White House and less llikely if he thought McSame was about to take over the reins. Bush has said repeatedly throughout his political career that he will do whatever he thinks is right no matter what people think of him. He has also said that he talks to God and that God told him to invade Iraq.

For the moment, let's forget about whether the Iranians are working on a nuclear weapons program because we really don't know. We do know that our own intelligence people are of the opinion that they are not. We know that the Gang of Eight was informed, and apparently approved, the request for "up to $400 million" for covert operations against Iran. And we know that all of them were briefed by the administration. I believe both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama have since been briefed now that they are their parties' presumptive nominees. Notice that Sen. Obama gave in on the FISA bill in that he is willing to give the phone companies immunity from "civil prosecution." Some on the left are pissed that he "caved in" on this but the administration has confirmed Obama's assertion that criminal prosecution would still be a possibility. The Democrats cannot be seen as holding up anything that has to do with national security.

It is helpful to judge public statements of Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, Democratic nominee-to-be Obama in the light of the fact that they are presumably "informed." You are not going to find any two people in government more opposed to the Iraq war than Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. Okay, maybe there are two or three in the House who are more opposed.

I'm trying to keep the discussion of whether Iran has a nuclear weapons program out of this discussion because that opens a different can of worms. Even if they are working on a nuclear weapons program, a military strike may not be the best option for a variety of reasons. Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should.

U.S. Military Opposition. We know for a fact that the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Mike Mullen, is against bombing Iran. We know for a fact that virtually all senior commanders, with perhaps one exception, are against bombing Iran for a variety of very good reasons. We know that CENTCOM commander, Adm. Bill Fallon, just resigned over disagreements with the administration over Middle East policy. He has spoken out publicly against the idea that bombing Iran is a viable option. According to Sy Hersh, the final straw for Fallon was that he was told that he was not cleared to be briefed on the covert operations inside Iran even though that's part of his area of responsibility.

We already know how the Cheney-Bush administration works when it comes to the military. They say publicly that they listen to their "commanders on the ground" but in truth they replace any commanders on the ground who disagree with them. Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz publicly excoriated Gen. Eric Shinseki and forced him out after he had the gall to tell the Senate that we would need "several hundred thousand troops" to invade and occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld immediately announced Shinseki's replacement even though his retirement was eight or nine months away and not a single representative of the administration or the civilian leadership in the Pentagon attended his retirement ceremony. And more recently we were treated to Bush firing or removing everyone who didn't agree with his plans in Iraq. He replaced the CENTCOM commander (and the replacement, Fallon, is already out), the commander of multi-national forces in Iraq and the commander of ground troops in Iraq. Gen. Petraeus (who zoomed up the promotion ladder in the past three or four years) is the administration's hand-picked guy to carry out Cheney's plans. Petraeus has been nominated to succeed Fallon as CENTCOM commander.

In summary. We know that both Cheney and Bush want to bomb Iran. McSame has joked that he wants to "bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran." Both Cheney and Bush have said privately that they consider it their sacred duty to bomb Iran before they leave office unless they are convinced that McSame is going to be the next president because since his "conversion," he has "seen the light" and they are confident that he will carry out the Bush administration's plans.

We know that the military is firmly against bombing Iran. Even to the point where we might see mass resignations among flag officers in protest. They believe that bombing Iran is not an option, especially while we still have more than 150,000 troops in Iraq. The Iraqi government (our Iraqi government) is more closely allied with Iran than they are with us. That's a fact. Everybody knows it but everybody ignores it and pretends it isn't so. The Shia militias in Iraq (especially the Badr Brigade but, to a certain extent, even the Mahdi Army) are beholden to the Iranians and would attack our troops in Iraq should we bomb Iran.

Before we, or the Israelis, could bomb Iran, we would have to take out their up-to-date Russian anti-aircraft systems. Bush's buddy, Vladimir Putin -- the one with the soulful eyes -- has been supplying Iran with the latest in anti-aircraft missiles to deter us from attacking. That operation alone could take a few days, during which there would be a worldwide uproar. Once Iran's anti-aircraft capabilities have been neutralized, we would probably follow up with heavy attacks on dozens of targets for the next four or five days. Altogether, we might be looking at seven to nine days total. It would be one of those deals where by the time the rest of the world tried to do anything to stop it, it would be all over.

So how can Cheney and Bush possibly pull off something like this if the Democrats are against it and the military high command are against it? Remember Lyndon Johnson's phony Gulf of Tonkin incident? That's how. The administration would have to manufacture a confrontation, either with Iranian Quds Forces in the border areas or with Revolutionary Guards units in the Straits of Hormuz. There would have to be casualties on our side. We would have to portray Iran as the aggressor. History has shown us that the Senate is easily duped, and that's assuming the Senate would even be consulted in advance.

Are the Iranians working on a nuclear weapons program or are they simply developing nuclear power as they claim? I don't know. Were it not for the NIE report, I would be inclined to believe that they probably are working on a nuclear weapons program. That still doesn't mean that the best option is to bomb them back to the stone age. In spite of all his rhetoric to the contrary, Bush just negotiated with one of the Axis of Evil nations, North Korea, and they are suddently no longer a member of the Axis of Evil.

"First, I'm issuing a proclamation that lifts the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act with respect to North Korea.

"And secondly, I am notifying Congress of my intent to rescind North Korea's designation as a state sponsor of terror in 45 days." -- President Georgw W. Bush, The White House, June 26, 2008.

We held direct talks with terrorists -- the North Koreans. Isn't that something Barack Obama wants to do that the Republicans have called him naive for even suggesting? And, BTW, North Korea still has a uranium enrichment program that the Bush administration has allowed to continue! It's just their plutonium weapons program that is being shut down, not their uranium enrichment program aimed at the development of nuclear power. Iran says their uranium enrichment program is aimed at the development of nuclear power, too. Sen. Obama is not afraid to talk to anybody, including Iran and Syria. The idea that the most powerful nation on the planet has anything to lose in simply talking to other nations, especially nations that are doing something we don't like, is absurd. We talked to the Soviets in the 1960's even as we were threatening each other with nuclear annililation.

When was the last time Iran attacked another country? I looked this one up: 1738. That was the last time the Persians invaded another country. They invaded Afghanistan, capturing Khandahar and Kabul, and India, sacking Delhi. They have not invaded another country in 270 years. Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980 mainly because he didn't like the new regime, Ayatollah Khomeini, and he thought they would be a push-over. It was just that old Arab-Persian, Sunni-Shia animosity that has been going on for more than a thousand years. Saddam did not win that war in spite of the fact that he was supported and supplied by the world's two superpowers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The Soviets supplied weapons (tanks, etc.) and we supplied satellite photos and other intel plus whatever else Donald Rumsfeld promised Saddam in that meeting.

What else did we learn from the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980's? We learned that in 1982, Saddam pulled back out of the Iranian territory he had invaded and tried to negotiate an end to the fighting but the ayatollahs who had ultimate authority over the Iranian military refused to accept a cease fire. They not only continued the war for several more years, they proved that they were more than willing to use human wave assaults that resulted in tens of thousands of casualties. And many of the "troops" on the Iranian side were young boys, some not even in their teens. They were/are religious fanatics.

We have something in common with Iran at this moment in history. We are both led by religious fanatics who believe they are doing God's will and who believe that God talks to them on a regular basis.

P.S. (Added 7-3-08: Sen. Russ Feingold just sent me an email asking me to help him stop the FISA "compromise" bill. I like Russ Feingold but I want to see Barack Obama in the White House. And I want to see the Democrats pick up another four or five seats in the Senate and possibly 15 seats in the House. The "compromise" bill is the best we are going to get right now. Blocking this bill would be a gift from heaven as far as the McSame campaign is concerned, almost as good for them as another attack by al-Qaida. BTW, Charlie Black, who made that statement that another attack would help McSame's campaign, is still with the campaign. He's just out of sight right now.

Dear Friend,

In recent days, people across the country have voiced the opinion that the so-called "compromise" FISA bill working its way through the Senate must be stopped.

As you already know, I am working hard to strip retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that allegedly cooperated with the President's illegal warrantless wiretapping program from the bill.

But that is not the only problem. This FISA legislation gives enormous powers to the government: including the ability to read emails and text messages and listen to phone conversations of anyone communicating with their family members, friends, associates, reporters, ANYBODY who may be overseas -- all with zero court review. Nobody should be supporting this legislation.

We can defend our country from terrorists while at the same time protecting the rights and freedoms outlined in the Constitution. It's time for our elected officials to stand up for the values on which our country was founded.

We should celebrate our Constitution this Fourth of July -- and do everything we can to prevent it from being torn up when the Senate returns to Washington next week.

Progressives everywhere have already had a tremendous impact -- with phone calls, emails, and letters pouring into offices by the hundreds (in some cases thousands), but the pressure on my colleagues to give in to this so-called "compromise" and President Bush is strong.

I'm going to continue to do everything I can to stand up for the rights and freedoms we all share. Thanks again for doing your part.

Sincerely,

Russ Feingold

[My2heartboys]

Ninong, please don't put us all in the same pot. I am a practicing believing Christian, but I also have a sibling stuck over there in all of that mess.

As a Christian, I have to believe that we are in the last days and that everything that can be shaken will be shaken (and believers are not exempt from that one). Thing of it is I see one major emotion at work here and it is one that we are all very familiar with. FEAR. Everybody is AFRAID of everybody else and AFRAID of the capabilities of anybody else.

All I can say is that I sincerely hope that we don't do anything else to upset the applecart anymore than what's already been done over there. If we do, it could suddenly get a whole heck of a lot more difficult for the forces that we already have over there.

As far as the US, we need to pull back, secure our borders and get things right here before trying to police the rest of the world.

JMHO

Anne

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Ninong

We have something in common with Iran at this moment in history. We are both led by religious fanatics who believe they are doing God's will and who believe that God talks to them on a regular basis.

I was referring specifically to two men: the President of the United States of America and the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, both of whom claim to be doing God's work.

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." -- George W. Bush to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas.

[Samper]

Is there not some prophecy or something about awakening the slumbering bear to the north....or the sleeping giant?? I wish I could remember where I got that from. Prophecies are a dime a dozen but browsing around for the past hour I found some eerie stuff.

This situation makes me very uneasy and not because Russia buzzed us with some bombers. I have to ask...why exactly are they supplying Iran with these weapons? Have they done the same with any other countries on their borders?

If the current administration wants McSame in office then further fueling the war fires with Iran surely won't hurt the campaign of a veteran. The gate has already been opened but I feel like Iran is the initiation of a major $#!^ storm. I have always worried about a situation between the US and Russia or China...or both. Seems to me like a possibility if the US stretches ourselves further.

[Ninong]

Apparently Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen is concerned enough about the Bush administration's desire to bomb Iran that he is warning publicly that such an action would be catastrophic. We are fortunate to have someone like Adm. Mullen in this position at this moment in history. His two predecessors were less inclined to speak out publicly.

Retired Marine Corps Gen. Tony Zinni, a former CENTCOM commander, has written extensively about the true opinions of the joint chiefs and the majority of our senior military officers in regards to the Bush administration's prosecution of the Iraq war and its approach to Iran. Virtually no one agrees with what we have been doing but few have dared speak up about it. Those who did push back were removed one way or another. This has been going on for the past seven years now. Only Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz thought Rumsfeld's plan for the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was sound military strategy. Secretary of State Colin Powell warned that it was not sound militarily but he was ignored and eventually pushed out the door.

Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers has admitted that Rumsfeld bypassed him on some of the military decisions. Myers now admits that he was not informed in advance about some of the actions we took in Iraq. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was deliberately bypassing the most senior military officer in the country to give instructions directly to commanders in Iraq. This is not that much different from what we are hearing about why Adm. Fallon just resigned as CENTCOM commander. In spite of the fact that Fallon was responsible for the entire region, including Iran, he was told that the operations we were carrying out inside Iran were none of his business on orders of the Bush administration.

Let's imagine the following conversation in the office of the CENTCOM commander:

Adm. Fallon: "Good morning, commander." (Speaking to Navy Seals Lt. Cmdr. Smith.)

Navy Seals Lt. Cmdr.: "Good morning, sir."

Adm. Fallon: "I hear you and your men have been carrying out some outstanding work in Iran?"

Navy Seals Lt. Cmdr.: "I'm sorry, sir, but you aren't cleared to receive that information."

Unlike lower ranking officers, I believe the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has a responsibility to the Congress and to the country to speak out publicly. He shouldn't wait for the Senate Armed Services Committee to call him to testify. He is the highest ranking military officer in the country, in a position requiring Senate confirmation, and he should be immune to political interference. He should speak out honestly and publicly if he thinks the administration is heading in a risky direction. If his public comments result in the President asking for his resignation, so be it. Sooner or later the American people will finally realize that Bush has not been listening to his "commanders on the ground," as he constantly tells us. BTW, Adm. Fallon is being replaced as CENTCOM commander by Gen. David Petraeus, someone who has proven time and again that he is willing to toe the administration's line.

The following is from an MSNBC article published July 3, 2008:

On Iran, top military officer sounds like Obama

Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen urges diplomacy, not use of force

WASHINGTON - It could turn out to be one of the most significant comments of the 2008 campaign — but coming just ahead of a holiday weekend, it isn’t getting much notice.

Upon his return from a visit to Israel and Europe, the nation’s highest ranking military officer warned Wednesday that a military strike on Iran would be a very bad idea.

“This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable,” said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen.

He added pointedly, “we haven't had much of a dialogue with the Iranians for a long time,” seeming to imply that the Bush administration should be talking to the Iranian government.

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama has said that if elected, he would begin talks with Iran, without any precondition.

The Bush administration has insisted that before talks can begin, Iran must cease its nuclear enrichment — a step toward building nuclear weapons.

Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain has said that his rival's willingness to hold direct talks, without preconditions, reveals "the depth of Sen. Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment.”

Adm. Mullen, much like Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, is one of those powerful unelected officials whose words could, at times, have as much effect on the campaign as Obama and McCain themselves.

It’s unusual for a military officer, especially the nation’s highest ranking one, to warn in such explicit terms of potential military action and to so emphatically call for diplomacy.

“What struck me about the comments was that he called for dialogue with Iran in his preliminary statement, even before he was responding to (reporters’) questions,” said Jon Alterman, the director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Alterman pointed to Mullen’s opening statement in which he said, “I'm convinced a solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behavior, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure. There is a need for better clarity, even dialogue at some level.”

You can read the full article here.

[My2heartboys]

Ninong, what do you think of the fact that Iran has some improved missile capabilities? Looks like things will heat up fast for sure.

Anne

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by My2heartboys

Ninong, what do you think of the fact that Iran has some improved missile capabilities? Looks like things will heat up fast for sure.

Anne

The Bush administration successfully negotiated with the terrorist Libyan regime to give up its weapons of mass destruction -- biological and chemical weapons and a nuclear weapons program. The Bush administration is finally showing signs of success in negotiations with the terrorist North Korean regime. North Korea has abandoned its nuclear weapons program but we have allowed them to continue enriching uranium for power production. In return for scrapping their plutonium program, North Korea will receive beaucoup bucks in aid from the U.S. and George W. Bush personally announced that he had removed North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. All of a sudden the North Koreans are no longer terrorists. Think of what this does to the Axis of Evil. You can't have an axis with just one member, Iran.

So in spite of the fact that the Cheney-Bush administration says that they don't negotiate with terrorists, they do. As far as missiles are concerned, North Korea has a lot more missiles than Iran.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is pouring fuel on the fire because he knows we are in no position to attack his country. He's just 'campaigning' in Iran and stirring up nationalistic feelings among his base. Ahmadinejad's base in Iran is the rural areas of the country and the less well educated people of Iran. He's strongly supported by the religious fundamentalists but not at all favored by the better educated, more secular and higher-income Iranians.

Our military has warned Bush that attacking Iran would be a major mistake. Nouri al-Maliki, a very dear friend of Iran, has warned Bush that he will not allow any attacks against Iran to be launched from Iraq. Furthermore, Maliki is demanding that we set a timetable for withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq. Bush is building military bases all over Iraq with the intention of keeping a U.S. military presence there for the next fifty years and Maliki is telling us that he appreciates the nice new military facilities we are building but he expects us to hand over the keys when we depart in the near future. Many of the Iranians in the Iraqi government now -- especially the Shiites -- were living in exile for the past two or three decades. Nouri al-Maliki was sentenced to death by Saddam Hussein in 1980 and he lived in exile in Iran and Syria until after we deposed Saddam.

The temporary Surge that Bush initiated way back in January 2007 has accomplished virtually none of its announced goals. There has been a reduction in violence mainly because of two things: (1) Al-Sadr called a cease-fire and (2) we bought off the Sunni insurgents by paying them hundreds of millions of dollars. You might even say that we have made things potentially worse because we have now built up the Sunni insurgents and armed them so that they will be better able to fight with the Shia militias once we actually do withdraw our troops. The political reconciliation that was supposed to be the goal of the Surge has not taken place. They still hate each other's guts.

We have managed to drive the price of oil up to $145/bbl, making Nouri al-Maliki extremely happy. He's raking in about $75 billion a year in oil revenue now and he's spending very little of it on building up Iraq. He's letting us do that part. Meanwhile the Taliban in Afghanistan are growing stronger by the day. We have neglected Afghanistan, where al-Qaida actually was based when they attacked us on 9/11, in order to waste more than $1 trillion dollars in a get-even war with Saddam.

As for Ahmadinejad and Iran, I believe we will have to work with our NATO allies, plus Russia and China, to impose stringent sanctions against Iran for breaking treaty obligations. It is important that we get as much international support as possible for whatever actions are taken against Iran. It's possible that 'something' could happen that would give Bush the excuse he has been looking for to attack Iran but I really think that's less likely now than it was a year ago. I don't think Israel would dare attack Iran without our permission in advance and I don't think an Israeli attack against Iran would be successful without U.S. assistance in taking out Iran's anti-aircraft capabilities in advance.

P.S. -- The wildcard in this whole mess, as I have mentioned before, is that both Bush and Ahmadinejad believe they are doing God's work. Bush has said repeatedly that he will do what he believes is right regardless of what people think of him. And he has said on more than one occasion that God told him to attack Iraq. Now if God suddenly tells him to attack Iran, we could be in for a bumpy ride. It's quite possible that Bush believes God has already told him to attack Iran. He and Cheney have both commented privately that they need to get that done before they leave office because the next president is less likely to be willing to bomb Iran, especially if the next president is a Democrat.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by My2heartboys

Ninong, what do you think of the fact that Iran has some improved missile capabilities?

If their improved missile capabilities are anything like their unimproved photoshopping capabilities then I don't think we have too much to get excited about.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Ninong

If their improved missile capabilities are anything like their unimproved photoshopping capabilities then I don't think we have too much to get excited about.

Exactly! Those were not new and improved missiles. They were the same old missiles they've had for the past 10 years.

These guys are a bunch of clowns.

[Ninong]

The London Times is claiming that Bush has "amber lighted" an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. By that they mean that Bush has given them the okay to proceed with the planning for an Israeli air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

The article correctly points out that our military are firmly against any attacks against Iran. If Bush were to actually "green light" such an Israeli mission, we would almost certainly be drawn into it.

Would Bush do something like this? Who knows.


_____________________________________________

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." -- George W. Bush, June 18, 2002.

[My2heartboys]

I don't know anymore Ninong. All I can say is #@!& Things could get hot real quick and all of those military people that we have in very vulnerable places.

Anne

[Ninong]

Official: US envoy to meet Iranian nuke negotiator

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Associated Press has learned that a top U.S. diplomat will join colleagues from other world powers at a weekend meeting with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator in a break with past Bush administration policy.

A senior U.S. official tells the AP that William Burns, America's third-highest ranking diplomat, will for first time attend talks with the Iranian envoy in Switzerland aimed at persuading Iran to halt activities that could lead to the development of atomic weapons.

The United States is part of a six-nation effort to get Iran to stop enriching uranium but the Bush administration has shunned previous talks with the Iranians on the matter. The official says Burns is going to the Saturday meeting to demonstrate U.S. commitment to a negotiated deal.

P.S. -- Someone had better explain this new administration policy to John McCain because he has been critical of Barack Obama for wanting to talk to Iran. McCain says we shouldn't elect someone like Obama who wants to talk to our adversaries. McCain has made it very clear that he wants to "bomb bomb bomb... bomb bomb Iran."

[My2heartboys]

Figures, a real live James T Kirk....shoot first ask questions (or negotiate, talk about it) later.

Anne

[Ninong]

Is Bush Changing Course?

Is the Bush administration changing its approach to Iran? Undersecretary of State William Burns left last night for Geneva where he will "attend a weekend meeting with Iran's top nuclear negotiator."

Here's where the White House ventures into Clintonesque language. They claim that Burns will attend the meeting but he will only "listen." Is that the same as "I did not inhale" or is it getting closer to "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky."

And then this morning's Guardian has an article reporting that the Bush administration is about to send U.S. diplomats to Tehran to establish as U.S. Interests Section. That's something Condi Rice has been wanting to do for months now. The Iranians already have an Interests Section in Washington. It's sort of a halfway house between no relations and an embassy.

Right now our interests in Tehran are handled by the Swiss, the British, the Germans and the French. The Guardian claims that we will send diplomats over to Tehran sometime in the next 30 days and they will be housed in the Swiss embassy but as a separate U.S.-operated section, issuing visas, etc.

Barack Obama issued a statement saying that the White House is finally coming around to his views on talking to Iran. That's when the White House issued a denial, saying they weren't "talking," just "listening" to what others were saying at the meeting.

ABC World News noted the White House's objection to Obama's words, but added that "the fact is, they are sitting down at the table with the Iranians," which "is essentially what Barack Obama has been proposing." In fact, former Ambassador John Bolton "said this is like getting an Obama administration six months early. Now, the White House says this is very different. But it sure sounds like it's heading in that direction."

If they didn't want to be "involved" in the meeting, they wouldn't be sending the third highest-ranking official in the State Department.