Democrats Attacking Obama and Each Other

Kathie is correct in the offer for out of Iran enrichment has always been there by the Bush regime. In fact, Threatswatch reports yet another media moment INRE Condi’s similar offer in 2006.

You know… that satanic US regime that did nothing and never tried, according to the left talking points?

Reading media reaction, whether as reportage or editorial, to yesterday’s statement by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the United States is open to direct talks with Iran on the nuclear crisis is largely disappointing. Nearly every report or editorial places an inappropriate emphasis upon the offer to Iran of direct talks without understanding – or at least properly explaining to news consumers – the profound significance of the prerequisite condition of the cessation of all enrichment activities.

The enrichment cessation demand – decidedly not a policy shift, reversal or concession – is mentioned by each, but readily discarded and supplanted by lengthy conversation and coverage of what direct talks with Iran may mean. This misplaced focus on ends rather than means puts the proverbial cart clearly and ill-advisedly before the horse.

Let us be clear: The enrichment cessation demand has never been nor will it become a negotiable point for the Bush Administration.

Let us also be clear: Tehran has made it unmistakable that enrichment is their right and that enrichment has never been nor will it become a negotiable point.

The cessation demand has each time in the past been rejected out of hand by the Iranian regime, whether made by the US, the EU-3 or Russia. The question is not whether the US will hold direct talks with Iran. The question is more appropriately: Will Iran’s enrichment cessation stance change in pursuit of direct one-on-one talks with the US?

That one of Iran’s reactions yesterday was to dismiss the American offer as “propaganda” certainly buttresses this stalwart position by the mullah regime.

The fact that junior Iranian negotiators showed up in Vienna, demanding at least 5% enrichment rights in the country, for the chit chat was a show. And El Baradei’s construction of that agreement… which, as Scott mentioned, was rejected out of hand by the true Iranian authority… would not have been a victory for the west. It would, however have been a victory for Iran in buying more time. As Wired’s Joshua Pollack reported two days ago: (BTW, H/T to Curt on this one…)

We are buying something like seven to 10 months,” a nameless insider told the Christian Science Monitor. And even that short timeline might be an overstatement.

There are at least 50 cascades of 164 centrifuges each now installed at the Natanz enrichment facility, although many were still under vacuum in August. According to Alexander Glaser, a single cascade of 164 IR-1 centrifuges could be expected to produce up to 113 kilograms of 3.5 percent low-enriched uranium (LEU) a year. Discount the efficiency of operations somewhat (Geoff Forden suggests 85 percent based on past performance at Natanz), and Iran could recreate 1,200 kilograms of LEU in a shade over four months using 36 cascades. With 54 cascades going, it would take less than three months.

I’m not predicting that Iran will go flat-out to recreate its present LEU stockpile, but I would expect them to keep enriching at some rate. That rate may vary; having discovered what sort of safeguarded LEU stockpile the West, Russia and China are prepared to tolerate, the Iranian side might seek to influence the pace and urgency of future talks by the pace of operations at Natanz.

Israel’s Haaretz has a more accurate perspective… it’s a victory for Iran to buy time as it removes all justification for an Israeli intervention for 18 months.

At the end of the day, any compromise agreement buys time for all involved. Iran gets relief from international pressures without stopping the uranium enrichment, and the West gets a time-out, while maintaining vigilance over the Tehran’s nuclear program.

The agreement can become a landmark in a long journey toward trust and understanding between Iran and the West. But there is also the risk the deal is a one-off, or that Iran will break it, continuing to develop knowledge, technology and materials needed for nuclear weaponry. This possibility considered, the Mossad’s estimate Iran could begin producing nuclear arms by 2014 remains as valid as it ever was.

That was yesterday, and as we know, today brings the predictable rejection from Iran’s leaders.

Haaretz did suggest that even the presence of junior Iranian negotiators signaled that Iran was vunerable to int’l pressures. Ahmadinejad has pretty much run the Iranian economy into the toilet. Thus the protests in the street as his bogus re’election. They know that every time he opened his mouth, the Bush admin slapped tighter and tighter financial sanctions on them. 2008 was a particularly harsh year for Iran, with Bush’s financial net getting wider and wider. That trigged Iran’s loss of contracts with Total, the French oil/gas conglomerate.

Yes… Iran will likely find itself more pliable over time if Obama keeps the Bush implemented financial noose around their neck. In the meantime, they made a play to buy some time… watch my right hand and ignore that man behind the curtain, please.

INRE any decision on Af/PAK… I heard Gates say a decision is still two to three weeks out in the past 24 hours. Coincidently very close to Thanksgiving… Pelosi and Obama’s target date for slamming health care thru in the dark of night. Perhaps the CiC doesn’t want to be CiC until he’s “remade” America’s health care. He is, IMHO, quite willing to spend every bit of political capital in order to get what he wants on the health care front.