pepperpot

__________________
Mrs Pepperpot is a lady who always copes with the tricky situations that she finds herself in....

Jolie Rouge

Iran and Its Latin American Ambitions Get Some Scrutiny
By Douglas Farah

Iran's somewhat outsized global ambitions are finally getting some of the scrutiny they deserve. The decision to test fire its most advanced mid-range missile as pressure mounts because of hidden nuclear facilities is the most visible action.

But less noticed was Venezuela's surprise acknowledgment that Iran is helping it find uranium, of which Venezuela may have a good deal. Such help from Iran had previously been announced as possible, but not recognized as currently underway.

Mining Minister Rodolfo Sanz said Iran has been assisting Venezuela with geophysical survey flights and geochemical analysis of the deposits, and that evaluations "indicate the existence of uranium in western parts of the country and in Santa Elena de Uairen," in southeastern Bolivar state.

"We could have important reserves of uranium," Sanz told reporters upon arrival on Venezuela's Margarita Island for a weekend Africa-South America summit. He added that efforts to certify the reserves could begin within the next three years.

The announcement came as revelations that Iran has secretly been building a uranium-enrichment plant provoke concerns among countries including the U.S., Russia, France, Britain, Germany and China.

The announcement comes as Venezuela, which had been rebuffed at several turns (particularly by Brazil and Argentina) in trying to get nuclear technology because of its insistence of including Iran in any deal, has undertaken to build a nuclear village with Iran. Russia is willing to work with the rogue coaltion.

Brazil and Argentina rebuffed Venezuelan overtures in 2005 because of the insistence of Chávez that Iran be allowed to participate, despite international sanctions.

This is hardly the repudiation by an anti-Chavista bloc. After all, Chávez helped finance the successful election of the president of Argentina and Lula has more credible credentials with the Latin American left than Chávez ever could or should. My full blog is here.

September 28, 2009 04:45 PM

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2009...merican_am.php

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Iran put nuclear site near base in case of attack
Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer
23 mins ago

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's nuclear chief said Tuesday his country built its newly revealed uranium enrichment facility inside a mountain and next to a military site to ensure continuity of its nuclear activities in case of an attack.

Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi, who also heads the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, reiterated that Iran is in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency to set a timetable "soon" for an inspection of the site near the holy city of Qom.

The revelations of the site that had been secretly under construction brought increased international pressure on Iran to come clean on its nuclear program, which the U.S. and others suspect is aimed at producing atomic bombs. Salehi's disclosures came two days before the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany meet in Geneva with Iran over its nuclear activities.

Salehi said Iran is willing to have a general discussion about nuclear technology when the country sits down with Western powers in Geneva but will not give up its "sovereign right" to uranium enrichment and conversion.

He said the nuclear facility is next to a military compound of the Revolutionary Guard, Iran's most powerful military force, equipped with an air defense system. Salehi also said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told him Tuesday he named the enrichment plant "Meshkat," which means Lantern.

"This site is at the base of a mountain and was selected on purpose in a place that would be protected against aerial attack. That's why the site was chosen adjacent to a military site," Salehi told a news conference. "It was intended to safeguard our nuclear facilities and reduce the cost of active defense system. If we had chosen another site, we would have had to set up another aerial defense system."

Details about the newly revealed site and the fact that Iran kept its construction secret have raised more suspicion among experts and Western governments that Iran's nuclear program is aimed at producing weapons — something Tehran has long denied. The U.S. and its allies have strongly condemned Iran over the site and demanded it immediately make a full disclosure on its nuclear activities or face harsher international sanctions.

President Barack Obama's administration is planning to push for new sanctions against Iran, targeting its energy, financial and telecommunications sectors if it does not comply with international demands to come clean about its nuclear program, according to U.S. officials.

Israel, which has attacked nuclear sites in Iraq and Syria previously, considers Iran's nuclear and missile development a strategic threat and Ahmadinejad has made repeated references to Israel's destruction. Israel has not ruled out a pre-emptive military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

But Israeli officials have been instructed not to comment on the newly revealed nuclear site or Iran's missile tests on Sunday and Monday.

Salehi said Iran will officially inform the IAEA of details about the site at a later date.

He said the Qom facility was a "contingency" facility to make sure that Iran's nuclear activities won't stop even for a moment.

"This is a contingency plan. It is one of pre-emptive measures aimed at protecting our nuclear technology and human work force. It is a small version of Natanz," he said. "This is to show that the Islamic Republic of Iran won't allow its nuclear activities stop under any circumstances even for a moment."

Natanz is an industrial-scale enrichment plant in central Iran while the Qom facility, according to Salehi, is a semi-industrial facility."

He gave the location of the site as about 60 miles (100 kilometers) south of capital Tehran on the road leading to Qom. That is about 20 miles (30 kilometers) north of Qom. He dismissed a statement by Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman on Monday that the facility was near the village of Fordo, which is about 30 miles south of Qom.

A satellite image provided by DigitalGlobe and GeoEye shows a well-fortified facility built into a mountain about 20 miles northeast of Qom, with ventilation shafts and a nearby surface-to-air missile site, according to defense consultancy IHS Jane's, which did the analysis of the imagery. The image was taken in September.

GlobalSecurity.org analyzed images from 2005 and January 2009 when the site was in an earlier phase of construction and believes the facility is not underground but was instead cut into a mountain. It is constructed of heavily reinforced concrete and is about the size of a football field — large enough to house 3,000 centrifuges used to refine uranium.

Salehi said the site was selected after a careful study by the authorities. He said it was a formerly an ammunition depot before his agency took control of it a year ago and started construction that will eventually house a uranium enrichment plant.

He said the only connection between the Qom nuclear facility and the Guard is the Guard would protect it against possible attacks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090929/..._mi_ea/ml_iran



That's okay ... at least one of Obama's advisers thinks we can just give them a cookie and a smileyface sticker and the world will be a better place ...

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Iran warns West against "past mistakes"
Parisa Hafezi And Fredrik Dahl
1 hr 4 mins ago

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran said on Tuesday it would refuse to discuss a newly declared nuclear plant at forthcoming international talks and cautioned Western powers it could curb cooperation further if they repeated "past mistakes."

An Iranian MP suggested parliament might seek withdrawal from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) if Thursday's Geneva talks with major powers fail and "if the Zionists and America continue their pressure on Iran" -- a reference to policies including economic sanctions.

Washington has suggested possible new sanctions on banking and the oil and gas industry if Tehran fails to assuage Western fears it seeks nuclear weapons. U.S. officials believe sanctions could now have more effect, playing on leadership divisions evident since a disputed presidential poll.

Comments by Western and Iranian officials suggested little optimism ahead of the Thursday's rare meeting of the P5+1 -- permanent U.N. Security Council members China, Britain, France, the United Sates and Russia, as well as Germany -- with Iran.

"My expectation, or my hope, is that we will be able to get...the guarantees from Tehran, that the program in which they are engaged in is a peaceful program," EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana told reporters in Gothenburg, Sweden.

"I don't think it will be easy to ask for, but we will continue to engage."

Last week's news of a second uranium enrichment plant, under construction south of Tehran, added urgency to the Geneva talks. Uranium in less refined form can be used for power generation but in a more highly refined state is used in nuclear bombs.

Statements from Tehran on Tuesday allowed some ambiguity on Iran's readiness to talk.

"The site, we can call it a small Natanz site, is a way to show that Iran ... not even for a second will stop its nuclear activities," Atomic Energy Organization head Ali Akbar Salehi said, referring to its existing underground plant near the central city of Natanz.

He described the new facility as a "contingency plant" in case the Natanz site was threatened by military action.

Washington has not ruled out military action if it believed Tehran was close to developing a nuclear weapons but says it favors diplomatic action.

Salehi said Iran, which denies any plans for atomic weapons, would not discuss its basic right to develop nuclear energy.

"But we can discuss about disarmament, we can discuss about non-proliferation and other general issues," he said. "The new site is part of our rights and there is no need to discuss."

Iranian state Press TV quoted Salehi as saying on Monday Tehran was in contact with the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over a date for inspection of the plant.

ELECTION PROTESTS

Iran's IRNA news agency quoted MP Mohammad Karamirad, a conservative and member of parliament's foreign policy and national security commission, as saying Iran could close the door completely to cooperation with world nuclear authorities.

"If the Zionists and America continue their pressure on Iran and if the talks...do not reach a conclusion, then parliament will take a clear and transparent position, such as Iran's withdrawal from the NPT," he said.

Iranian missile tests on Sunday and Monday added to tension with Western powers, who fear a hardline leadership in the Islamic Republic could ultimately use a threat of nuclear attack to pursue its political ends in the Middle East and beyond.

Russia, though cautious on sanctions, has expressed concern about Iranian missile launches and about Tehran's nuclear program. President Dmitry Medvedev has said "other means" could be employed if Geneva talks failed.

But Interfax news agency quoted a senior Russian diplomat as saying missile tests should not be used as an additional argument for imposing sanctions on Tehran.

The Geneva meeting is the first such encounter since the June re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stirred mass protests in Tehran and signs of division in the leadership over accusations of vote fixing. It is also the first since President Barack Obama took office, seeking to revive contacts.

Ahmadinejad press adviser Ali Akbar Javanfekr said it was for the West, not Iran, to prove its honesty in Geneva.

"After these talks the ball will be in the West's, and especially America's, court," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090929/...53YXJuc3dlcw--

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Obama Foreign Policy Goes From Carrots to Cookies

Scott Gration, Obama's gaffe-prone special envoy to Sudan, boils it down: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092802336.html


This from the man who took it upon himself to declare the genocide in Darfur over -- mere "remnants of genocide" remain he told reporters in June -- at a time when even our push-over Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, was still accusing the Sudanese regime of that precise crime. (Gration would later try and make amends by telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "Susan Rice is one of my dear friends. There are few women in the world that I would say, 'I love you' to, and Susan is one of them. I love Susan Rice.") Only three months before Gration issued his summary judgment that the genocide in Darfur had come to an end, Sudanese President Omar al Bashir was indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court. Gration is pushing the administration to normalize relations with this indicted war criminal.

A piece in the New Republic this summer slammed Gration for "fashioning his Sudan policy around an ideological attraction to carrots and an aversion to sticks--when everything we know about Sudan tells us that this is precisely the wrong tactic." Apparently Gration and Obama have moved on from carrots to cookies and gold stars. This explains perfectly the administration's approach to Burma (Clinton is talking of dropping sanctions), Russia (abandoning missile defense), Iran (submitting to talks on the ridiculous terms laid out by the Iranians), and North Korea (dumping the Six Party talks for bilateral negotiations). And if Obama pulls the plug on the war in Afghanistan, it may be cookies for the Taliban, too.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...to_cookies.asp


U.S. Envoy's Outreach to Sudan Is Criticized as Naive
By Stephanie McCrummen Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, September 29, 2009

EL FASHER, Sudan -- The volatility of this East African nation -- from the Darfur conflict to the threat of renewed civil war in the south -- is becoming a test of how President Obama will reconcile a policy of engagement with earlier statements blasting a government he said had "offended the standards of our common humanity."

Top administration officials are scheduled to meet Tuesday to discuss a major review of the United States' Sudan policy. But even as that document is being finalized, U.S. diplomacy has remained mostly in the hands of Obama's special envoy to Sudan, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, who is pushing toward normalized relations with the only country in the world led by a president indicted on war-crimes charges.

Although Gration describes the approach as pragmatic and driven by a sense of urgency, his critics here and in the United States say it is dangerously, perhaps willfully, naive. During a recent five-day trip to Sudan, Gration heard from southern officials, displaced Darfurians, rebels and others who complained uniformly that he is being manipulated by government officials who talk peace even as they undermine it.

Still, at the end of the visit, Gration maintained a strikingly different perspective. He had seen signs of goodwill from the government of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, he said, and viewed many of the complaints as understandable yet knee-jerk reactions to a government he trusts is ready to change. "We've got to think about giving out cookies," said Gration, who was appointed in March. "Kids, countries -- they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement."

Gration's approach has supporters, including Eltyeb Hag Ateya, a Sudanese professor and critic of Bashir's ruling party. He said Gration is "completely different" from previous envoys, who succeeded only in alienating the people who hold the levers of power in Sudan. Gration's detractors say his approach is based on a misunderstanding of how Bashir's ruling party works. John Prendergast, co-chairman of the Enough Project, a human rights group advocating tougher, multilateral sanctions against Sudan, said Bashir and his top advisers respond only to pressure. "They do not respond to nice guys coming over and saying, 'We have to be a good guest,' " he said. "They eat these people for dinner."

Adam Mudawi, a Sudanese human rights activist who has seen envoys come and go, put it more bluntly: "In six months, he'll find out," he said. "They are liars."

But in interviews during the trip, Gration said that Sudanese government officials have not lied to him. He spoke of new realities in Darfur, where a brutal government campaign has given way to banditry and fighting among rebel factions and tribes. Although many say the government has orchestrated the chaos, Gration spread the blame. Rebels have turned into criminal gangs and have not unified for peace talks, he said. And many displaced Darfurians are dealing with "psychological stuff" that is leading to unhelpful mistrust of the government, he said.

Gration said that in his view, the ruling party deserves credit lately for allowing some foreign aid groups to return after Bashir expelled others following his March indictment by the International Criminal Court on charges of war crimes in Darfur. Gration said economic sanctions, first imposed in 1997, have thwarted development that would help marginalized parts of Sudan.

And as distasteful as it may seem, he said, engaging the ruling party is the only way to get a settlement in Darfur and to avert a potentially devastating war ahead of the semiautonomous southern region's 2011 vote on independence.

Ghazi Salahuddin, a close Bashir adviser, praised Gration for "trying to be evenhanded." During a stop in El Fasher, capital of North Darfur state, Gration was greeted like a rock star by hundreds of cheering Bashir supporters in a conference hall plastered with posters of Bashir and Obama, poorly photo-shopped together.

Elsewhere during the trip, the reception was less festive. In southern Sudan's capital of Juba, the region's president, Salva Kiir Mayardit, told Gration he is concerned that the envoy's approach is emboldening the ruling party to dictate unfavorable terms for the south's secession vote, such as demanding 75 percent turnout. Southerners have repeatedly accused the government of arming militias to create chaos ahead of the vote, and tribal violence has killed 2,000 people in the south this year.

But in his meeting with Kiir, Gration backed the ruling party's argument, saying it had legitimate concerns about the referendum. Gration urged southerners to trust the government that waged a brutal war against them for 20 years.

"It is the other side that can build trust," Kiir countered during a news conference. "How will you trust that person that was killing you yesterday?"

( continues ... )

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

In the western region of Darfur, leaders from several camps of displaced people told Gration that security has not improved. Ahmed Ali Osman said 22 camp leaders had been arrested recently for resisting a government plan to tax a market inside a camp. Hawa Abdallah Mohamed said there is still "rape and intimidation and different types of harassment by pro-government armed elements."

And as Musa Tohlil addressed Gration, he wore a yellow patch over one eye, saying he could not look at the envoy with both of them.

"We have a concern about you, sir, that you will go to Bashir and ask him what to do," he said.

Tohlil and others accused Gration of backing a government plan to force displaced Darfurians to return home, where many fear they will be attacked again. Leaders see the plan as a government attempt to erase the Darfur problem and destroy the rebels' political base.

Gration, a son of missionaries who spent most of his childhood in Africa, agreed that security must improve, and he strongly denied backing forced returns. Then, as he said many times during the trip, he urged people to focus on preparing for an eventual return home that he said would be made voluntarily and "with dignity."

"We can't change injustices and atrocities that happened in previous years," he said, as the leaders took notes. "But we can change things for your children."

Near El Fasher, Gration delivered his message to a group of women in the Abu Shouk camp. It has been transformed into a sprawl of straw-roofed huts and brick walls since the start of the conflict, which some experts estimate has killed as many as 400,000 people and left 1.7 million displaced.

"We've been receiving visits from senior officials from the U.S.," a frustrated Majda al Faki Adam told Gration. "But we don't feel the impact of those visits."

Later, Gration met with aid workers, who told him the government was still delaying their permits and access to the camps. "I thought that problem was fixed," Gration said to the group, citing a deal he had struck with the government in Khartoum. "It wasn't," said an aid worker.

Others complained about kidnappings in government-controlled areas, suggesting that the government was responsible.

But when Gration was asked whether he thought the ruling party was serious about security, he responded that he was hopeful. On the last day of his trip, Gration flew in a helicopter to a rebel base and sat with the men in the shade of mango and guava trees. The rebels explained how the government was now backing a certain rebel faction in order to defeat another, more powerful one.

Gration asked who was providing the support. The rebels told him but added that such distinctions were unimportant. "In all cases, it's the government," a rebel leader said.

Later, Gration said he did not necessarily see some nefarious government plot behind all the complaints he had heard. Maybe, for instance, the permit issues the aid workers raised represented a "disconnect" between Khartoum and low-level bureaucrats. Maybe the militias receiving arms in the south were getting them from some rogue government official.

"Up to now, the efforts I've seen make me say, 'Yes, I'm willing to take a risk that I'll be betrayed,' " Gration said. "And if that trust is violated, then I believe pressure should come."

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

How to Lose Friends and Annoy Your Enemies

Barack Hussein Obama had better savor those manufactured outpourings of love from school children while he can because at the rate he’s losing friends, those mindless ditties may soon be all he has left. The most recent casualty among his one-time admirers is French President Nicolas Sarkozy. According to the Wall Street Journal, neither Sarkozy nor British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (whom Obama had snubbed and alienated earlier) was too thrilled with Obama’s handling of the revelation at the G-20 Summit last week that Iran was maintaining a secret facility for making bomb-grade fuel.

The Journal reports that Sarkozy in particular “had been ‘frustrated’ for months about Mr. Obama’s reluctance to confront Iran” about its secret enrichment plant “and saw an opportunity to change momentum.” He had favored releasing the information a day earlier in front of the U.N. Security Council, seeing this as way of rallying international support for strong action against Iran. The Obama administration had scotched the idea, insisting that it would “’spoil the image of success’ for Mr. Obama’s debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons.” Can’t have an international crisis upstaging one of Obama’s “moments” in his well-rehearsed role Leader of the Free World.

Nor was Sarkozy thrilled with Obama’s tone once he let the cat out of the bag. Iran, Obama said, is “going to have to come clean and they are going to have to make a choice.” That’s it? Not exactly the sternest rebuke in the history of the U.S. presidency. In any case, it seems as though Iran has already made a choice, and that’s to poke a finger squarely in the eye of the pansy the American people elected to lead them. The day after Obama issued his statement, Ahmadinejad made a statement of his own, telling Obama essentially to take a hike.

As Richard Cohen notes in the Washington Post, Obama is all about issuing deadlines and ultimata and then promptly forgetting all about them. Ahmadinejad, apparently mindful of this, knows enough to ignore what little bluster Obama summons up.

Sarkozy in the meantime has not been so passive in his condemnation of Iran or Obama’s continued desire for talks. “[W]hat have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community?” he said following Obama’s G-20 bombshell. “Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges. And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping off the map a Member of the United Nations. What are we to do? What conclusions are we to draw? At a certain moment hard facts will force us to make decisions.”

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...-your-enemies/

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

pepperpot

scary stuff.....

__________________
Mrs Pepperpot is a lady who always copes with the tricky situations that she finds herself in....

Jolie Rouge

October 1, 2009
The Progressive Review : U.S. Is Seeking a Range of Sanctions Against Iran
By MARK LANDLER The New York Times

WASHINGTON — 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.

The administration also is seeking to build a broader coalition of partners for sanctions so that it may still be able to act against Iran even if China and Russia were to veto harsher measures proposed in the United Nations Security Council.

"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."

Administration officials began describing what new sanctions might look like with a critical face-to-face meeting between the United States and Iran just four days away. The Americans are expected to press their demand for quick access and blueprints to a newly disclosed Iranian nuclear site.

In pushing for more stringent sanctions, the administration wants to accomplish two potentially irreconcilable goals: forcing Iran back to negotiations over its nuclear program — which the United States and its Western allies suspect is meant to create a weapon — while at the same time winning the support of Russia and China, which are eager to preserve their significant economic ties to Iran.

For now, administration officials said, the United States was not likely to win support for an embargo on shipments of gasoline or other refined fuel to Iran. The European allies, one official said, view this as a "blunt instrument" that could hurt ordinary Iranians, inflame public opinion and unite the country behind the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose legitimacy within Iran has remained under a cloud since his June 12 reelection that opponents claim was rigged.

American efforts to marshal worldwide pressure against Iran have gained traction since the revelation last Friday that Iran was operating a clandestine nuclear site.

Even Israel, which has long warned that a military strike might be the only effective response to Iran's ambitions, now seems satisfied to let President Obama play out his strategy of offering to talk while threatening to impose painful measures if those talks go nowhere.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel telephoned the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and five other influential lawmakers on Thursday and Friday to urge the United States to pursue "crippling sanctions" against Iran, according to Israeli officials and people close to the lawmakers.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said on the CBS program "Face the Nation" that the administration was exploring how to "broaden and deepen sanctions." Existing sanctions, she acknowledged, have been "leaky," but the United States had learned from its experience with North Korea how to assemble a broad coalition behind punitive measures.

Still, the administration faces an uphill battle, both because of the nature of the countries it must persuade and because of changes inside Iran, particularly its disputed election and the ensuing protests.

"Sanctions out of the blue for punishment purposes, as much as I think they deserve it, probably don't serve any useful purpose in resolving the issue," said Thomas R. Pickering, a former under secretary of state who has held informal negotiations with the Iranians.

Administration officials acknowledge it will be difficult to persuade Russia to agree to harsh, long-term sanctions against Iran, whatever the assurances that the Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, gave last week to Mr. Obama. China, these officials say, is even less dependable, given its reliance on Iranian oil and its swelling trade ties with Iran.

Iran has proved resilient to sanctions, having weathered them in one form or another since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. And the political upheaval there creates a new complication: Western countries do not want to impose measures that deepen the misery of ordinary people, because it could help the government and strangle the fragile protest movement.

Citing those fears, the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, said last Monday he was opposed to an embargo of refined fuel products. Another senior Western diplomat said such a measure was not likely to be on the menu of options, even though sanctions experts say it is probably the most effective short-term cudgel.

At a dinner in New York last week, the night before he addressed the United Nations, Mr. Ahmadinejad told his guests he would "warmly welcome" additional sanctions because it would only make his country more self-sufficient, according to a person who was there. "For sanctions to work, they not only have to be multi-lateral, but there has to be international solidarity over a prolonged period of time," said Ray Takeyh, an Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations who was until last month a senior adviser to the Obama administration.

Mr. Takeyh said that he was skeptical that sanctions alone would alter Iran's long-term behavior. But he said he would not be surprised if Iran came to the meeting on Thursday with an offer to allow inspectors to visit the secret uranium enrichment plant near the holy city of Qum.

That would fall well short of the administration's demand that Iran hand over blueprints for the plant or produce key people involved in its design. But it might be enough to weaken solidarity, said Mr. Takeyh, who noted that the Iranians "tend to be tactically adroit."

Iran's missile tests on Sunday were interpreted by administration officials as a message to the West after the disclosure of the nuclear site. The missiles had a range of 90 to 125 miles, according to state-run television. Iran plans to fire two medium-range Shahab-1 and Shahab-2 missiles on Monday, the state-run Fars agency reported.

In assessing the threat posed by Iran, some countries still focus on economics. China has interests in Iranian oil and gas reserves that potentially total close to $100 billion, according to experts. It needs Iranian cooperation to tap those reserves and move the fuel to China.

Russia, a neighbor of Iran, is more intertwined with it than any other world power, and has more concerns about upsetting relations. That partly explains why it has sought to dilute the impact of previous sanctions on Iran.

Political changes in Iran have also made it less vulnerable to some sanctions. Among the most common is to deny visas to senior officials to travel to Europe or the United States. But the new generation of Iranian leaders is a product of an Islamic theocracy, and is less likely to care about travel restrictions, experts say. "They don't want to go shopping for their wives in Paris; they don't want to go visit their bank accounts in Geneva," said Danielle Pletka, an expert in the Middle East at the American Enterprise Institute. "That reduces the leverage the international community has over them."


Ethan Bronner contributed reporting from Jerusalem, Michael Wines from Beijing, and Nazila Fathi from Toronto.

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Nuke expert: Obama’s two-week inspection deadline gives Iran time to hide the evidence
posted at 1:06 pm on October 3, 2009 by Allahpundit

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/0...-the-evidence/

This would be the same deadline that the State Department hinted yesterday that it’s prepared to back down from if ElBaradei asks them to.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tory?track=rss

He’s assuming Iran will have a month because he’s using Sept. 21, the date they finally told the IAEA that the Qom facility exists, as his starting point. But in fact, assuming they intend to let inspectors into the plant — which is still uncertain, believe it or not — they probably started moving equipment out of there before then. Remember, the strong suspicion among diplomats is that Iran only disclosed the Qom site because they were tipped off that the west knew about it and was about to reveal it; the “voluntary” disclosure was Tehran’s way of making it look as though they were being good, honest international citizens. In all likelihood there was some (short) interim period between the time they learned that the west was onto them and their decision to disclose on Sept. 21, and that interim could have been used to hide evidence. That was the risk the west ran by sitting on their intelligence about the building, which leaves The One now forced to issue tough-sounding deadlines that really don’t mean much since (a) the smoking gun is probably already gone and (b) a truly tough deadline, demanding inspections immediately in order to seize whatever smoking gun might still be there, would provoke an international crisis if Iran said no, and the west simply isn’t prepared to deal with that. In fact, read this dishy Telegraph piece about the argument between Obama, Brown, and Sarkozy about when to spill the beans on Qom. The Europeans wanted it done in dramatic fashion at the Security Council meeting that Obama chaired, but The One didn’t want his special moment on disarmament interrupted so they waited until the next morning to do it at a presser. And really, why not? It’s already too late. What’s another day?

So where are we at now? Same place we’ve always been: Wondering if Iran’s simply jerking us around to buy time. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/wo...y.html?_r=1&hp

By all means, let’s hold off on that, um, “victory lap” for the time being.

Your must-read of the day is this Jackson Diehl commentary on what will be, in short order, the new international reality on Iran: Trying to “contain” an Islamic fundamentalist regime that has nuclear weapons. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100204020.html

We all know the talks are going to go nowhere, so much so that Congress is already working on authorizing sanctions so that Obama can put them into practice at a moment’s notice. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elec...plomacy-fails/

Which is to say, we’re really just buying time too at this point. The reckoning will come next year.


See also : Wonderful: State Dep’t already backing off Obama’s two-week deadline for Iranian nuclear inspections
posted at 6:02 pm on October 2, 2009

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/0...r-inspections/

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

pepperpot

OMG having shell shocking flash backs

__________________
Mrs Pepperpot is a lady who always copes with the tricky situations that she finds herself in....