If anyone is actually listening

Juan Cole cuts through the fog and tells us what Biden really said instead of imitating the pundits and blowing smoke:

The top myths in the press this weekend about Vice President Joe Biden are that he was rebuffed in Iraq when he offered his good offices with regard to effecting Arab-Kurdish reconciliation, and that he gave Israel a green light to attack Iran. Neither thing appears to be true.

[snip]

So what Biden was really saying is that the Obama administration intends to engage Iran diplomatically, and that if anyone wants Iran attacked they will have to do it themselves. This is not a green light to the Israelis, who hardly need one. It is a tough message to the right wing of the Israel lobbies that the Obama administration is not going to launch any hostilities with Iran, even after the hard line power grab of three weeks ago.

Oh, and the statement may serve as a reminder to a recalcitrant Iran of what might happen to Tehran if it refuses to negotiate in good faith over its nuclear enrichment program. (By the way, that there is no good evidence that Iran is working on a nuclear warhead, and that its current technological capacity is too limited for it to dream of such a thing any time soon, was again underlined by incoming International Atomic Energy Agency head Yukiya Amano.

Meanwhile, the real administration position on hostilities with Iran was clearly stated by Adm. Mike Mullen, which is that they would produce enormous instability (implied is that such instability would be bad for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan).

In my view, Biden watchers still for the most part haven't gotten him right.

In an article for the San Francisco Chronicle, Cole is quoted:

Biden's comment "has a dual function of sending the message to Netanyahu that if he wants to cowboy it he is riding alone, and of warning the Iranians that Netanyahu might just be wild man enough to risk such a unilateral if Iran continues to be so intransigent with regard to seeking enrichment capabilities," Cole told me in an e-mail. "It is actually quite elegant."

Nice to see that Biden is adroit and clever rather than being what the medias' view of him is: an uncontrollable mouth. ... Which might just be intentional...

Is this to prepare us or scare us?

New York, NY (AHN) - The UN said Tuesday it will stage a mock nuclear accident Wedneday at Mexico's Laguna Verde nuclear power plant. The fake emergency is designed to test the responses of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN World Health Organization.

Oh, look, Cheney.

Iran is offering to talk. Just so you know there's another way to deal with Iran besides dropping all those wonderful bunker buster shock'n'awe bombs that make you feel so ... manly:

VIENNA, Austria — Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency said Friday that his country could suspend uranium enrichment if the United States and Western Europe agreed to acknowledge that its nuclear program was peaceful.

But Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh said there was a "serious confidence gap" between his country and the United States and Western Europe and that he saw little point in trying to "build confidence" with an American administration that had none in his country.

"We don't trust the United States," he told McClatchy Newspapers after the IAEA Board of Governors finished its latest round of talks on Iran's nuclear program. "We could suspend nuclear enrichment. We did it before for two and half years. But it wasn't enough then, and wouldn't be enough now. We will not suspend enrichment again because there is no end to what the United States will demand."

Diplomats said Soltanieh's remarks reflected what he'd been saying in private. "Iran is willing to deal," one said. "But they've made it clear there would have to be a quid pro quo, and they don't believe that's possible." The diplomats said they couldn't be quoted by name because of the sensitivity of the issue.

You really don't have to start WWIII or IV or whatever, you know, Dick. Talking actually does get things done occasionally...

Interview with Seymour Hersh

Via Steve Bates of The Yellow Doggerel Democrat, Seymour Hersh speaks to Spiegel Online:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was just in New York (more...) for the United Nations General Assembly. Once again, he said that he is only interested in civilian nuclear power instead of atomic weapons. How much does the West really know about the nuclear program in Iran?

Seymour Hersh: A lot. And it's been underestimated how much the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) knows. If you follow what (IAEA head Mohamed) ElBaradei (more...) and the various reports have been saying, the Iranians have claimed to be enriching uranium to higher than a 4 percent purity, which is the amount you need to run a peaceful nuclear reactor. But the IAEA's best guess is that they are at 3.67 percent or something. The Iranians are not even doing what they claim to be doing. The IAEA has been saying all along that they've been making progress but basically, Iran is nowhere. Of course the US and Israel are going to say you have to look at the worst case scenario, but there isn't enough evidence to justify a bombing raid.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is this just another case of exaggerating the danger in preparation for an invasion like we saw in 2002 and 2003 prior to the Iraq War?

Hersh: We have this wonderful capacity in America to Hitlerize people. We had Hitler, and since Hitler we've had about 20 of them. Khrushchev and Mao and of course Stalin, and for a little while Gadhafi was our Hitler. And now we have this guy Ahmadinejad. The reality is, he's not nearly as powerful inside the country as we like to think he is. The Revolutionary Guards have direct control over the missile program and if there is a weapons program, they would be the ones running it. Not Ahmadinejad.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Where does this feeling of urgency that the US has with Iran come from?

Hersh: Pressure from the White House. That's just their game.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What interest does the White House have in moving us to the brink with Tehran?

Hersh: You have to ask yourself what interest we had 40 years ago for going to war in Vietnam. You'd think that in this country with so many smart people, that we can't possibly do the same dumb thing again. I have this theory in life that there is no learning. There is no learning curve. Everything is tabula rasa. Everybody has to discover things for themselves.

So now even we are ignoring the IAEA?

And this shows the rest of the world that we are serious about containing bomb making plutonium? What does this action tell Iran? Who the hell thought this action up? WTF??:

WASHINGTON (August 1, 2007)—The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) today condemned the Department of Energy for proceeding with construction of a $5 billion South Carolina plant designed to turn plutonium into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel for U.S. nuclear reactors without honoring its commitment to make the plant available for inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Edwin Lyman, senior staff scientist in UCS's Global Security Program, said this move undermines the credibility of nuclear non-proliferation efforts at a time when the international community is struggling to stop the spread of nuclear weapons materials and technologies around the world.

In a letter sent to Energy Secretary Samuel L. Bodman, Lyman wrote, "…the U.S. has a responsibility to set the gold standard for safeguards and security as an example for Russia and for the rest of the world. Yet DOE has already failed to live up to that responsibility by shutting the IAEA out of the process for developing a safeguards regime for the MOX plant prior to construction."

An IAEA review of the plant design would provide assurances to the international community that the facility will be used for peaceful purposes, Lyman said. Such a gesture would be a "powerful symbol" to the rest of the world that the United States plays by the same rules that it urges other countries to follow.

If the Energy Department had arranged to put the plant under IAEA safeguards, it would have had to provide facility design information to the IAEA at least 180 days in advance of the start of construction.

"Unless the United States leads the way in demonstrating its commitment to the highest level of safeguards and security for facilities that process bomb-usable nuclear materials, it will be a virtually impossible task to encourage other nations to adopt high standards," said Lyman. "The Energy Department's irresponsible actions today will only increase the chance that other nations will defy the IAEA and nuclear weapons materials will fall into the hands of rogue states or terrorists."

Even International Atomic Energy chief ElBaradei thinks Lieberman is nuts

Well... he didn't really say that:

Vienna, Austria (AHN) - International Atomic Energy chief Mohamed ElBaradei said that an attack on Iran because of its nuclear program would be "madness" that would not solve the problem. His comments came at the end of an International Atomic Energy Agency meeting with the 35 member nations on Thursday. While warning against attacking Iran, ElBaradei also urged Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment and ease what has become a standoff with world powers.

Maybe more bonkers than nuts....

Does Cheney have access to the red button?

Since he is really the co-president and has amassed enormous powers for himself, can he declare war all by himself and tell the military to attack Iran? Is Bush that hypnotized that he would do what Cheney tells him to do? How close are we to pre-emptively nuking a sovereign nation?

The International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that Iran had expanded its nuclear programme, defying UN demands for it to be suspended. Hundreds of uranium-spinning centrifuges in an underground hall are expected to be increased to thousands by May when Iran moves to “industrial-scale production”. Senior British government sources have told The Times that they fear President Bush will seek to “settle the Iranian question through military means” next year, before the end of his second term if he concludes that diplomacy has failed. “He will not want to leave it unresolved for his successor,” said one.

But there are deep fissures within the US Administration. Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, who has previously called for direct talks with Tehran, is said to be totally opposed to military action.

Although he has dispatched a second US aircraft carrier to the Gulf, he is understood to believe that airstrikes would inflame Iranian public opinion and hamper American efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. One senior adviser to Mr Gates has even stated privately that military action could lead to Congress impeaching Mr Bush.

Condoleeza Rice, the Secretary of State, is also opposed to using force, while Steve Hadley, the President’s National Security Adviser, is said to be deeply sceptical.

The hawks are led by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, who is urging Mr Bush to keep the military option “on the table”. He is also pressing the Pentagon to examine specific war plans — including, it is rumoured, covert action.