Two U.S. administration officials told CNN on Sunday that the United States plans to tell Iran this week it must provide "unfettered access" to the Qom site, the people involved in its construction and the timeline of its construction "within weeks."The faces have changed, it's not Colin Powell and Rummy, but William Gates and Hillary. The country is not Iraq, but Iran. The message is 2002 all over again: comply or face sanctions. The "or worse" is implied.The latest dispute comes ahead of planned talks Thursday involving Iran and the United States, Britain, Germany, France, Russia, and China about international concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
In interviews broadcast Sunday, top U.S. officials said Iran's newly revealed underground nuclear facility violates international requirements for reporting such operations, reinforcing the perception that Iran is trying to hide a weapons program.
"I think that, certainly, the intelligence people have no doubt that ... this is an illicit nuclear facility, if only ... because the Iranians kept it a secret," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on CNN's "State of the Union" program.
"If they wanted it for peaceful nuclear purposes, there's no reason to put it so deep underground, no reason to be deceptive about it, keep it a ... secret for a protracted period of time," Gates said in the interview recorded Friday.
In a separate interview on the CBS program "Face the Nation," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for the strongest possible sanctions if Iran can't prove a peaceful intent for the newly disclosed facility and its entire nuclear program.
"It would have been disclosed if it were for peaceful purposes," said Clinton, who also was interviewed Friday. She added that Iran must do more than provide assurances at the meeting on Thursday, because past assurances proved false.
"They can open up their entire system to the kind of extensive investigation that the facts call for," Clinton said. Later, she said: "The Iranians keep insisting no, no, that's for peaceful purposes. That's fine. Prove it. Don't assert it. Prove it."
Anyone else believe Obama will soon be pushing for a drawdown in Afghanistan so we can move onto Iran? Remember, if the news on Iran is to be believed, we've known about Iran's second facility for quite some time now. Only now is the heavy push for sanctions starting again. What's different?
Somebody at the top has made a decision. That decision is "Afghanistan on the back burner and Iran is now the priority."
Posts
3 comments:
Zandar, I respect your opinions and your skepticism but this is crazy talk. I don't mean just because Obama is not Bush, but the "run up" by the administration is targeted in a totally different direction. Specifically France and Russia would give the US ZERO support if they thought we were leaning towards military action. France was a vocal proponent against invasion in Iraq and Russia is an ally of Iran. Additionally, Gates himself said this very Sunday that "the reality is there is no military option that does anything more than buy time.". That seems definitive to me, and Obama is not stupid enough to think eliminating one site (if that is even possible) would somehow keep them from developing the technology. Even further, Israel has stopped making motions towards a strike in Iran with Defense Minister Barak backing away from talk about military actions (even though they still leave the option on the table).
Your skepticism has descended into paranoia, listen to the voices of Booman and others with their ears closer to the WH's train of thought and I think you will see your fears are unjustified. There is just not enough of a push by the administration for military action to think that that is the direction they are going in, don't forget we already suffer significant war fatigue and a vastly overstretched military.
Alright Paul.
If I'm paranoid, then why do we have such a strong push for sanctions with inspections now? This is how the Iraq war started, is it not? An American President calling for inspections or else?
Now maybe you're right and I hope I am in fact waaaaaaaaay off base here. Another war at this point would be suicidal, I agree with you. Obama is not Bush...
...Except for the civil liberties and terrorism issues where Obama is actively pushing the Bush position.
Once again, if we're not pushing for military action, why the Sunday blitz this week?
What happens when Iran says no to international inspectors?
The difference is that no one within the administration is calling Iran an existential threat. We pulled back on the missile shield in Europe, which could have been used to emphasize such a threat. We are in a media blitz because they just released information about Iran having a second facility, whose existence was leaked in order to get sanctions. There is no military action that will keep Iran from getting weapons, as Gates said, and there is not the means nor the will for another invasion either within the current leadership or in the American public. I don't see anyone nodding their heads towards the idea of invading Iran like we did for Iraq, nor is anyone calling for it other than John Bolton and his Republican war mongers. Iraq was a once in a generation example to people that we can't just start wars without consequences. It's sad that the American psyche is structured that way, but I would argue that everyone but the 25% of the nation that believes birtherism are not going along with the idea of another war.
Post a Comment