The cost of the Iraq war? Nuclear proliferation?

The situation: The Iraq war and situation are worsening. A couple days ago some members of the Medhi army took over a town, for a short time, declaring the formation of an "Republic" in Iraq that's outside the central government. Their leader told them to stand down, and they did, but it certainly reflects the will on the street. Namely undoing the damage done by the British 100 years ago when they caused the three peoples, Kurds, Sunni and Shia to form a single country.

The situation: Iran may or may not be developing nuclear weapons. They have a nuclear program whose side effects include weapons grade material. Their president is being very confrontational with the rest of the world, but to be fair the Bush administration only knows confrontaton as well.

The situation: North Korea has recently exploded a small nuclear bomb, giving them entree to the exclusive club of countries who have nuclear weapons.

In 2002 GW Bush declared an Axis of Evil vowing to stop nuclear proliferation etc. It was Iraq, Iran and North Korea he said was in this Axis. But we see the failure of that declaration, don't we?

The Iraq war has gone terribly astray. This article The week the war unravelled: Bush to 'refocus' Iraq strategy gives a rundown of the recent events that illustrate this. Emergency meetings with the leaders of the Iraq war effort, calls for quick pullout from Iraq, growing calls for a partitioning of Iraq into three semi-autonomous zones, etc.

At the same time we have real nuclear proliferation happening. Nuclear proliferation being the real danger in this world, not this ephemeral danger of Terrorism, and not this false danger that was Iraq. They propped up Iraq as the extreme threat and conned us into launching a war there, while at the same time the real threats grew and grew.

And what of Pakistan? Pakistan is the country from whom both Iran and North Korea acquired their nuclear technology. Without Pakistan exporting nuclear know-how neither of these countries would have gotten as far as they are. Yet, are we threatening Pakistan? Nope. They are (supposedly) U.S. allies.

And what of the Taliban and al Qaeda? They are having a resurgence in Afghanistan.

The key theme I'm seeing in all this is the mismanagement of Iraq. The situation in Iraq seems to be highly distracting, leading U.S. leadership to focus all their attention on Iraq while other countries and situations are not getting the attention they deserve.

I think we can call this "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater" eh?

The US and Iran: Is Washington Planning a Military Strike? - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

There's been a continuing confrontation between the U.S., the E.U. and Iran over Iran's nuclear power program. Iran has been building nuclear reactors, some of which weren't initially disclosed to the International Atomic Energy Commission, and whose designs could be used to build weapons grade nuclear material. They've promised up and down, those reactors were purely for "peaceful" purposes, but then why would they choose a nuclear reaction that produces weapons grade material if they had a peaceful purpose? Especially as they hid the existance of the reactors?

Coincidentally Iran's plan helps justify the neocon plan to rearrange the political map of the Middle East. So it shouldn't be surprising the Bush administration has been taking a hardline stance towards Iran. The neocon agenda is to create a war against Iran, and taking a hardline stance is the way to gaurantee a war. It worked in Iraq didn't it?

This has been developing for awhile, and as I've posted before it appears to be following the same pattern as was used to cook up justification to attack Iraq. Pressure has been kept hard on Iran, and the Bush Administration rhetoric has been that "all options are on the table" just as they said with Iraq.

In the case of the attack on Iraq, all the justifications given by the administration have been proven to be false. And it's clear that the administration knew the falsity of most of their statements while they were claiming up and down it was all true. In other words, they were lying. And lots of people around the world, including the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, have said the war in Iraq is illegal etc.

On the other hand the allegations against Iran are largely true. Iran itself has admitted to having this nuclear program. And it is a worry to have nuclear weapon capabilities proliferate beyond the set of countries that currently have that capability. So it's a puzzle where to stand. The Bush Administration has a very poor track record, and are obviously holding an agenda dating back to the mid-90's (or further) to destroy Iran's government.

In any case, right now there are some serious rumors being published in Germany saying the U.S. is clearly planning to launch an attack on Iran.

Here's some pointers to discussion:

The US and Iran: Is Washington Planning a Military Strike? (December 30, 2005, Der SPIEGEL ONLINE)

US planning strike against Iran (Dec. 31, 2005 19:33, By JPOST.COM STAFF)

Rumors Of War (January 01, 2006, Past Peak blog)

Attacking Iran (December 31, 2005, John Robb's weblog)

The source is an article in the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel. I don't have a link to that article (and no doubt it's in German) but the Der Spiegel article is a good substitute:

In a report published on Wednesday, the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel also cited NATO intelligence sources claiming that Washington's western allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. Of course, Bush has publicly stated for months that he would not take the possibility of a military strike off the table. What's new here, however, is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year.

... According to DDP, during his trip to Turkey, CIA chief Goss reportedly handed over three dossiers to Turkish security officials that purportedly contained evidence that Tehran is cooperating with Islamic terror network al-Qaida. A further dossier is said to contain information about the current status of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Sources in German security circles told the DDP reporter that Goss had ensured Ankara that the Turkish government would be informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened. The Turkish government has also been given the "green light" to strike camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran on the day in question.

... But the string of visits by high-profile US politicians to Turkey and surrounding reports are drawing new attention to the issue. In recent weeks, the number of American and NATO security officials heading to Ankara has increased dramatically. Within a matter of only days, the FBI chief, then the CIA chief and, most recently, NATO General Secretary Jaap De Hoop Scheffer visited the Turkish capital. During her visit to Europe earlier this month, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also traveled to Turkey after a stopover in Berlin.

Leading the chorus of speculation are Turkish newspapers, which have also sought to connect these visits to plans for an attack on Iran. But so far none of the speculation has been based on hard facts. Writing about the meeting between Porter Goss and Tayyip Erdogan, the left-nationalist newspaper Cumhuriyet wrote: "Now It's Iran's Turn." But the paper didn't offer any evidence to corroborate the claims.

So the Der Spiegel article is not claiming outright there's a war being prepared. But it points to evidence something is going on, even if it's being kept secret enough we aren't knowing what it's about. The Jerusalem Post article is, then, overhyping the truth for some reason. Perhaps the people in Israel are more alarmed by Iran, because the President of Iran has made repeated speeches recently calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, claiming the Holocaust was a hoax, etc.

Iran rejects Russia nuclear plan (Jan 1, 2006, BBC): Russia apparently proposed doing nuclear processing on their terroritory, so that Iran wouldn't be doing the processing. I think the worry is about the expansion of the number of countries who have nuclear weapons capability. In the Der Spiegel article it quoted some General saying that the time to act is "now" because if we wait too long Iran will have their nuclear capability and it will be too late. But Iran rejected the Russian plan.

Iran vows 'crushing response' to attack by U.S., Israel (Haaretz): Tough talk between Iran and Israel just proving they don't like each other. The article provides an interesting overview of the tensions.

US planning to strike Iran's nuke facilities: Report (January 01, 2006 19:36 IST, rediff.com): Describes the proposed attack on Iran as just to destroy the nuclear facilities, rather than an all-out war. I suppose they might be hoping for something like Israel's 80's attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities. But in todays Middle East I suspect it would only fan the flames further, seeing the U.S. as an occupying power.

A 2006 U.S. plan to attack Iran detailed (12/31/2005 10:20:00 PM GMT, aljazeera.com): Details the same story as above, but adds to it a statement by Cheney in Jan 2005. He made a vague statement to MSNBC that Israel might be doing the dirty work (bombing Iran's nuclear facilities) leaving the rest of the international community to clean up the consequences later. Hurm.

Depleted Uranium is safe, according to the U.S. DoD

Here's a pointer to several studies and claims around depleted uranium. The most interesting is a U.S. Defense Department study concluding there's little harm from using DU weapons. Of course, what else do you expect from the people who are most liable for damage caused by the weapons.

Depleted Uranium All That Deadly? (defensetech.org November 21, 2005)

Their claim is that DU weapons show little increase in cancer among military personell.

Okay, that may be true. However it's clear the issue doesn't stop with the military folk. Once the battle is over, what happens to the battleground? People will move back to their homes, but now their homesites are littered with the dust made when DU weapons hit their targets. Hence, the people are moving back to a place infested with radioactive dust.

Let's be clear - the radiation emitted by depleted uranium isn't very harmful. It is primarily alpha particles, which have little penetrating power, and therefore are not harmful unless you "eat" the depleted uranium. If DU dust enters the bloodstream the alpha particles can cause a lot of damage, but the damage occurs only if it enters the body.

And that's the point. When a DU weapon hits a target, it tends to turn into dust. The military might "clean up" the battlefield after the battle is over, but how can they clean up the dust? Hence there will be a residue left afterwards, and that residue will mix with the environment, and enter peoples bodies as, for example, they eat food grown on the ground of the former battlefield.

Clearly DU weapons are excellent at what they're designed to do - namely to penetrate armor and other kinds of fortified positions. That's why the military uses them.

Here's some alternate viewpoints:

Campaign Against Depleted Uranium: http://www.cadu.org.uk/

Poisinous Legacy: http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

Uranium Medical Research Center http://www.umrc.net/

Depleted Uranium: How the Pentagon Radiates Soldiers & Civilians with DU Weapons http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/mettoc.htm

New U.S. nuclear strategy brings nukes to the table in preemptive war

Our dear president has been pushing a general strategy of preemption. That was the justification for invading Iraq, that there was a perceived threat, a possibility that Iraq was a danger, and hence they were a worthy target. But we know what happened there, it has become a total boondoggle, the perceived danger was nothing but lies spun by Iraqi dissidents who hadn't set foot in the country in decades, the U.N. Secretary General has declared this an illegal war, and the President deserves impeachment.

In the movie Minority Report we saw a demonstration of the fallacy of preemptive enforcement based on a prediction of aggression. In the movie they had psychics predicting when murders would happen, and sure enough the murder rate went to zero. But the movie presented us with a conundrum, if you can't accurately predict the future then how can you enforce the law based on a fallable prediction? Do you lock someone up just because they're thinking about murder? Or do you wait for the murder to happen?

But this is just what the Bush Administration has been pursuing. The doctrine of preemptive war based on the prediction on whether some country or another will become an agressor. Uh, excuse me but by crossing that line then haven't we become the agressor? So by that logic shouldn't we then attack ourselves in order to stop our agression?

In any case let's get to the current story.

Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan; Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons (By Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writer,Sunday, September 11, 2005)

Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations

Nuclear Doctrine

Nuclear Weapons Policy

Draft US Defense Paper Outlines Preventive Nuclear Strikes

New U.S. doctrine proposes nuclear strikes

What's happened is that the DoD has been studying its navel and redesigning the nuclear strategy. "A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction." (washington post)

The new strategy outlines several instances under which commanders can request the use of nuclear weapons. The instances include preemtive strikes against countries or organizations that are possible threats.

The code phrase "all options" is used, and we've seen how "all options" really means they're planning to do it.

The plan is being distributed in draft form and published on a Defense Department website (see here for links). I've attached a copy of the plan to this page.

Early in the document the strategy is described as having four key goals. These are "steadfastness of purpose", "dissuading adversaries", "deterring agression and coercion" and "decisively defeating enemies". Essentially the strategy is the best defense is a good offense. The deterrence part is simply to deter agression by threatening everybody with a big stick, namely the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

And, of course, for the U.S. nuclear arsenal to have value, the number of nuclear armed nations must be kept to a minimum. Hence the current threats being made against Iran and North Korea. But it's puzzling why Pakistan isn't also being threatened, because Pakistan was actively proliferating nuclear technology. But then we know that Pakistan is a critical player in bring Central Asian oil to the world market.

Read it and weep my friends.

Attachment	Size
jp3_12fc2.pdf	1.76 MB

An interesting opposition view to the U.S. nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

As I write this, the U.S. has invaded Iraq in a boondoggle of a war that supposedly was meant to remove "Weapons of Mass Destruction" from Iraqi hands. This weekend is also the 60th anniversary of the only use of nuclear weapons in wartime, done by U.S. hands supposedly to hasten the end of WWII.

I suppose the power of official propoganda is shown by: Why was the atomic bomb dropped in 1945? A Greenpeace background briefing summarising the American debate on the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (by Bill Totten) For his blog posting, he is referencing the following Grean Peace report: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/7147.pdf

What Bill Totten reports is that the official story we were told concerning the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not quite truthful. If you recall, the justification we, the populace of the U.S., were given is that there were several choices to finish the defeat of Japan. One choice would be to invade the Japanese mainland to deliver the final blows which would cause the Japanese surrender. Such an invasion, you can expect, would cost many more lives.

The other choice was to use this new weapon. To demonstrate American might and cause the immediate surrender of the Japanese forces, that was the goal.

However, Bill Totten relates that many in the Truman administration openly opposed using this weapon. For example:

A few years after Hiroshima in 1950 Admiral William Leahy, US Chief of Staff under both Roosevelt and Truman, publicly declared his opposition to the dropping of the atomic bomb:

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarious weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender ...

"My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

Further he tells of Trumans actual thinking, revealed in recently declassified documents. Namely, the global geopolitical position with Russia was in Trumans mind. He wanted a way to contain Russia's rise to superpower status. Of particular importance was the meeting at Potsdam, and Truman especially wanted to demonstrate to the Russians the nuclear weaponry developed by the U.S. to have the upper hand in the Potsdam negotiations.

It's very enlightening to think of the current lies we've been told about Iraq, and put them in light of the previous near-lies about Hiroshima.

As background material, he references these books:

Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman and the Surrender of Japan

The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb

A World Destroyed: Hiroshima and Its Legacies

The Atomic Bomb: The Critical Issues

American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J Robert Oppenheimer

Living With the Bomb: American and Japanese Cultural Conflicts in the Nuclear Age

Rethinking Cold War Culture

Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial

Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb

Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of the Atomic Bombs Against Japan

Iran nuclear resolution adopted (IAEA)

The International Atomic Energy Administration has adopted a resolution on how they will proceed in regards to Iran.

Iran nuclear resolution adopted
Monday, November 29, 2004 Posted: 2:08 PM EST (1908 GMT) CNN.COM

This follows final negotiations on Sunday

Iran confirms 'final' uranium deal
From CNN Correspondent Kasra Naji
Monday, November 29, 2004 Posted: 12:33 PM EST (1733 GMT)

The IAEA web site is
here.
With the resolution (pdf) and a

full report.

Iran Refuses to Stop Using Uranium Enrichment Equipment

Iran Refuses to Stop Using Uranium Enrichment Equipment

By ELAINE SCIOLINO Published: November 25, 2004 NYTIMES.COM

In an on-again-off-again deal, the Iranians are now refusing to change their ways.

The Iranian refusal threatened to scuttle a nuclear agreement that Iran reached 10 days ago with France, Britain and Germany to freeze all of Iran's uranium enrichments activities, European officials said. It also gave new ammunition to the Bush administration, which contends that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program and cannot be trusted.

The impasse coincided with the opening of crucial meetings to review Iran's nuclear program at the International Atomic Energy Agency here, the United Nations nuclear monitoring body that has the authority to refer Iran to the United Nations for possible censure or sanctions.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the agency chief, said in a speech today that Iran has so far failed to meet its pledge to freeze uranium enrichment in full because of its insistence on operating 20 centrifuges for research.

Or, are they refusing?

Iran vows to honor nuclear pledge
Friday, November 26, 2004 Posted: 7:40 AM EST (1240 GMT) CNN.COM
In this report CNN describes the same situation as a request for an "exemption".

Before the IAEA meeting began on Thursday, ElBaradei said that Iran's 18-year concealment of its enrichment programme had undermined international confidence in the Islamic state.

"A confidence deficit has been created, and confidence needs to be restored. Iran's active cooperation and full transparency is therefore indispensable," he said.

Okay, whew, they backed down on requesting the exemption anyway.

Iran Uranium Dispute Resolved, Diplomats Report

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: November 26, 2004 NYTIMES.COM

One of the diplomats told The Associated Press that under the compromise, Iran would give up its insistence that 20 centrifuges be exempted from a total freeze of all uranium enrichment activities.

But instead of accepting seals from the International Atomic Energy Agency on the equipment, the centrifuges would be monitored for inactivity by IAEA cameras, said the diplomat, who is familiar with Iran's nuclear dossier and who spoke on condition of anonymity.

C.I.A. Says Pakistanis Gave Iran Nuclear Aid

Yup, our dear "allies", the Pakistani's, have been busy proliferating nuclear technology. Tell me again why we invaded Iraq and not Pakistan?

C.I.A. Says Pakistanis Gave Iran Nuclear Aid


By DOUGLAS JEHL Published: November 24, 2004 NYTIMES.COM

A new report from the Central Intelligence Agency says the arms trafficking network led by the Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan provided Iran's nuclear program with "significant assistance," including the designs for "advanced and efficient" weapons components.

The unclassified version of the report, posted Tuesday on the agency's Web site, www.cia.gov, does not say explicitly whether Mr. Khan's network sold Iran complete plans for building a warhead, as the network is known to have done for Libya and perhaps North Korea. But it suggests that American intelligence agencies now believe that the bomb-making designs provided by the network to Iran in the 1990's were more significant than the United States government has previously disclosed.

In a recent closed-door speech to a private group, George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, described Mr. Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, as being "at least as dangerous as Osama bin Laden" because of his role in providing nuclear technology to other countries. A tape recording of the speech was obtained by The New York Times.

Going to cia.gov, we find the report here:

(http://cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/july_dec2003.htm)
Attachment A:
Unclassified Report to Congress
on the Acquisition of Technology
Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction
and Advanced Conventional Munitions,

1 July Through 31 December 2003

More on revelations of Irans nuclear program

Exiles Add to Claims on Iran Nuclear Arms

By ELAINE SCIOLINO, Published: November 18, 2004 (NY Times)

This is the announcement that was promised yesterday. Despite my skepticism yesterday, this group was responsible for the initial unveiling of the story that Iran is enriching Uranium to make bomb-grade material. That gives them some credibility, no matter how "convenient" it is for the neocon war plans.

This is the group

The claims, made in separate news conferences in Paris and Vienna by a group known as the National Council of Resistance, the political front for the People's Mujahedeen, could not be independently verified, and independent nuclear experts were divided about whether they could be true.

These new charges come two days after the agreement was reached, and

The charges also come eight days before the 35-country ruling board of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations nuclear watchdog, opens meetings in Vienna to decide whether Iran has curbed its nuclear activities or should be referred to the Security Council for censure.

The timing couldn't have been more dramatic, huh?

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a nonpartisan arms control group in Washington, said, "The timing of these revelations raises suspicions that the group is attempting to derail Iran's deal with the Europeans, particularly since there is no evidence to back up any of these claims."

Yup, couldn't have said it better myself.

This is troubling, but probably very true

The nuclear agency has long suspected that Iran, like Libya, received bomb blueprints from the secretive network set up by Abdul Qadeer Khan, known in Pakistan as the father of the country's nuclear bomb. Among the Mujahedeen's charges on Wednesday was that the Iranian blueprints came from the Khan network.

In September, the agency revealed that as early as 1995, Pakistan was providing Tehran with the designs for advanced centrifuges capable of making bomb-grade nuclear fuel. The Iranians have never acknowledged that the source was Pakistan.

I.A.E.A. inspectors were able to nail down the connection between Iran and Pakistan because of similar centrifuge packaging material they found in Libya and Iran.

It was revealed last year that Pakistan was actively selling their nuclear technology, and that the head of their nuclear program (named above) was in charge of the sales. Now .. consider the reason the U.S. invaded Iraq. Among them was this dubious claim of nuclear proliferation in Iraq, which has since been proved false. At the same time we are treating Pakistan as a valued ally. At the same time it is Pakistan that is the worst offender you could possibly imagine in nuclear proliferation, namely they were involved in selling nuclear technology to Libya, Iran and probably North Korea.

Why, then are we treating Pakistan as an ally?

Not that I know ... but let me offer a few clues

1. Pakistan is on the oil pipeline route: This is the oil pipeline that Michael Moore talks of in
   Fahrenheit 9/11. If you haven't been following the news, there's
   been a bunch of U.S. activity north of Afghanistan that is conveniently along the route of the proposed pipeline. The pipeline would go from the Caspian Sea, across the north side of Iran, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, and thence to the sea. It must avoid Iran for political reasons.
2. Pakistan was the staging ground for the U.S. previous "work" in Afghanistan, and needed to be a staging ground for the current work there: In the 1980's the U.S. was waging a proxy war against the USSR to oust them from Afghanistan. The only foothold we had then was Pakistan, and we used Pakistan as an intermediary point to give weapons and training to, er, Osama bin Laden's troops.
3. The U.S. needed in strategic terms to encircle Iran as much as possible: Ever since the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1977, the U.S. and Iran have been enemies. The U.S. administration under Reagan supplied weapons and training to Iraq to help Iraq contain Iran, Iraq at the time being led by Saddam Hussein (yes, in the 80's, the U.S. was feeding the guy we now label a devil).

External Media

Group Says Iran Has Secret Nuclear Arms Program (NY Times)

To add a twist to the Iran story, we have an Iranian dissident group claiming

Group Says Iran Has Secret Nuclear Arms Program

By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: November 17, 2004 (NY Times)

An Iranian opposition group says it has new evidence that Iran is producing enriched uranium at a covert Defense Ministry facility in Tehran that has not been disclosed to United Nations inspectors.

The group, the National Council for Resistance in Iran, is planning to announce its finding in Paris on Wednesday. The group says that inspection of the site would demonstrate that Iran is secretly trying to produce nuclear weapons even while promising to freeze a critical part of its declared nuclear program, which it maintains is intended purely for civilian purposes.

A senior official of the group, Muhammad Mohaddessin, said in a telephone interview late on Tuesday that the group had shared the new information "very recently'' with the International Atomic Energy Agency. But he and other officials of the group said it had not discussed the matter with the United States government, and its claims could not be verified.

It's all very convenient, isn't it? A few days ago Iran and the EU come to an agreement to halt Iran's uranium enrichment, only to be met by U.S. grumbles that we'll have to see if they really live up to it. And a few days later this dissident group unveils new evidence.

Reminds me of the Iraqi dissident groups used by Washington DC to promote stories that justified the invasion of Iraq, but those stories turned out to be entirely false. (mobile weapons labs, that never were found, and more)

To be fair - Iran has admitted to an Uranium enrichment program that would, as a side effect, make weapons-grade materials. And they were doing this outside the globally agreed-to parameters that all such activities be done under the inspection rituals established by the UN. Nuclear profileration is of great concern, and the world had previously agreed that the best approach to controlling the spread of this dangerous weapon was for every country to submit to UN inspection. Part of the struggle at the moment is that North Korea, Iran, and a small number of other countries, have refused to submit to these inspections, and have since been caught secretly enriching Uranium to make weapons grade materials.

At the same time we must remember that the Neocon agenda is to reshape the middle east with this folly of a plan to "install democracy" by first toppling Iraq's government, and then Iran's. The "it's convenient" I alluded to above is how convenient it is for the Neocon agenda that someone stepped forward to challenge the EU/Iran agreement just when it appeared the justification to invade Iran might have been crumbling.

Iran agrees to suspend uranium enrichment

Iran agrees to suspend uranium enrichment
Sunday, November 14, 2004 Posted: 7:02 PM EST (0002 GMT) (CNN.COM)

The article is saying that Iran has reached an agreement with the EU proposals. This is the negotiations I've been tracking in this category. This is good news, as it removes one of the justifications the neocon's were likely to employ before invading Iran.

Of course, to make sure it's not so simple, the neocon's have this to say:

The U.S. State Department had no immediate reaction to Sunday's report, but spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters last week, "The question of where they stand -- where Iran stands -- when we get to the board meeting is the important one."

"Will Iran have complied at that point with the requirements of the IAEA board?," Boucher asked. "Will the IAEA be in a position to verify that and to say that they are engaging in the verification of that kind of promise and activity?"

He added, "Ultimately, it's what Iran does that matters, not just what they have agreed to."

Documents: U.S. had plan to nuke N. Korea

Documents: U.S. had plan to nuke N. Korea
Seoul, South Korea, Nov. 7 (UPI) in Washington Times

The article summarises a newly declassified report on the battle plans considered against North Korea in 1998. Among them was a plan to nuke them, if they attacked South Korea.

Iran rejects EU proposal

Iran rejects EU move to halt nuclear plans
(Filed: 24/10/2004)
see story here

Summary: The proposal previously noted has been rejected by Iran as being "unbalanced". It sounds, though, as if the rejection doesn't halt negotiations, they're just looking for more balanced terms.

UPDATE: [October 26]


A Hint of a Nuclear Compromise by Iran By THE NEW YORK TIMES

"The European proposal for an unlimited suspension of uranium enrichment can be implemented, provided it does not contradict the Islamic Republic's criteria," the ISNA news agency quoted the nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rowhani, as saying on Monday.

"We have said that we accept the suspension as long as it is voluntary,'' Mr. Rowhani said. "No country has the right to deprive us of our right."