The Blue State

Iran Lying for Leverage?

Experts and world powers are expressing doubt about Iran's claims of nuclearcapabilities. I don't know which is more disturbing, Iran's act of defianceafter the U.N.'s imposed sanctions, or the possibility of the Bushadministration taking matters into their own hands. 

   

The Washington Posts's article RussiaSkeptical About Iran Announcement

MOSCOW -- Russia voiced skepticism Tuesday about Iran's announcement of adramatic expansion of its uranium enrichment effort, saying it had not receivedconfirmation of the claim.

Their article DoubtsRemain Over Iran's Nuclear Claims gives some insight about the skepticism.

 

VIENNA,Austria-- Is Iran bluffing about the progress of its nuclear program? Experts and someworld powers are expressing doubt that the country has been able to assemble thecomplicated system it needs to enrich uranium _ a potential pathway to nucleararms.

If true, Iran's revelation Monday that it now has 3,000 centrifuges producing enricheduranium brings the country a giant step closer to being able to produce thenuclear material for a bomb. But the inaccuracy of some past claims _ and Iran's present drive to defy the U.N. Security Council _ has fed skepticism.

Experts say 3,000 centrifuges would be more than enough for at least onenuclear weapon a year should Iran decide to make bombs instead of its professed goal of generating power.

 

Some experts feel that Iran may be exaggerating for negotiatingleverage. 

With its nuclear activities shrouded in suspicions,

Iran's claims are difficult to independently verify. Exaggerating the number ofcentrifuges gives the Iranians more room to negotiate with world powers _ andpossibly allow them to hold out and keep some vestige of a nuclear enrichmentprogram.

 

"This is a country that routinely lies about conventional weaponsdevelopments and production," said Anthony Cordesman, an analyst with theCenter for Strategic and International Studies. 

Taipei Times: IranPlans to Install 50,000 Centrifuges

The Christian Science Monitor: IranRemains Defiant After New U.N. Sanctions

Kremlin critic critically wounded for speaking out against Russian gov't

You would have figured that the British government's push to expose the KGB's involvement in the poisoning of an ex-Russian spy would have made the Russian government think twice about continuing to engage in aggressive behavior.  Think again.

Just four days after telling Dateline NBC about the KGB's terrorist capabilities, Russian expert Paul Joyal was gunned down outside his home:

A few hours after meeting a former KGB general outside theInternational Spy Museum in Washington, D.C., an outspoken critic ofthe Kremlin was shot Thursday outside his Maryland home.

So what did he say on Dateline that could have caused such a stir? 

The shooting occurred four days after the critic, Paul M. Joyal, warnedon “Dateline NBC,” the television news magazine, that a “message hasbeen communicated to anyone who wants to speak out against the Kremlin:‘If you do, no matter who you are, where you are, we will find you andwe will silence you in the most horrible way possible.”

Maryland police say the shooting was unrelated.  But the way things have been going with regard to KGB behavior on foreign soil, many would think otherwise.

Fear can keep people in check.  Sooner or later though, fear leads to a populist backlash.  That was what happened yesterday in St. Petersburg, Russia, where thousands of demonstrators took to the streets to protest Vladimir Putin's recent consolidation of power.

Bush's verbal exchange with Putin sums up how G8 talks went

There are moments when some people say things without thinking first, and you tell yourself, "This is not the time or the place to say that."  Yesterday, during President Bush’s press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, we saw one of those moments.

With an open-eared Condoleezza Rice looking on with an abnormally blank stare from the first row, Bush did something that leaders never should do when trying to build a coalition of support on a particular issue: tell another leader how to run his country when standing right next to him. 

When a reporter asked Bush and Putin how they will work together for worldwide democratic reforms, Bush explained that he would like to see Russia improve its democracy:

Bush said that, during two hours of discussions, 'I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion. I told [Putin] a lot of people in our country ... would hope that Russia would do the same thing. I fully understand, however, that there will be a Russian style of democracy.'

Putin replied, smiling: 'I'll be honest with you: we, of course, would not want to have a democracy like in Iraq.' Bush interrupted to say 'Just wait' - a reference to Iraq's democracy being in its infancy - before Putin continued: 'Nobody knows better than us how we can strengthen our own nation. But we know for sure that we cannot strengthen our nation without developing democratic institutions. And this is the path that we'll certainly take; but certainly we will do this by ourselves.'

When you upstage a world leader by telling him how to run his own country, regardless of how right you are, you are only asking for him to snap back at you and embarrass you in front of the international press.

No one questions the undeniable fact that Russia is a corrupt country, and that it has a long way to go before it can legitimately say that it is implementing a true republican democracy.  But don’t go onto his turf and tell him that.  It’s called diplomacy – something that after five and a half years Bush should be skilled at by now.

This meeting between Bush and Putin was important because it covered three major security issues: Iran, the western Middle East bloodshed and North Korea. 

Unfortunately, Vladimir Putin's decision not to pressure North Korea to give up its nuclear program did not help the situation.  It adds proof to the opinion held by some, including myself, that relying on China and Russia to solve the North Korean standoff is counterproductive.  Both China and Russia want to stall talks because they want the U.S. to get bogged down on North Korea, which would then depreciate U.S. geopolitical influence in East Asia. As I have explained over the last month, the most efficient and productive way to go about this is to talk face-to-face with the North Koreans.  Yes, North Korea has shown in the past that they like to break agreements.  But opening dialogue with the Pyongyang-base regime would put the necessary groundwork in place that would make the U.S. better able to adapt if North Korea did go back on its word.  Bottom line: stop relying on Russia.  Work with them on Iran.  But when it comes to North Korea, this is our issue, not Russia's, because it deals with our national security.  Our Administration should not mortgage our national security to the Russians and Chinese.

Even without that verbal mess-up by Bush in front of Putin, the G8 talks were a failure.  It would be nice to see some proactive diplomacy on the part of Bush.  It would also help if he didn't act like this whole diplomacy thing was new to him.
---------------------------------------------------------
Other blogs writing about this issue: Finance Trends Matter, Phillybits, Allen Roland, Truthdig, Our Tomorrow, Media Orchard, Liberal Christians, No More Apples, Crazed Mom, The Agonist, Tarfumes, In Search of Utopia.

Irony: Cheney says Russia uses oil as "tools of intimidation"

Is it just me, or is what Dick Cheney said today about Russia's oppressive government very ironic?  You be the judge:

"No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools ofintimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts tomonopolize transportation.  And no one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbor, or interfere with democratic movements."

What he said was obviously true.  Russia is trying to consolidate power and turn back the clock on democracy.  However, when such words come out of the mouth of Dick Cheney -- the man who allowed the oil industry to write the President's energy policy in his first term -- all you can do is hang your head and stare at the ground in utter amazement.