Countdown To Armageddon (10/1/09)

Funny how Barack Obama is willing to completely forego any preconditions for any and all "talks" with the Iranian mullahgarchy, but is perfectly happy to capitulate to all of theirs.  We already know that the mullahs will not discuss their nuclear weapons program with us.  Now they refuse to "talk" about even the possibility or mention of sanctions as well:

The United States will not push for sanctions against Iran in Thursday’s multilateral talks on its nuclear program in Geneva and is prepared to talk one-on-one with Iranian negotiators if such engagement appears “useful,” senior administration officials said Wednesday.

The officials also said that while gaining access to inspect Iran’s uranium enrichment facility near Qom is “critically important,” the U.S. won’t walk away from negotiations if Iran refuses.

Um....if they won't discuss their nuclear weapons program OR sanctions with us, what, exactly, is there left to talk about?  Our mutual taste in prayer rugs?  Anti-Semitic jokes?  Mutual George W. Bush assassination fantasies?  How Ahmadinejad can save Red Barry a bundle on his auto insurance by switching to Geico?

~  ~  ~

Continuing an emerging theme, the (almost) complete role-reversal of the former "warmongering cowboys" versus the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" continues apace:

Under President Nicolas Sarkozy, France has adopted an increasingly hard-edged approach to Iran, often out ahead of the Obama administration with uncompromising language criticizing Iranian leaders and warning that their nuclear program threatens world peace.

The French attitude reflects Sarkozy’s assessment that acquiescing to unsupervised nuclear development by Tehran would be perilous, risking an Israeli attack on Iranian installations and increasing instability in the Middle East. In addition, French analysts said, Sarkozy feels that Europe got nowhere with Iran in several years of what was called “constructive dialogue” and that it is time to move on to stronger measures in tandem with Washington.

As a result, French diplomats at a crucial meeting Thursday in Geneva are likely to push for swift, punitive sanctions unless Iran pledges unequivocally to open its entire nuclear program to international inspection to ensure Tehran is not developing atomic weapons. Jean-Pierre Maulny, a specialist in European defense at the Paris-based Institute for International and Strategic Relations, said Germany and Britain are likely to agree because they also feel the constructive dialogue bore no fruit and, to some extent, have been aligned with Paris.

The tough new French approach marks a clear change from the days of Presidents Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush, when France was often a reluctant U.S. ally compared with Britain and Germany. In contrast, Sarkozy in recent weeks has used a sharper tone than have British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and German Chancellor Angela Merkel — and President Obama — in denouncing Iran’s nuclear program and advocating sanctions to force Tehran to allow inspectors in. …

Sarkozy’s fundamental position — seek dialogue but impose stronger sanctions unless Iran opens its nuclear program to international inspection — dovetails neatly with the stances of Obama and other major U.S. allies, Heisbourg and French officials said. But his recent public comments have suggested impatience with Obama’s extended-hand policy and a conviction that the time has come to deal firmly with Tehran’s nuclear program.

Actually, Sarkozy's fundamental position is essentially indistinguishable from that of President Bush - a breathtaking and bitter irony given that Bush's Marxist successor has practically switched sides:

A senior U.S. diplomat and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator met one on one Thursday in Geneva in what appeared to be the highest-level official contact between the countries since Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution.

The meeting between Undersecretary of State William Burns and the Iranian, Saeed Jalili , took place during a break in negotiations at a villa outside Geneva among the United States , Iran and five other nations.

It was announced by State Department spokesman Robert Wood , who offered no other details.

And that's not the worst of it:

This follows the decision by the Obama administration to allow the Iranian foreign minister, Manoucher Mottaki, to visit Washington DC.  Even when traveling on UN business, the US has blocked Iranian diplomats from access to the capital for the past 30 years.  The unclenched fist has yet to meet with an outstretched hand from the Iranians, but Tehran is getting plenty of mileage from it nonetheless.

If Sarkozy has gotten impatient with the US and the West on Iran, these developments will increase his frustration.  It gives the mullahcracy more legitimacy and another opportunity to play Western allies against each other, which is one reason why George Bush stuck with France and the UK in earlier diplomatic efforts rather than open a direct dialogue.  It undermines Sarkozy’s efforts to get tougher on sanctions, at least in the short term, and allows Iran to continue its defiance on IAEA inspections and full transparency.  After all, they’re getting more and more access without having to offer any concessions — so why should they consider any?

I wasn't joshing up above, gentles.  If Barack Obama will talk with Ahmadinejad unconditionally, and will agree to exclude Iran's nukes and economic sanctions against Tehran from the agenda, what is there left to talk about?  And if B.O. is actively undermining our European allies on the mullahs' behalf, isn't the answer to that question some sort of U.S.-Iranian alliance against them and Israel?  What else could one call it - trying to elbow the Russians out of the way for a share of the Iranian nuclear weapons market?

~  ~  ~

Is this a "breakthrough" or helping the mullahgarchy fool the rest of the West?:

President Obama’s statement about a confidence-building measure from Iran this afternoon left out the key detail: In a breakthrough agreement at talks in Geneva, Iran has agreed to send 1,200 kilograms of enriched uranium to Russia for further processing, two diplomats told the Daily Beast, noting this would mean Iran no longer has enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon…

Under the deal reached today, the two diplomats told the Daily Beast, Iran has now however agreed to send this uranium, which is enriched up to 3.5%, to be refined in Russia up to 19.75% enrichment and then returned to Iran. That enrichment level would enable it to be used at a research reactor in Tehran which could then burn the fuel to make medical isotopes. But it is not high enough for nuclear weapons.

The diplomats said this deal effectively amounts to a freeze of Iran’s nuclear work, and meets the condition for a second phase of talks at which nuclear issues will be discussed, as well as other proposals put forth by both sides.

AP supplies the day-glo glaring caveat:

If you believe that Iran only has 1,500 kg or so of low-enriched uranium on hand and if you believe there are no other secret Iranian enrichment/weaponization sites, then this is important. Remember, uranium isn’t bomb-capable unless it’s highly enriched, i.e. up to a 90% level; if Iran’s serious about wanting nuclear power but not a nuclear weapon, then its uranium only has to be enriched to a low level to be converted into fuel. Having Russia or some other third party take over enrichment duties is a way to make sure that the uranium is only processed to that lower threshold, not the higher one (unless, of course, you think Vladimir Putin would lie). If you don’t believe either of those things, though, then this logic goes out the window: Iran could simply feed Russia some low enriched uranium in order to soothe western fears about its nuke program while continuing to weaponize uranium in its secret facilities.

What better cover could Barack Obama provide Tehran for this operation than to push his "outstretched hand" "engagement" fantasy to the hilt and beyond?  Make it look like a "new era" of "peace" and "friendship" between Iran and Obamerika.  It'd be the ultimate quid pro quo: Obama's rancid Ameriphobic pacifism gets lionized as "diplomatic genius" while his "Iranian friends" get to build their nuclear arsenal without limit and even the risible "pressure" that the last six years of Western diplodiddling "imposed."  And when the mushroom clouds rise over Tel Aviv and Haifa and the Negev, well, I'm sure the White House would "send its condolances" and "express its regrets" for having had to pre-emptively wipe out the Israeli Air Force - in the interests of "peace," of course.

"Naivete" as the explanation for this insanity only stretches so far, my friends.  It's high time somebody start asking the Li'l President where and to whom his loyalties truly lie.  Because the answer to that question is already at vast odds with the majority of the American people.