I would suggest a reading of the transcript of the background briefing on the Qom "discovery". Note how many (and which) questions go unanswered.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iran/story/76059.html

Just a caution. Don't assume that the intel from all the assorted countries are independent assesments from their own sources. In making the case for the Saddam has WMDs scenario, there was an investigation of Israel's faulty/exaggerated intel in the Knesset. The investigation revealed that their version (outted by Shlomo Brom) was passed around from country to country and sold as the results of each country's own intel product.

An interesting side note in regards to relationships between intel/security sectors of some of the countries involved: Israel's closest relationship is with the Germans, not US.

BTW, don't conflate Syria and Iran when trying to guess what Iran's reaction would be if attacked. The situations are not even remotely similiar nor are the US/Israeli preparations for such a scenario.

Assad is way too smart to have declared war on Israel; it would be akin to deploying peashooters against howitzers. He didn't respond to the IAF cross border killings of a score of agricutlural workers during the '06 war on Lebanon, either.

NA, aa.

Another intriguing side note; the most hawkish (Michael Rubin, Wolfowitz, Elliot Cohen) of the neocons are now promoting "regime change" instead of an all-out war against Iran. They don't explain how that desired outcome is to be accomplished, but appear to have become convinced that a war in the region will be disastrous for all concerned.

Israel is not prepared for the consequences of Iranian missiles making it through the defensive shields that we and the Israelis have available. The IDF controls the budget for homeland security and has devoted very little of it to defense of the civilian population. That aside, the impossibility of providing protection for the bulk of the population is obvious because of Israel's size, among other things. Israelis are also vulnerable to secondary effects of missile strikes on weapons depots, facilities storing hazardous materials, etc.

The Iranians are fond of poopooing the notion that they will be attacked by any combination of forces. I took it as bluster aimed at their own people, but am beginning to wonder if they may have a point.

Refreshing addition of perspective to the usual dualistic suspicions.

Some other thoughts I neglected to put in the main post regarding Cooper & Mazzetti's "Cryptic Note Ignited an Iran Nuclear Strategy Debate" (link in main post.) There are some interesting points about tactics. It noted that said that in July Obama ordered his national security team to start working with the French and Brits on a presentation on the complex. But the article's main point is to clearly suggest the IAEA had none of this information until now, and that the note caused action.

It was Obama's choice not to do at the Security Council meeting, but afterwards, in Pittsburgh:

...European officials urged speed, saying that Mr. Obama should accuse Iran of developing the secret facility first thing Thursday morning, when he presided over the Security Council for the very first time. It would have been a stirring and confrontational moment. But White House officials countered that it was too soon; they would not have time to brief allies and the nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Mr. Obama did not want to dilute the nuclear nonproliferation resolution he was pushing through the Security Council by diverting to Iran....

Also, mention of Israel is conspicuous by its absence, and especially curious since just hours before the announcement in Pittsburgh, Bibi Netanyahu asked in his U.N. speech: "Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?"

And finally, when I saw that he was briefed by the Bush administration in late 2008, I thought of all the calls for Obama to speak up on various related issues between his election and inauguration, and his response that there was "one president at a time."

I just went over to see what info Steve Clemmons has; I am too tired to read it now. Just in case you'd like to peruse it:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

Here is gareth porter:
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2009/09/29/us-story-on-iran-nuke-facility-doesnt-add-up/

US President Barack Obama joined representatives from Russia, China, France, the UK, and Germany in talks with Iranian officials Oct. 1 in Geneva, where he said, “We have made it clear that we will do our part to engage the Iranian government on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect, but our patience is not unlimited (OGJ Online, Oct. 2, 2009).”

However, Raymond James analysts said, “Based upon the recent political rhetoric, we now think the risk of an Iranian oil supply interruption is meaningfully higher than it was a few months ago. In fact, we now believe there is better than a 50% probability that some type of military confrontation with Iran will occur in the course of the next 12 months.”

The analysts noted an “interesting article” from the New York Times over the weekend citing “a leaked internal report from the International Atomic Energy Agency that says Iran has essentially worked out all of its technical issues to build a nuclear weapon.” They said, “The only remaining step is enriching a sufficient quantity of weapons-grade uranium, which Western intelligence sources believe to be a matter of months if enrichment continues at the current pace.”

Raymond James analysts said: “In the past 2 weeks, the risk of an Iranian oil supply disruption has increased sharply while the oil markets seem to have completely ignored the potential change to the global oil supply-demand equation. Normally during geopolitical crises involving the Middle East, oil prices take notice well before military action actually begins. This was the case, for example, in the run-up to war with Iraq in 2003. In fact, the same was true in early 2006, when Iran announced the end of its moratorium on nuclear enrichment. But here we are, in the midst of what some are calling ‘a Cuban Missile Crisis in slow motion,’ with the Iranian regime playing hardball and tensions palpably rising in the region, and the oil market just yawns.”

http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display/6381134801/s-articles/s-oil-gas-journal/s-general-interest-2/s-economics-markets/s-2009/s-10/s-market-watch__oil.html

Perhaps the oil market is factoring in a lead time of at least 3 months before things could get serious on a military front and/or an Iranian reaction to more sanctions.

UN inspectors visit once-secret Iranian site

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI (AP) – 2 hours ago

TEHRAN, Iran — U.N. inspectors entered a once-secret uranium enrichment facility with bunker-like construction and heavy military protection that raised Western suspicions about the extent and intent of Iran's nuclear program.

The visit Sunday by the four-member International Atomic Energy Agency team, reported by state media, was the first independent look inside the planned nuclear fuel lab, a former ammunition dump burrowed into the treeless hills south of Tehran and only publicly disclosed last month. The inspectors are expected to study plant blueprints, interview workers and take soil samples before wrapping up the three-day mission.

No results from the inspection are expected until the team leaves the country....

CONTINUED HERE

...On Iran, Europeans, and especially the French, are concerned that Mr. Obama could sacrifice the principle of preventing Tehran from enriching uranium — as demanded by the United Nations Security Council — to get what seems like an agreement for broad talks with Iran on regional and bilateral issues.

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France went so far as to chide Mr. Obama in public at the United Nations General Assembly in September, saying: “I support America’s outstretched hand. But what has the international community gained from these offers of dialogue? Nothing but more enriched uranium and centrifuges.”...

from
Diplomatic Memo: Europe Still Likes Obama, but Doubts Creep In
By Steven Erlanger, November 1/2, 2009

My favorite Israeli politician, the blunt and sometimes off the diplospeak reservation, FM Avigdor Lieberman, tells the truth (in Hebrew) about the Israeli positions in this interview on IDF radio:

(trans)

Razi Barka'i: Good morning to Foreign Minister AvigdorLiberman. You met with Hillary Clinton yesterday before she appeared at a press conference and said that the proposal made to her by the government of Israel regarding the settlements was unprecedented. Do you agree?

FM Liberman: I agree with the fact that we will make every effort to start the political process without conceding any of our vital interests. That is exactly what we told the Palestinians, Hillary Clinton and the Europeans.

Barka'i: Yes, but the term "vital interests" is a flexible one, and it
surprises me that you do not consider the settlements of vital interest.

FM Liberman: I say that it is a vital interest, so we have not made any concession, and I've also said that on the air with you, I believe. At present we do not want to change the demographic balance in Judea and Samaria, but we must enable the residents to have a normal lifestyle there -as a right, not as a favor.

Barka'i: Let's face it, we're all trying to gain time - us, the Americans and the Palestinians. Nothing will happen before January because just before an election no one wants to come out looking foolish. Abu Mazen will not soften his positions any more than he has already done, right?

FM Liberman: Actually, none of them are trying to gain time. To the contrary. From the first day that we met, we said that we are prepared to enter direct negotiations without preconditions. We made no stipulations about any freeze, or freezing construction in the eastern part of the city.

Incidentally, with regard to the Palestinians, I don't ever remember the government of Abu Mazen or previous Palestinian administrations making stipulations for conducting negotiations, either vis-à-vis the Olmert administration, the Sharon administration or the Barak administration. To
the contrary. A political process was conducted while the building in Judea and Samaria continued. So this new stipulation tells us about the intentions of the Palestinians.

Barka'i: The question, Mr. Liberman, is whether we really and truly want to embark on a peace process. After all, you yourself, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense really think that Abu Mazen is not capable of delivering the goods, and even if he does, it will only be on the West Bank and not in the Gaza Strip.

FM Liberman: Look, I'm on the air now. You don't have to interpret what I say, and I usually express myself very clearly. I am saying to you on the air right now, that I am in favor of a political process. It must take place along with all the effort to improve the situation on the ground. Are you asking me whether, in the coming years, we can achieve a comprehensive peace agreement with the Palestinians which will signify the end of the dispute, the absence of mutual claims in the future, the cessation of all kinds of incitement, both in the schools and in the international arena by the Palestinians? Can it be achieved in the next few years? No.

Barka'i: So what happens in the meantime? An interim agreement?

FM Liberman: I think that a long-term interim agreement is the clearest and best thing that we can achieve.

Barka'i: During which there is a state.

FM Liberman: Excuse me, but I'll say again, it is no coincidence that over the previous 16 years we had prime ministers who really and truly did everything to achieve peace. Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert all made far-reaching proposals, in effect going back to the 1960 borders and dividing Jerusalem, and twice the Palestinians turned it down.

Barka'i: In the framework of this interim agreement, will there be a Palestinian state?

FM Liberman: An interim agreement says very clearly that there is no Palestinian state.

Barka'i: So what agreement is there?

FM Liberman: The Palestinian state is the end of the process and not the middle of the process. On the Roadmap, there were also three stages with 40 items, and only at the end does it mention the establishment of a Palestinian state. Can we do that now? After all, Abu Mazen claims that he represents the entire Palestinian people. He, himself, can't even enter
Gaza. We would pay the full price for half the goods.

Barka'i: So maybe you should focus all your energies on the northern border and put everything into renewing negotiations with the Syrians, through our Turkish friends or through other friends?

FM Liberman: I'll tell you once again, if we indicate that it is only in our interests, we won't achieve anything. I think that both the Palestinians and the Syrians certainly have a far greater interest than we do in reaching a peace agreement.

Barka'i: Last week, Assad said unequivocally, "My people want peace tomorrow morning. I am prepared to renew negotiations."

FM Liberman: We have also said a dozen times that we are prepared to meet with Assad tomorrow or the day after that.

Barka'i: Face-to-face?

FM Liberman: Face-to-face.

Barka'i: But not through an intermediary.

FM Liberman: Not through an intermediary and certainly not through threats, and not while they are talking peace yet acting in the most hostile manner possible. Syria is continuing to smuggle weapons to Hizbullah, it is continuing to strengthen Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, which are located in Damascus, and it is continuing its incitement against us in every
international forum.

Barka'i: Well, those are the cards they have to play. Avigdor Liberman, if we're talking about the absence of preconditions, before the negotiations you can't come to them with preconditions either. Sit down with them and
demand at the beginning that they stop doing it.

FM Liberman: I'm telling you here on the air, and I've said this dozens of times - we're willing to sit down with the Syrians today, this afternoon or this evening, face to face, and start talking. He is again the one making stipulations. Assad wants to end his international isolation, but each time he makes additional conditions. He should say at the start that he's
prepared to give up the Golan Heights - without that there's no point in negotiating - and in the meantime he continues to get closer to Hugo Chavez, to the Iranians and to North Korea.

Barka'i: Okay. Is it true that you planned to shoot a nuclear missile at Gaza, as the Prime Minister of Turkey said? What did he base that on? Is there something that you said?

FM Liberman: What's happening in Turkey and what needs to be understood is not connected to the State of Israel. We always blame ourselves for all the problems in the world. There has been a dramatic turnaround from the secular Turkey of Ataturk to the Muslim Turkey of Erdogan, and that is reflected not
only in our arena. We think that everything revolves only around us. Two weeks ago I saw the latest report of the European Union on the subject of Turkey. The report is really grave by any standards, on the subjects of freedom of expression, suppression of journalists and the critical press, the attitude of the Turks to negotiations in Cyprus - and a thousand and one
other parameters. Recent statements that we have heard from Turkey, as well as that warm embrace of the Iranians in Tehran, with Ahmadinejad - witthose kind of things, we cannot just go back to business as usual.

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=46269

Why the Iranian nuclear deal was bound to fail

Tony Karon

Last Updated: November 01. 2009 2:44AM UAE / October 31. 2009 10:44PM GMT

The surest sign yet that the Iranian nuclear deal is in deep trouble is its endorsement by Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

“A positive first step,” Mr Netanyahu called the deal. This was in marked contrast to his own defence minister, Ehud Barak, who complained earlier that the agreement accorded Iran “legitimisation for enriching uranium for civilian purposes on its soil, contrary to the understanding that those negotiating with it have about its real plans”.

Mr Barak and Mr Netanyahu march in lockstep when it comes to Iran. The reason for their apparent disagreement is simple. Mr Barak dismissed the proposed deal when it looked as if Iran might accept it. Mr Netanyahu’s approval came only after Iran’s response was interpreted by the western powers as a “no”.

The proposed deal used Iran’s request for fuel to power a medical research reactor in Tehran as an opportunity to address western concerns over Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium, which could produce enough material for a single crude bomb at some point in the future. The Vienna agreement required that Iran send around three-quarters of its own stockpile to Russia and France for processing into fuel that cannot easily be weaponised.

The breakdown arose precisely because the two sides remain committed to mutually exclusive objectives. The more hawkish elements in the western camp, along with Israel, insist that Iran cannot be allowed to continue enriching its remaining uranium, even for energy purposes, because this would give it the means to move quickly to build a bomb. Tehran, on the other hand, saw the agreement as tacit acceptance of Iran’s right to enrichment. So when Mr Netanyahu spoke of a “first step”, he meant a first step towards ending all enrichment in Iran – which is what Iran feared.

When details of the agreement began to emerge, the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, faced a torrent of domestic criticism – and not just from Iranian conservatives. Mir Hossein Moussavi, the leading opposition presidential candidate who claims Mr Ahmadinejad stole the election, cautioned that accepting the Vienna deal would be “putting the efforts of thousands of scientists to the wind”.

At the talks in Vienna, and earlier in Geneva, Iran had indicated a willingness to co-operate with the international community to strengthen safeguards against weaponisation of its nuclear material. But it has insisted all along that it has no intention of complying with the western demand that it abandon entirely the production of nuclear material.

As a result, it has responded to the draft agreement with counterproposals that weaken the core western objective, which is separating Iran from most of its current nuclear stockpile – because Tehran sees that as a trap. Iran now proposes to deliver its uranium for enrichment abroad in smaller instalments over a longer period, and insists that it be supplied with reactor fuel first.

European and US leaders argue that the full amount of Iranian nuclear material involved in the deal must be shipped in one delivery, and before the end of this year. Without that arrangement there is no deal, and they threaten sanctions as a consequence for Iran’s refusal to agree. But the more focused the stand-off becomes on the issue of getting Iran to hand over most of its stockpile quickly, the more likely Tehran is to dig in its heels; it would be, as Mr Netanyahu puts it, “an important first step”, but in what Iran considers the wrong direction.

The Vienna deal could collapse under the weight of the larger question that it tried to sidestep: whether Iran will maintain its uranium enrichment capability as part of its nuclear energy programme. Negotiators purposely avoided discussing Iran’s non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions on suspending enrichment, or western demands that it give up on the very idea of enriching uranium as part of its nuclear programme, but it is the two sides’ differences on that issue that lie at the heart of the stand-off over the Vienna deal.

The lesson appears to be that it will be difficult to achieve agreement on an issue so sensitive to both sides without addressing their mutual mistrust. As long as the western powers pursue an end to uranium enrichment in Iran, and Iran resists that goal, no diplomatic solution is likely. The truth is that enrichment is already a reality in Iran. Neither Russia nor China – nor for that matter such key Iranian neighbours as Iraq and Turkey – view uranium enrichment by Iran as necessarily posing a military threat, and are therefore unlikely to back serious sanctions. So Tehran is less likely to blink.

While the Europeans and the US may well read Iran’s response as a “no” and begin pressing for sanctions, Iran may be betting that China and Russia are unlikely to go along; because they don’t share the western objective of zero-enrichment in Iran, or they don’t believe that Iran’s paltry stockpile of low-enriched uranium represents any kind of imminent bomb threat.

Having hailed the deal as a breakthrough that promised to clear out Iran’s stockpile in short order, the Obama administration now faces the reality that it’s not going to be quite so easy – and the likelihood that no diplomatic solution will be found that satisfies the western “no-enrichment” starting point. In what is fast become a familiar experience, Mr Obama may soon be forced to choose between accepting a compromise short of victory, or going down a road of escalating confrontation with uncertain outcomes.

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091101/OPINION/710319919/1033

U.S. says can give Iran time to okay nuclear deal

Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:22am IST

* U.S. recognizes Iran has 'tough' decision to make

* Nuclear fuel deal stalled over delivery issues

* Iranians, Turks talk about third-country role in deal (Adds Clinton quotes in bold)

By Mark Heinrich

VIENNA, Nov 9 (Reuters) - The United States is willing to give Iran time to decide whether to accept a U.N.-brokered deal meant to allay suspicions it is after atomic bombs but which has drawn Iranian objections, a U.S. diplomat said Monday....

Cohen's news making interview with ElBaradei last week:

Bunkers or Breakthrough?

By ROGER COHEN
New York Times, November 5, 2009

NEW YORK — In his last month as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei finds himself at the explosive crux of the world’s nuclear politics, ferrying messages between the Obama administration and Tehran. “They are talking through me,” he says.

....Last month, it seemed there was a deal: Iran ships out most of its known low-enriched uranium — about 1,200 kilograms — and eventually gets fuel rods for a reactor producing medical isotopes. The agreement buys time. It slows the noisy, fast-ticking Israeli clocks by removing the stuff Iran could use to make a bomb.

But, as ElBaradei told me in an interview, “there’s total distrust on the part of Iran.” This has now expressed itself in a demand for “guarantees.” Iran has not balked by demanding that its uranium be sent out in phases — as some reports suggested — but by seeking cast-iron assurances that the fuel will come back.

“Whether it’s one shipment is not the issue,” ElBaradei said. “The issue is timing: whether the uranium goes out and then some time later they get the fuel, as was agreed in Geneva, or whether it only goes at the same time as the fuel is delivered.” He added: “If it is simultaneous it would not defuse the crisis, and the whole idea is to defuse the crisis.”

Compromise ideas are being explored. ElBaradei has talked to Obama, who is driving Iran policy, several times. He has talked to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, weakened by the disputed June 12 election, has emerged as a proponent of what would be an immensely popular opening to America.

“There are a lot of ideas,” ElBaradei told me. “One is to send the material” — Iran’s uranium — “to a third country, which could be a friendly country to Iran, and it stays there. Park it in another state, then later bring in the fuel. The issue is to get it out, and so create the time and space to start building trust.”

It’s essential to secure “something like a year” between the uranium’s exit and the fuel’s arrival. This would open the way for “direct engagement between Iran and the U.S. There is no other way. Six-party talks can continue but the heavy lifting can only be done by the U.S.”

ElBaradei’s message to Tehran: “This is an opportunity I have not seen before and it will not happen again.” His message to Washington: “Be patient.”

The problem is the disarray in Tehran. It is payback time for Ahmadinejad. Everyone he’s slighted — like Ali Larijani, the powerful speaker of the Majlis — is gunning for him. The supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, went along with the outline of the Geneva deal but has begun to equivocate.

The Islamic Republic needs to move on. It has sullied and weakened itself in recent months. It needs to put an end to the paralyzing behind-the-scenes fight over who would claim credit for any rapprochement with America. It must recognize, as ElBaradei put it, that “Obama is really sticking his neck out.”

....Diplomacy is most useful between enemies. There is no alternative. ElBaradei said: “Sanctions are an expression of frustration,” adding that “in the long run they will not resolve the issue.” That’s right.

“I hope Iran will not miss this opportunity and will take a very small risk for peace. Otherwise everybody will lose.” ElBaradei said.

He also said inspectors had found “nothing to be worried about” in the underground facility at Qum built in secret by Iran. “The idea was to use it as a bunker under the mountain to protect things. It’s a hole in a mountain.”....

IAEA Report: not happy with Iran; Russia also rumored to feel same way.

Concerns Over Chance of More Iran Nuclear Sites

By REUTERS
Published: November 16, 2009

Filed at 10:36 a.m. ET

VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran's belated revelation of a new uranium enrichment site raises concern about possible further secret nuclear sites, according to a U.N. nuclear watchdog report obtained by Reuters on Monday.

It said Iran had told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had begun building the bunkered site near Qom in 2007 -- but the IAEA had evidence the project had begun in 2002, paused in 2004 and resumed in 2006. Iran revealed the site's existence in September.

The report said Iran had provided full access for IAEA inspectors on their first visit to the Qom site three weeks ago, but had yet to provide full, credible answers to verify that the plant was only for civilian purposes.

"The agency has indicated (to Iran) that its declaration of the new facility reduces the level of confidence in the absence of other nuclear facilities under construction and gives rise to questions about whether there were any other nuclear facilities not declared to the agency," the report said.

Iran's failure to inform the agency of its decision to build or authorize construction of a sensitive nuclear facility as soon as the decision was made was "inconsistent" with its transparency obligations to the U.N. watchdog, it said.

"Moreover, Iran's delay in submitting such information to the agency does not contribute to the building of confidence," it said, adding that Iran had more questions to resolve about the site's chronology and purpose....

Western diplomats and nuclear experts say the Qom site's planned capacity -- 3,000 centrifuges -- makes little sense as a stand-alone civilian enrichment center since it would be too small to fuel a nuclear power station around the clock.

It could, however, yield fissile material for one or two atom bombs per year.

The IAEA report said inspectors found the Qom site in "an advanced state" of construction, but without centrifuges or nuclear materials. It said Iran had told the agency it would be started up in 2011....

UN presses Iran on nuclear site A UN team was allowed access to inspect the Qom site last month

The UN's nuclear watchdog says it needs "more clarification" about the purpose of a recently declared Iranian nuclear site near the city of Qom.

BBC News 17:10 GMT, Monday, 16 November 2009

....On Sunday, Russia and the US both warned Iran that time was running out for talks over its nuclear programme.

Russia said on Monday the delay in launching the Bushehr plant was for "technical reasons".

Russian officials had said earlier this year that the plant would be completed before the end of 2010, but on Monday Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko said that although progress had been made, there would be no launch.

The BBC's Richard Galpin in Moscow says the decision to delay the completion is clearly political - an expression of Russia's frustration at Iran's failure to accept the offer now on the table from the international community....

"New Sanctions Considered as Iran Stalls on Nuclear Deal,"
includes Obama statements,

by Steven Erlanger, New York Times
published 1 hr. ago‎:

PARIS - Senior officials from six world powers on Friday discussed the possibility of new sanctions on Iran for flouting the United Nations Security Council's demands and expressed disappointment that Iran had not yet accepted a draft agreement to export most of its enriched uranium for needed nuclear fuel.

The officials met in Brussels to discuss where matters stand with Iran and the possibility of new sanctions should Iran continue to play for time. While a joint statement after the meeting was expressed in diplomatic language, the meeting itself was a sign of considerable exasperation with Iran.

Even President Obama, who has been most willing to give Iran time to decide on the proposal, as a means to broader negotiations with the United States, said on Thursday in South Korea that Iran has “been unable to get to ‘yes,’ and so as a consequence, we have begun discussions with our international partners about the importance of having consequences.”

Mr. Obama added: “Our expectation is that over the next several weeks we will be developing a package of potential steps that we could take that will indicate our seriousness to Iran.”

Iran has rejected an understanding...

cont. @

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/world/middleeast/21nuke.html