Yeah as Thucydides said it's pretty shocking, and also note that it's in the same city as the Iranian ballistic-missile-oriented "Space agency"

There'll be a bit of hoopla, it'll die down, there'll be more sanctions. I was really hoping the elections would sort bring someone less extreme in, but now I'm not sure how this'll end. I really hope it doesn't end in invasion, but they can't have nuclear weapons

Maybe a tactical strike on the facilities will shut it down by force without needing another hugely costly regime change? If it comes to that of course, and hopefully it won't (but I'm more pessimistic about that than ever before)

Same as with North Korea.
We tell them not to do that, wait and tell them not to do that again. We had China to help with sanctions for 90 days if I remember right. then We told China they needed to extend those sanctions. That was when China showed the US who is the boss. They basically told us to sit down and shut up. China owns most of our debt. We pay them interest each month. If they sold off their share of the dollar all at once our economy would crash, and in all likelihood would not recover.
It is funny because technically we are still at war with North Korea. We just happen to be under the longest cease fire in written history.

China has no reason to destroy the US economy. Our economies are all but married.

There need to be really, really tough sanctions and pressure on the illegitimate government of Iran. Hopefully that will be enough, but I don't know. Just because the invasion of Iraq didn't turn out to be what it was promised doesn't make a similar action to an actual threat to the reason foolish. I mean, they're obviously cheating and building a nuke. A war would be terrible and it shouldn't happen, but a nuclear Iran would be terrible and it shouldn't happen.

My money's on Israel doing something, and soon.

I'd take that bet Invictus, I think Israel has to realize at this point it would be counter productive for it to strike the first blow, I think they'll just sit back like they did during the Gulf war when Saddam tried to provoke them, they know when to lay-off I think (I hope)

Israel bombed Saddam's nuke factory. The US told Israel not to respond during the Gulf War since it would have interfered with what we were doing and could have been spun into some American-Zionist aggression by the more radical elements of the Middle East. If anything I bet we'd be be hugging and kissing the Israelis for knocking out the plants rather than having the US go do it.

Hopefully this will just allow a true consensus against Iran to form at the UN and this can all be dealt with through rough diplomacy. If it doesn't Israel will probably do something since they have everything to lose with Atomic Ayatollahs running Iran.

I'm sorry to disagree with you Kestas, but I fear Invictus is correct. Iran isn't playing nice and if they keep it up, Israel will take their toys away.

Israel really wont have a choice. The first nuke Iran tests may well be deep underground, the second, third, fourth, ..., nth will follow very shortly afterwards and will turn Israel into a radioactive wasteland. If anyone retaliates, anyone at all, then *all* of the oil facilities and major cities in the middle-east will be in range.

Nobody, nobody at all, can afford to allow Iran to become a nuclear power.

Kestas, Israel 'sat back and took it' during the Gulf War because they could look at the situation strategically and realize the war wasn't going to last long, and that the damage they sustained would be minimal. (And I tend to think they would have acted had any of those Scuds contained chemicals)

In this case, the world is doing nothing, so I'm not sure Israel has that luxury this time.

I think if sanctions fail this round, you might have Israel stepping up rhetoric in a last ditch attempt. Then I wouldn't be surprised if they struck. They'd have to go around Iraqi airspace though.

LOL, sanctions.... How many rounds is this? Around Iraqi airspace? Is there an Iraqi air force? Or just American jets. When Netanyahu calls and says 'we;re going to Iran', the US is not going to shoot down Israeli jets.

Actually, with U.S. backed people in power in Iraq, they might be able to get permission to fly over Iraq.

If they do they probably wouldn't even ask.

Interesting to see how easy is for Americans to support invading some other countrie based on some news, that can´t be taken as a real truth.
And as far as I am concerned the only nation that used nuclear and chemical weapons until now isn´t Iran or North Korea.....

Actually guys, read this:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/zbig-brzezinski-obama-administration-should-tell-israel-us-will-attack-israeli-jets-if-they-try-to-a.html

Not that this one man speaks for the whole US, but it makes clear that the US has a big problem with Israel acting like that.

And I don't think the US will or should act preemptively like that either, if it learned anything from Iraq at all.

We wouldn't attack Israeli jets. That won't happen.

Probably no kind of military attack will happen. Probably it will stay in the halls of the UN, and probably Iran will get nuclear weapons. It's a shame we were a letter off.

Oh boy storm before an Iran-Irsaeli War, I believe neither Netanyahu or Ahmadinejad would back down. I can see Irsael tanks on the borders of Iraq/Iran and a massive Irsael invasion and maybe a small offensive from Afg.

the calm*

some of you guys are a bit silly -

As the one Iranian guy on this site, and as someone who organized the protests against Ahmadinejad here in DC for the past 3 months (and the big Green protest in NYC the last few days), I can tell you this is NOT big news... (I've also been working on US-Iran policy for the past 5 years)

look, the fact is that the "new" Iranian site has been known about for several years... it is just another enrichment facility not a weapons facility, and Iran is at least 6-10 years away from weaponizing its FIRST nuclear device, and that does not even mean production of 2-3, just its first test device (where Pakistan was about 15 years ago)

in the end, Even in the worst case scenario, if Iran did develop a bomb, the International community would end up treating it just like it does Pakistan --- a basket case country to tip-toe around... for all their crazyness, the Iranian regime in power are rational actors and unlike the crap hysteria some like to perpetuate, are not going to use Nukes on Israel... but the good news is, it is extremely unlikely we'll EVER get to that scenario where Iran has a nuke.

my prediction, not that I'd like to see this come to pass mind you - is that Iran will get a 'sprinting distance capacity' in about 3-5 years (where Japan and Brazil are today) which is to be close enough to create a bomb in 12 months if they wanted to. but that they wont cross that line...

In the end, sanctions will NOT harm this government, though I'd love to take out MY anger on this regime in so many ways, what I do know is that the new 'refined oil products' sanctions that are being suggested now will only hurt the people of Iran and the Green movement... they will not affect in the slightest the basij, the IRGC, the Mullahs, or the ones in power... actually, they will increase Iran's state budget, because currently, the government expends 20% of its annual budget on gasoline subsidies (gas is sold at $0.25/gallon in Iran) ... last time it tried to cut those subsidies (24 months ago), there were riots... with sanctions, they can get rid of the costly subsidies and blame the west with impunity (and without riots)... so in essence, those sanctions would increase the state's budget by 20% without hurting any of the state apparatus.

any attack by Israel, which is outlandish to even think about since Israel does NOT have the capacity to actually destroy Iran's nuclear targets (over 50 sites scattered around the mountainous country with a pretty good anti-air defense system), and any attack by Israel on a non-aggressive NPT-member country (remember, Israel is non-NPT and has 200 nukes of its own) would make Israel a bigger paraiyah than it already is... Israel would lose the European good-will it has collected over the past 2-5 years over the Iran issue and it cant afford to do that, specially with the heat coming down on it over the Palestine/Gaza situation...

Israel will rattle rattle rattle its saber but wont pull the sword out of its sheath.


The best and ONLY strategy available to the world is to HARP HARP HARP HARP HARP on iran's human rights record... to call the regime out on its internal illegitimacy... the regime is under immense internal pressure... if for example Ayatollah Sistani (Shi'ism's highest ranked mullah, currently based in Najaf Iraq) were to berate Khamenei that would have a bigger impact than even 100 Israeli bombs.


the only way I see out of this is for Iran to have its own internal change of regime, and we are very close to that... if the regime's strategy of distracting the international community with its 'nuclear brinkmanship' continues successfully, then we may lose this chance... IF on the other hand, the international community bears down on Iran with moral authority (Nelson Mandela, Desmund Tutu, Sistani, the Ghandi's in India, Obama, Carter, etc) and did not let up, this regime will collapse under its own weight within 12 months.


but my guess is that the shiny-object oriented American media wont be able to figure out any of this and will continue its crap reporting... what I AM hopeful about, is that I know for a fact that at the highest levels in the Obama administration, they are fully aware of the best strategy to use, and I'm confident they will do the right thing. I'm even confident that Israel knows what it has to do, and that its belligerent talk is just a macho cover (note Ehud Barak last week saying that Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel)


so long story short - 1) Sanctions are counter-productive and will help the regime. 2) Israel wont, cant, and shouldn't bomb Iran 3) YOU can help by harping on Iran's Human Rights violations, by supporting the internal dissidents and the Green movement 4) the International community should not be played for a fool by being distracted from the real issue, which is the illegitimacy of this govenment

sorry to rain on some parades here, but despite what the US corporate-media might tell you, the news today was not HUGE news... it was a minor blip in long-standing stand-off between the West and Iran.

It is huge news because it will be used to push for tougher sanctions. This week a host of world leaders spoke at the UN and Russia said it would consider sanctions. The Iranians have been caught with their pants down and now there will be a push to get the tough sanctions after the outrageous proof that Iran has been two timing the world for years. It's spin, and hopefully it works.

I still think Israel might attack if it looks like Iran will

will successfully develop a nuclear weapon. It only takes a nuke on Tel Aviv to end Israel.

here is a great piece of INFORMED analysis:

"This feels more and more like a scripted play. The “West” has known for some time that Iran was constructing a second uranium enrichment plant but had not announced this to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Tehran figured out that the US had learned of the plant and was preparing a big setpiece, ahead of the 1 October talks, to reveal the Iranian duplicity. So Iran went to the IAEA on Monday to put its plans above-board. This, however, was not going to deflect the US-UK-France scheme to put Iran on the defensive in advance of the first direct discussions between Washington and Tehran."

from this link: http://enduringamerica.com/2009/09/25/the-latest-from-iran-25-september-catching-up/#more-18007

if you ever want to read useful and informed analysis of the internal iran situation and/or the Iran nuclear file, this site above is one of the best.

invictus - I think you are dead-wrong. This move was a pre-dialogue set-up. this was NOT that big of a deal. dont believe the corporate media hype.

another piece of smart analysis:

1050 GMT: So the story of Iran’s “secret nuclear plant” (which isn’t secret, since Tehran informed the International Atomic Agency of the construction of the uranium enrichment facility on Monday) is going to dominate the news cycle, as every US and many international outlets rush lemming-like to the tale and President Obama makes a statement at 1230 GMT.

If only someone takes a step back to note this comment from CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, made after President Ahmadinejad’s UN speech: “Ahmadinejad has been on a campaign over the last few weeks to change the subject. His great fear was that he would come to New York and the subject would be the Iranian regime and his massive repression of the Iranian democracy movement, the street protests, all the allegations being made by Iranians of what is happening in Iran — rape, torture, abuse. What he wanted to do was to talk about anything but that.”



any of you who think this was a surprise are fooling yourselves. this 'secret site' was a scripted (and well planned) thing... and its to the benefit of both Ahmadinejad and the West. The West (and Obama) can look tough and help set the stage for the talks that are to begin on Oct 1. and Ahmadinejad won himself another news cycle...


by the way, since 2005, the Iranians have WON every single diplomatic battle over these nuke issues... these guys are professionals in Iran and they are really good. dont be fooled into thinking we are dealing with some amateurs.

For a forum full of people who employ deception, dishonesty, and trickery on a regular basis, there's an appalling lack of skepticism around here...

They've been saying Iran is going to have nuclear weapons "any day now" for about five years, from just about the time "Mission Accomplished" was declared in Iraq. They've been saying as well that Iran was going to nuke Europe and America with those weapons, even though Iran has no ballistic missiles capable of reaching anywhere near such distances. It's rather reminiscent to me of the "Drones of Death" Saddam was supposedly going to use to spray anthrax all over the US after they flew halfway around the world. Hell, there were even claims in early 2002 from what I recall that Osama bin Laden had found refuge in Iran (which is more than a little ridiculous when you consider that Iran had practically been at war with the Taliban since 1998 or so and offered its assistance to the United States' invasion of Afghanistan - an offer which was rudely ignored).

Now the same media/political machine that told you Iraq was linked to 'al Qaeda' and 9/11, the anthrax attacks, and that Iraqi WMD evidence was a 'slam dunk' is recycling the exact same lies regarding Iran.

Like George Dubya said, "fool me once..."

Why do all of you "Bomb Iran"ers believe all of this stuff? (NOT a rhetorical question!)

"hey've been saying as well that Iran was going to nuke Europe and America with those weapons"

Who said that?

The purpose stated by the Bush administration for the anti-missile shield in Eastern Europe was to defend against "Iranian" missiles.

thank you Tolstoy.... good to see there are some who pay attention ;)

DbJ... the whole missle-shield in Czech Republic and Poland that is now being revised... was to 'protect against potential iranian nukes'... it was such a ludicrous idea, its a wonder people didn't laugh out loud at the US for such BS :)

Babak,

With some very rare exceptions, the mainstream media in the United States never questions anything; they essentially just reprint press releases. I don't know if this is because of the fear of lawsuits or covert state controls or (probably) some combination of both, but the result is that ideas beyond the 'official line' never really get a chance to circulate with most Americans, who still get their news from the Big Media corporations who are often (NBC/GE) incestuously involved with the infamous military-industrial complex.

It is positively bizarre that the "We need missiles in Europe to shoot down Iranian nuclear ICBMs" line was apparently met with a straight face by networks and newspapers who have all these former generals and admirals on the payroll as 'military advisers' (I only watch TV when I'm traveling and sitting in an airport or hotel room, so maybe I missed the derisive laughter - but I never saw any indication of it in online MSM news outlets, either). I always wonder if foreign media outlets are more 'loose', or if this is a worldwide phenomenon.

Fortunately, the Internet is already breaking this trend; more and more people rely on it as their primary source for news - at least, until the Internet Czar steps in and 'fixes' the situation with 'out of control' websites that 'can say anything'. :-(

About the Israel thing; maybe they will be the first to strike, but I'd take the bet that they won't.

Thanks for your POV Babak, even if I dont agree with everything it's always an interesting point of view.
First let me say I know they are a long way off from nuclear weapons, this is an issue that still has years to play out. I don't think we should strike until there really is no other option, and that won't be for a long time.
Second this *was* a secret enrichment facility. Just because they told the IAEA on Monday doesn't mean it's an above-board facility; they didn't tell the IAEA about this before now, and were probably prompted to tell them about it, as one of your quotes suggested, because the West found out about it. This *is* a big deal, at a time when the issue is about lack of confidence in Iran's motives, that we suddenly find a new secret plant in the same city as their ballistic missile facility. If you don't see it that way okay, but Western observers are going to see it that way and I can't see being persuaded to see it as anything other than a shady deception. This is when Iran should have been declaring everything, submitting their plans for approval, explaining their motives for each new development, but instead this enrichment facility suddenly pops up out of nowhere, just like Natanz.

Also although we care a lot about the human rights issue of those in Iran, and we recognize the problems you're having with your government, you have to see that that only makes it seem more dangerous that they're concealing enrichment plants. Honestly if I felt the country was really controlled by its people I'd be a lot less concerned about this, but it doesn't look like it is unfortunately.

(Also I think quoting certain places as being informed comes off a bit smug, I doubt many of us get our news from either Fox or al-Jazeera)

I agree with Babak and Tolstoy.

The way to get the regime out of power is to apply pressures of illegitimacy. That's the pragmatic thing. International calls for Ahmadinejad would have been nice, but didn't happen unfortunately. Sanctions would also be good but I believe Babak about what he said and I think the sanctions should take a different form.

By the way I get my news from the Economist mostly. Have they been "infected" because it doesn't seem like they have.

@tolstoy - you know, even back in middle school, one thing I used to say was that the only real difference between the US media and Iraqi media is that at least in Iraq they KNOW their media is state-controlled =P but my views have changed... i dont think its so much state-control or censorship as corporate control and profit motive. the media in this country is NOT motivated by 'journalistic intentions' or the motive of providing information to the public. it has a pure profit motive. and part of that motive is to cross-promote their other corporate subsidiaries... you see that all the time with TV 'news' anchors interviewing celebs with books or CDs being sold by other subsidiaries of the same parent company... this cross-promotion also means that yes, NBC wont say wont say bad things about a military attack because GE jet engines have higher profit margins etc... (thats simplified but pretty much starkly accurate).

in the end, here is the deal... every society has elites. govenments, in any form (communist, capitalist, theocraic, dictatorial) are a TOOL of the elite for the control of the economy. the fact is that in western democracies, the control of the elite over the economy through government is a bit more loose, whereas in dictatorships its far more direct and blunt. in fact, I am mostly impressed by how well western capitalism has managed to manipulate and control its own populations... any dictator would be envious of the control that western elites have over their economies (to bnefit them).

Michael Moore's new movie should lay this out plainly I think... I cant wait to go see it. but in essence, what Im saying about the media is that in the US, their primary purpose is the serve corporate and thus profit interests, and their distant secondary purpose is to inform the public. in most cases, re-reading a government press-release will serve their first purpose because the government is only an indirect extension of that elite/investor class anyways...


@kestas - thank you for your comments. I agree that the IRI govenrment is not trusted... but I would encourage you to look beyond the hype. yes, the site was undeclared, yes they lied etc... but that does not mean the site was for weaponization or that it was for a weapons program. more likely than not, they are trying to diversify their enrichment facilities so IF an attack does come from the US or israel, they dont have all their eggs in one basket and can protect their program.

like I said, my opinion is that they want to be within sprinting distance of a bomb, and yes, that is dangerous.

as for th HR issue - its more than just caring about it... what I'm suggesting is that the HR issue is the KEY to getting rid of this government... irrelevant of how much pressure the west puts on Iran, it will not get rid fo the nuclear program of the IRI. and the west simply is in NO position to militarily take it out... besides, the know-how already exists in the country, you cant bomb knowledge.

on the Fox quip - actully Kestas... having had conversations with both Invictus and tailboater previously, I do think they get a preponderance of their information from Fox ;) hehehe

@Thuc - thank you. as for the Economist, I too think its a great news source, but it is liberal internationalist (global corporatist) source... their reporting is top-notch, but their analysis is very conformist and global-elite oriented.

but they dont attempt to hide all that, they are very up-front with their 'bias' and they dont over-hype 'news' to make it conform to their own world-view... so indeed, one of the better sources out there.

well said

Hi there,
I'm the night watchman at the aforementioned Iranian Nuclear facility, and I'd like to offer you all the opportunity to play gunboat anytime you wish.
Remember, no PM'ing, and don't expect me to respect your opinion on what I should or should not do to your country in crisis.

Global-elite... I guess I don't know what you mean. Are you talking about support of free trade?

"on the Fox quip - actully Kestas... having had conversations with both Invictus and tailboater previously, I do think they get a preponderance of their information from Fox ;) hehehe"

If you would read what I said, you'd see it was a very balanced and reasonable take on the situation. I never watch FOX news, so my ideas couldn't come from it. It genuinely offends me that you would pigeonhole me into being some Beckesque nut just because I think it's a big deal that Iran has been secretly building a nuclear facility. You're making a lot of assumptions about me which are not based on anything I've written, in fact in opposition to it, and it's damn insulting.