Why the US is a Pawn in Iran's Diabolical Game of Checkers

I have gone through CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, Itar-Tass, Rianovosti, Xinhua, and China.org.cn, all in English, to see just what is deliberately emphasized, and what is not emphasized. It is clear to me that US and British media (by way of my initial 6:30 AM Cairo time viewing of Katie Couric, and even CNN and BBC - curiously I didn't check Le Monde) have both made a huge deal out of nothing.

Le Monde's headline, by the way, is: Les Occidentaux menacent l'Iran de "severes" sanctions.

And in typical fashion, Ahmedinejad perenially looks unconcerned. Anyone else see why? Firstly, the plant is not likely to be operational for at least another year. So Ahmedinejad pretty justifiably said that Iran was announcing the plant a year ahead of time. Secondly, Obama, Brown and Sarkozy get up discussing the international community's desire for united action toward inspections and sanctions. So Ahmedinejad pretty justifiably said Iran has no objection to fairly immediate inspections of the facility.

Others have trumped up the issue that only 3,000 centrifuges are planned for the facility and that this is enough for fuel-generation but not power-generation. The plant is supposed to be experimental, but with nothing in it there is no way to be sure of its specific purpose. So for the united 3, it was all sanctions and inspections - which apparently was a consensus.

Medvedev

And yet I see odd signs in Medvedev's reaction (this is from ITAR-TASS):

“Bearing in mind Russia’s commitments of an IAEA member, we will assist such inspections in every possible way,” he said.
“We urge Iran to fully assist the Agency to make this inspection,” Medvedev said.
“The construction of a new uranium enrichment site contradicts repeated demands of the UN Security Council that Iran must stop uranium enrichment research,” he said.
“We are determined to start negotiations on the soonest signing of a long-term comprehensive agreement aimed to settle the Iranian nuclear problem. The situation requires close attention,” he said.
“The Sextet is due to meet with Iranian representatives on October 1. This is an Iranian opportunity to confirm its adherence to the negotiations,” he said.
“We hope that Iran will present convincing evidence to its pursuit of the exclusively peaceful atomic energy goals, especially in the light of the latest information about the construction of a new uranium enrichment site,” he said.

Though Rianovosti is slightly harsher in saying that Medvedev is echoing Obama's statement that Iran is "breaking rules all nations must follow," the end of the article was this statement:

[Ahmedinejad] He said Iran must not "inform Mr. Obama's administration of every facility that we have."

Not as much a picture of a callous president, but rather one who is resistant to American exceptionalism. Not necessarily the worst gesture to any international audience...

Needless to say, Russia has always voiced "concern;" now they've upped it from Magenta to Mauve and said "serious concern." Nevertheless, there is no mention of sanctions. The mention of inspections are quite interesting because of Ahmedinejad's immediate acceptance of these calls. So, why would Russia stress the need for Iran to present evidence at the Summitt, and its stress on IAEA inspections aided by Russia?

Jiaobao

Xinhua says this, in an article title "Obama warns about consequences..." (no tie-in with China):

The two leaders also joined French President Nicolas Sarkozy in a meeting with the press on Friday to make the case against Iran.

Iran has always defended its nuclear program, saying that the peaceful use of nuclear technology is its inalienable rights that can not be negotiated.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed on Friday that a second uranium enrichment plant is completely legal under the U.N. nuclear watchdog's rules.

"What we did was completely legal, according to the law," Ahmadinejad told reporters at a New York hotel press conference.

and

China.org.cn said this in an article entitled "China expects Iran to work with IAEA:"

Asked to comment on the reports, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said China has noticed that Iran has informed the IAEA of the issue, and China is aware of the statements made by leaders of the United States, France and Britain.

China has been paying attention to the development of this issue, said Ma, adding that China expects the IAEA to deal with it on the basis of its function and authority.

China supports the safeguarding of international nuclear non-proliferation regime and maintains that the prevention of nuclear proliferation should be handled peacefully through negotiations.

"We hope the talks between representatives of six major powers and Iran to be held on October 1 can make positive progress," said Ma.

The six countries of China, the United States, Russia, Britain, France and Germany have agreed to hold talks on October 1 with Iran on its nuclear program.

So clearly, the Chinese position is even less direct and reserved. Jiaobao is not in any way related, and Xinhua reported that he spoke about growth at the G20 Summit (go figure). It is clear that China was probably also informed by Iran about this issue, not to mention the fact that the news actually broke sometime last week but the vultures picked it up at the Summit.

Conclusion

The US, France, and the UK, having consistently taken a bellicose stance toward Iran on this issue, have once again misrepresented international opinion as united. In reality, the US, UK, and Iran are speaking of severe sanctions and reprecussions, and catching Iran and making it come clean. But if the two states which have consistently been closer to Iran on this issue are not acting all that shocked, and instead expecting and insisting on inspections and cooperation that Iran has basically agreed to, then perhaps Les [trois] Occidentaux vraiment menacent l'Iran!

The irony is that I have no doubt Iran will make a fairly strong case at the UN on October 1. Even the CNN political analyst in their article essentially argued that the timing was strategic, allowing Iran the ability to show that it cooperated with the IAEA a year before another facility becomes nuclear. And frankly, he's right one way or the other. The big deal, historically, with 'nuclearization' has been firsts - they provide a huge challenge to the treaty because they pull the ground out from under the boundry of 0 for states not nuclearized as of an initial deadline (except for at least India and Pakistan). This is, of course, for nuclear weapons.

For civilian nuclear tech, Iran is technically entitled to assistance with safeguards: including and especially assistance from previously nuclearized states like the US, UK, and France. Russia and China (and Pakistan and probably North Korea) have done a better job of living up to their obligations (though those in parentheses should probably be seen as less obligated...). Nevertheless, despite this consensus preached by Les Trois Occidentaux, Russia and China have consistently refused to act or really speak against Iran, with Russia continuing to assist in Iran's nuclear efforts.

Finally, Iran has consistently agreed to unprecedented inspection of its facilities to a level, and on a scale, unsurpassed by any other state. Simply, despite maintaining secrets (come on guys... it is a state), Iran has allowed unprecedented access to information on normally classified material (normally being reflected by Anglo-Saxon and Norman states) but has been consistently rebuffed. In other words, it has held up if even 20 or 30% of its side of the NPT bargain, and the West shows it empty pockets. Whether right or wrong, Obama clearly is unaware that not ALL states are NPT signatories, and thus these are not obligations of ALL states. Additionally, he's starting to sound a lot more like he's from Crawford, Texas and either unaware or unconcerned about the lack of consensus behind his words.