Only resolutions from the Security Council are binding. What *SECURITY COUNCIL* resolutions is Israel in contempt of?

Obama is NOT like George Bush any more than Al Gore was supposed to be like Bush as per Nader.

The trouble is that all the people who read and are the left wing are not cooperating and wnat their own candidate and meanwhile the right wing attacks Obama-- who is left?

We got him now for 4 years and lets get done what we can!!!

One thing to obama's credit-- he figured out it is better to use diplomacy-- this meeting with iran was the first in 20 years- so Clinton did not help much either-- Obama is a cut above them-- for once- try to be grateful for what you have.

Siddiqui's advice to the West is written with a good mind and a good heart. But the West's dealings with Iran are not based on fairness or rationality.

SIDDIQUI: The warmongers are not likely to get their wish. Barack Obama is not George W. Bush. Iran is not Iraq. 2009 is not 2003.

COMMENT: Unfortunately, Barack Obama IS George W Bush. Obama is going along with Israeli settlements, has shielded Israel from any impact of the UN report on Israeli war crimes in the Gaza invasion, and has deflected away the international pressure on Israel to confess and open up its nuclear facilities to international inspection. He is hell-bent on not allowing Iran its right under NPT to enrich Uranium for peaceful purposes. He keeps accusing Iran of actions and intents that the top US intelligence agencies and IAEA consider false accusations. I don't know what Bush would have done differently! Much that I dislike what Bush was and did, he was not hypocritical, and didn't raise expectations by talking about peace and nuclear disarmament while doing the opposite.

Obama's actions have given a free pass to Israel to continue its brutalization of Palestine. Were it not for a wink from Obama's wink, Barak would not dare make the nonsensical statement that there couldn't be a region-wide nuclear arms ban "until the Muslim world, from Marrakesh to Bangladesh, behaves like Western Europe."

SIDDIQUI: Iran is not as helpless as Iraq was. Ahmadinejad's bluster, unlike Saddam's, is backed by a strong defence capability.

COMMENT: Alas, Iran is helpless. It is being abandoned by Russia and China. The Muslim world is divided and has no will or capability to help Iran. The Muslim leaders are afraid to even make statements favoring Iran! The Gulf states wish that Iran would disappear from their neighborhood. (Remember they helped Iraq when it attacked Iran for no reason.) Reportedly, Saudi Arabia will open its air space to Israeli planes attacking Iran.

SIDDIQUI: Tightening American economic sanctions on Iran, and broadening them to include some European allies, will hurt the Iranian people without undermining the theocratic regime.

COMMENT: Whether any sanctions will hurt innocent people has never been a consideration in West's actions. The ordinary people of Iraq suffered the worst miseries from the UN sanctions. The death of half a million children due to those sanctions was declared "worth it" by Madeleine Albright, the former US ambassador to UN! The West's planned sanctions to block the import of refined petroleum by Iran will paralyse the whole Iranian transportation system, including the delivery of food and medicine to ordinary people. This is a cruel, heartless scheme. But that doesn't matter to the West. It also doesn't matter to the US legislators who have already prepared a bill for it, independently of the planned Security Council resolutions.

SIDDIQUI: Obama has few good options. Only a grand bargain – giving Iran security guarantees and access to investment and technology in return for rigorous IAEA policing of its nuclear activities – offers a way forward.

COMMENT: Yes, those are the good options for a sane leader. But remember Barack Obama IS George W Bush.

The current ramping up of war talk ignores the current deal whereby Russia will process a limited amount of Iranian low-enriched uranium and France will process it into fuel rods. In all probability, Hillary had a major part in setting up this trial project which, if not derailed by warmongers, can be a model for Iran to develop peaceful nuclear power.

Unfortunately, in the US there is such hostility to nuclear power plants that the logic of oil-rich Iran developing such a power source is not apparent. But even if the US does not recognize that fossil fuels have a limited future, Iran, like France, is wise to move toward this means of generating electricity. Hopefully, any long-term deal with Iran will also offer Tehran the means to develop wind, solar and other less hazardous sources.

The deep Israeli fear of Iran is understandable, but Israelis should take comfort in their own possession of several hundred nuclear weapons. The Nazi example proves that anti-Semitic actions often do follow anti-Semitic talk, but even Hitler would not have attacked Poland if that nation held the power to obliterate him and Germany in 1939. However, rightwing Israeli politicians, like their counterparts in the US, thrive on stirring up illogical fears and will not even acknowledge their vast military superiority against any possible opponent.

Iran should tell the West to get lost.

Duplicate post deleted

Iran is part of a "Great Game" to control the hydrocarbon resources of the Middle East and the Caspian basin, as others have pointed out on this thread. It is certainly directed at Russia and China.

What I don't understand is why Russia and China have gone as far as they have to support the program of the US against Iran. I mean, they could have simply vetoed all those Security Council sanction resolutions. Do they think they are appeasing the US to prevent it and Israel from starting a war?

And what about Russia allowing it's facilities to be used to transport materiel, supposedly not-military, to Afghanistan? How does this make any sense. Maybe they think this is bleeding the US white and prefer the current corrupt Karzai regime to an honest, but intensely Islamic Taliban regime in their neighborhood.

Someone which better insight than I needs to explain this to me.

Any 'grand bargain' with Iran and the 'west', must include a fully 'rehabilitated' leadership. Without that Iran and any others who would consider such a move would simply be wasting their time. The main 'leader' in this is the USA, and of all of the other nations on the planet; the USA needs the most rehabilitation.

That there are nations who are nuclear armed and not members of the IAEA is enough for Iran to abstain from any such agreement. International Treaties are in most cases so difficult to enforce that without 'mutually assured' compliance, one side will always have unmatched power over the other(s).

The only other alternative would be for the entire world, to be armed with Nuclear Weapons, based on the size of the population. This being accomplished the signatories would all be party to a mutuality that would automatically discourage the use of Nuclear weapons; since to do so would assure the nation that used these terrible weapons would be turned upon them by the other members.

I believe this is the only reason the USA did not use nuclear weapons upon China or Russia or Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, and others after its post WWII 'expansion'. The USA knew that to do so would offer the other nuclear powers all the reason they needed to annihilate the USA and its potential for the use of these weapons.

The 'world' would be required by this participation to recognize the most potentially dangerous member of the 'agreement' would the the USA. This being the reality, the USA would be forced, for the first time in its history, to abide by its constitution and become a 'Nation that follows the rule of Law'; instead of the exact opposite that it is now.
For the world to ever know peace from Nuclear attack, they must come to agreement that these weapons will never be used again. If they are the 'user' will perish---forever.
History would be made, and as the world very well knows, history should never be denied or forgotten; but learned from.

This move would automatically cause the USA to be forced into a position to comply with its own treaties and agreements as a result of its own history.
a) The USA does not keep its treaties---historical fact.
b) The USA has used nuclear weapons twice---directly targeting civilian populations, and both times without warning, and with very little remorse---historical fact.
c) The USA has shown itself prone to the intervention and meddling in the affairs of other nations causing the removal and often the murder of the former leaders, while installing the 'new leaders' often 'hand picked by the USA'---historical fact.
d) The USA is prone to shifts in the 'political control' but has been amazingly prone to periods often running for decades where the most conservative and war like members are given staggering amounts of control. These same conservative factions have shown themselves to be of such criminal intent that they recently have been revealed to be emanating from the highest levels; and still the american 'majority' has not made many moves to correct the problems. These crimes are many of the very same crimes that were committed by the German and Japanese of WWII of whom the USA stood in judgment just 60 years ago; and the guilty were given lengthy sentences; or swift death. In the end, Spandau Prison had one inmate; Rudolph Hess.
The world cannot overlook these and so many other facts much longer (if they have at all) and they must surely know that the most dangerous rogue nation in the history of the world--the USA---is a dangerous corrupt rogue nation proven to be capable of mass murder on a monumental scale. Indeed, they already have been, both at home, and everywhere else they 'travel'.

The USA has lost its 'right' to say who does and does not have nuclear arms, the world will call them to task sooner or later; the 'Law of Self Preservation'---is the one immutable authority; and the world has reached its tolerance level of the USA. Taking into consideration the economic instability that the USA has brought upon itself. Their arrogant dependence upon imported or expensive energy sources. Their inability to successfully win the wars they start, and the excuses they use for their many other failures; it is surprising that the world has not already taken the steps needed to eliminate the danger of the USA.
Perhaps the reasons the 'Olympic Committee' decided not to 'enjoy the Olympics in Chicago' is because 'the place could be a war zone any day now'.

The USA has never known a single 'generation that did not have a war' often several of them at once--historical fact.
That is seven generations---7. all but two of those 'they started', or 'joined'.

If the USA were another nation the USA would invade the USA to keep the world safe; and they would be justified."

"But this time, the warmongers are not likely to get their wish. Barack Obama is not George W. Bush. Iran is not Iraq. 2009 is not 2003."

BHO is GWB. Both accept the war industry's control of the United States and the rationale of a endless but profitable war on eventually everyone, aka the New World Order. We the people are a means to someone's ambition. Even GWB dragged his feet on war with Iran after the disaster of having been elected to achieve war with Iraq. Another president, another war.

True, there's a whole letter's difference between the two, but other than that the MO is the same. 1) Pass a seemingly innocuous resolution condemning the leader of Iraq/n with being satan. 2) Satanhood established, begin funding the overthrow by any means of Satan's government. 3) Include the American people in your propaganda war through the entirely pro-war media. 4) Use the UN and allies in the dance. 5) Claim that it's to late to stop now, time has run out, we've lost our patience, and 6) go to war.

2009 is 2002. Recall that GWB had to spend an entire year claiming his mind hadn't been made up while the propaganda machine sealed Iraq's fate. Just as an example, let's look at this weekend's effort in achieving a war:

Iran revealed the existence of a plant at Qom, not too surprising they would hide one inside a mountain since Israel has threatened to blow up the one outside. Yet, Obama ignores this and touts the revelation like a vial of white powder at the UN.

Iran a) says the IAEA can send in inspectors, and b) it might accept having Russia do its fuel enrichment process. This would be a big concession, and inspectors in Qom would make its existence as a secret weapons facility moot.

So, what story does the New York "We lied for the Iraq War" Times run with and is repeated on teevee? Iran may have the DATA to build a nuclear weapon! This breaking news as told to them by somebody in the administration. Ring any bells with Cheney and Judith Miller? The administration tells the media the lies and then points to the lies in the media as proof.

America, you are already beginning to give majority agreement in polls testing to see how well the propaganda is progressing. Please, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, well, er... can't get fooled again, can we? There are families in Iran and Pakistan and Afghanistan depending on you to see war only as a last resort, defensive measure. We cannot invade enough countries or kill enough people to extinguish humankind's willingness to commit terror. But we can stop our country from enabling a world of defense contractor democracy, rule by corporations backed by a drone police state and monopoly media.

If the US and allies did not want Iran to have nuclear power then why did Republican President Eisenhower sell tham a 5 MW reactor with 20% enriched fuel in 1967?

This would be logical and sensible, if the goal here had anything to do with a military threat or making peace with Iran. The real goal is to control Iran's oil to insert a lever of power into the Chinese economy and to control the last remaining land routes for Caspian basin oil to the warm water ports of the Persian gulf. These would be Iran and the pipeline routes of Afghanistan, the real reason we are there too. If we can invade Iran and Afghanistan and control them like Bahrain and Pakistan, the other land routes, that will put "our" Iraqi and Iranian oil at a competitive advantage over Caspian oil. We can then control supply from both sources and maintain pricing and US dollar hegemony, the real goals here. To not use our pipelines Russia will have to build a pipeline over the Urals and Caucuses to get it's oil to western markets, 4 times as long and even more expensive. That's why the US government won't do it, they want an invasion of Iran to sew up geo-strategic control of middle eastern and Caspian basin oil and gas supplies,just like Iraq.. Take a close look at a map of central Asia and the real reasons will be crystal clear.