Clock ticking on Iranian nukes... Or is it?

So one day Yukiya Amano, the new head of the International Atomic Energy Organization, states plainly that he has not seen any evidence that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and the very next day Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the US Chief of Staff declares that time is running out on trying to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes and Biden gives Israel the green light to bomb Iran (yes I know Obama later denied giving Israel a green light -- but that's  just CYA and "plausible deniability" at work.)

Amano:

The incoming head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday he did not see any hard evidence Iran was trying to gain the ability to develop nuclear arms.

"I don't see any evidence in IAEA official documents about this," Yukiya Amano told Reuters in his first direct comment on Iran's atomic program since his election, when asked whether he believed Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons capability."

Mullen:

The top U.S. military officer warned on Tuesday that time is running out for dialogue with Tehran to avoid either a nuclear-armed Iran or a possible military strike against the Islamic Republic.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it is critical for diplomatic efforts to reach a solution before Iran develops a nuclear weapon or faces an Israeli or U.S. strike to turn back its nuclear program.

Incidentally, note how Mullen frames this as a false choice: the only choices are to prevent Iran's nuclear program from progressing (whether by sanctions, "dialogue" or Israeli attack) or else Iran will obtain nuclear weapons. I have written about this way misframing the issue previously:

Basically, in presenting the matter as "either prevent Iran's enrichment or else Iran will obtain nuclear weapons", they're  conveniently limiting the range of choices and leaving out a significant option: accepting Iran's compromise proposals that would address any real concern that Iran's nuclear program could be used to make bombs.

But I suppose the real irony is how Biden claims that Israel has a "sovereign right" to attack Iran, whereas Iran supposedly doesn't have a sovereign right to have its own civilian, IAEA-monitored nuclear program. Since when? In fact, using force to resolve disputes is contrary to the UN Charter and constitutes a crime under international law. Israel has no such "sovereign right" and automatically labelling Israeli aggression as "pre-emptive" doesn't give it such a right either. In fact, such an attack would not meet the definition of "pre-emptive" since Israel faces no threat of attack from Iran which is instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation. Rather, at best such an attack could be described as preventive -- and therefore illegal.

Addendum: Meanwhile, pro-Israeli lobbyists are pressing for a US-Iran confrontation.

Comments

[mb]

I agree Cyrus with your position. It is not your responsibility to comment on every issue that deals with Iran. Just enlightening us about Iran's nuclear program is by itself a great accomplishment. And you are correct. Right of the Iranian nation to the peaceful nuclear energy not right of the Iranian government should be your foremost priority. If you become tangential and comment on any political event in Iran without being able to witness it yourself from inside the country, then your objectivity will become very blurred and you open yourself to countless commentaries. Stay focused and keep on doing what you are doing now.

{Cyrus responds: thank you -- which is not to say that I necessarily approve of what's going on in Iran either.]

[Kaveh Ahangar]

Dear Cyrus,

I've been a long time reader of your blog as I thought you had good arguments vs the strong lobby against Iran. I thought you'd stand by the truth and nothing but the truth.

However, your recent postings or, more importantly, lack of the them on certain subjects re what's going on in Iran have highly disappointed me. Remember that by only writing about positive things re our country and defending it's rights while turning a blind eye on its shortcomings and not criticizing its human rights records you lose fairness and with that your credibility as a genuine reference.

Defending a subject should be done in a practical and holistic way you can't ignore certain (important) aspects while focusing on a few. I don't live in Iran but I've fought for its right to peaceful nuclear technology and many other things that we have been denied; but honestly with how my brothers and sisters were treated during the past few weeks in my country I am reconsidering my position until the government implements an acceptable (minimum) level of human rights and basic freedom internally.

Before such steps are taken I will not be able to stand up and fight for Iran's rights while believing it wholeheartedly. Iran had played his hand very well in the last 6-7 years but it was time to cash in and take advantage of it but with what happened recently they've lost most of what they had gained. A pity...

Cyrus be fair to yourself and write what you believe is right see the whole truth.

Just another Iranian.

[Cyrus Responds: Thanks for writing, however I don't live in Iran and there are better informed people dealing with the subjects you brought up. I don't see it as my responsibility to cover everything having to do with Iran. This blog, as indicated in the title, is limited to Iranian foreign policy and international affairs of Iran (note: Iran not the Iranian government. Iran's interests and issues remains constant regardless of the type of government in charge.) I mentioned the elections only to the extent that it had become an issue outside of Iran.]