Ican understood it
there was concern about uranium enrichment work at Natanz outpacing sanctions' ability to slow it down.

Don't ignore the article by William Luers, Thomas R. Pickering, and Jim Walsh have published an article in the New York Review of Books entitled "A Solution for the US–Iran Nuclear Standoff", which proposes a way for Iran and the US to resolve their differences by creating a multinational enrichment facility in Iran.

The Iranians have already proposed the same themselves, as has the IAEA and the German Defense Minister and more recently the French -- all were shot down by US insistence that the Iranians shouldn't even have the knowledge of nuclear technology and more recently the US has demanded that Iran not only suspend enrichment but also "confess" to seeking nukes--- pretty obviously a high bar intended to scuttle any peaceful resolution.

Liz,
Thanks for the pointer. Burns explicitly mentioned that the offer of goodies for Tehran if they come to talks includes a civilian nuclear power facility run by an internatoinal consortium, in which Russia would basically control the nuclear fuel import and export.
The US is not rejecting that.
Indeed,the US has become a proponent of civilian nuclear power in India and the Middle East.

Sorry but that's not the same thing as an enrichment facility on Iranian soil and you should know better. The suggestion that Iran give up her right to enrichment and then rely on Russia to import nuclear fuel is ridiculous, considering that even Cheney has accused Russia of engaging in energy blackmail. And, note that the US has still maintained the precondition of an Iranian suspension -- knowing ful well that the issue in Iran has become such a nationalistic cause that no iranian government would accept such a precondition. In fact, the US not only demands a suspension, they now demand that Iran "confess" to making nukes. There is a pattern of moving goalposts here intended to avoid defusing the standoff and instead worsening it -- because the nuclear issue is really just a pretext for a regime change policy/

Here's a link to the article Liz recommends.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21112

liz, it's not correct that the US is pursuing regime change on Iran. The policy for more than two years hs been behavior change - of this regime. In Iraq, Lebanon, on its nuclear program. There was a real tension in the administration on this point for a long time. But it has been resolved in favor of behavior change.

"There is plenty of space for diplomacy."--Burns

Yes. Now that this agent for military action against Iran is gone, we may no longer hear statements like: "Iran needs to learn to respect us and Iran certainly needs to respect American power in the Middle East."

Thankfully Laura referred to him as an envoy and not as a diplomat, since diplomacy was a stranger to Burns.

Iran's nuclear program in in complete compliance with the NPT -- the real problem for the US regime is, as Burns stated, that Iran doesn't accept US hegemony in the ME. So the US has, in effect, already initiated a state of war against Iran when one considers: economic sanctions, naval fleets, propaganda, support of MEK terrorists in Iran and bombing threats.

The US is not pursuing regime change in Iran? No, it would never . . .oops, it already did it once.

Don,Liz,

Please see this interview in Harper's which sets out that Burns was very much part of the effort to tilt the Bush administration to pursue a diplomatic solution to the Iran crisis -- and not to pursue regime change, as some hawks had advocated in Bush's first term.

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/05/sb-20070504crjk

From the interview: ...

1. How would you describe the Bush Administration's strategy towards Iran?
The administration's Iran policy was for years somewhat paralyzed by Iraq and an internal argument inside the administration between those who advocate “regime change” vs. those who advocate “behavior change.” Led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the administration has come out pretty clearly in favor of “behavior change” towards Iran in recent months. The current effort to get Iran to abandon its nuclear program is headed by Rice's deputy, Nick Burns, and its goal is to create international diplomatic and economic pressure to isolate Iran. In return, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany, have agreed to suspend U.N. sanctions on Iran for the duration of talks and have offered Iran pages and pages of inducements for giving up its nuclear program. The full list of incentives is unpublished, but it includes a nuclear energy program that would keep enriched fuel offshore, as well as economic inducements, such as membership in the W.T.O.

6. How will the conflict over Iran's nuclear program be resolved? Is there likely to be a military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran before Bush leaves office?
Burns and Rice have been somewhat successful in cobbling together an international alliance to isolate Iran, and it's possible that a North Korea-style agreement could be pulled off. I think that's what Rice and Burns are hoping to achieve; there's not a great desire at the State Department or the Pentagon for another war. Some of this depends on what happens in Iraq and the larger region. If by September the “surge” is deemed to be ineffective, the Bush Administration may seek to blame Iran for its continuing difficulties. So I would not be surprised later this fall to see an uptick in Iran-bashing from elements of the administration and associated constituencies trying to gin up confrontation.

Iran, like the United States and 187 other nations, is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"Article III"

"1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty."

There are only four nations that are not signatories to the NNPT - all of whom have nuclear weapons. The four rogue states are North Korea (which was a signatory, but withdrew after President Bush reneged on the 1994 Agreed Framework), Pakistan, India, and Israel.

So, why is the United Nations, under immense pressure from the United States, imposing punitive sanctions on a nation that, as far as we know at this point, is simply exercising its inalienable rights under the NNPT?

And, why is the United States strongly allied with three of the four nuclear rogue states; India (to whom Bush wants to transfer nuclear technology and enriched uranium), Pakistan (which has received over $10B in the past six years), and Israel (which gets billions of dollars in addition to advanced weaponry every year?

Does the law count for ANYTHING any more? Is the entire world now being forced under the authoritarian dominance of the Bush administration?