For example, while pondering your previous comment (to me) about the Israelis not having anything to offer the Russians…when I think of that, it seems to me that the US/UK/Israel partnership in the region would override the necessity for Israel to provide specific bargaining tools in this instance. Not to say that Israel’s interests are insignificant or anything. But the “cost” could be exacted, it seems to me, in relation to the Palestinian issue, which has a direct relationship to how the US, largely, is perceived both in the region and around the world. Which is probably the central reason that Obama has been sponsored and promoted. Bush may have pushed the troops in, thereafter angering the world. But then Obama comes in, speaking of change and partnerships, administering the ‘pacification’ program with empty words, with clear articulation…with a teleprompter.

And how successful has he been? Just watch those CSPAN speeches at the UN–leaders from low-wage neo-colonial slaves states talking firmly about “security” and nuclear disarmament, all in the shadow of these dubious revelations of a secret Iranian nuclear facility. It is moments like this for me, watching those speeches, listening to the phrasing, paying attention to the body language, thinking about the “coincidence,” thinking about the G20 being named as the new global economic council (as Zbigniew Brzezinski suggested in his speech to the RIIA in November, 2008, just following the Obama victory)…it becomes clear to me, the strategic value of this global partnership talk; the use-value of selling “partnership” for global economic specialization and centralization; and of the “Obama effect” to successfully push this agenda through.

I’ll be in touch…

Here is some humor for you about Ahmadinejad: Iran Top-Secret: The President’s Gmail Account–

http://enduringamerica.com/2009/09/30/iran-top-secret-the-presidents-gmail-account/

It is tasteful and quite funny!

This article is what I mean when I refer to no bias. It was great and you supported your statements with facts. You positioned it with questions and essentially asked the reader to decide for himself. I learned something! Dr. Roberts on the other hand makes a lot of good points but he often states it as opinion offering little evidence. His two recent articles on Iran are good examples. Maybe I am splitting hairs but I get out of whack when I see writers inject a lot of personal opinion with name calling. In my mind it only hurts the message they are trying to get across. On your article I don’t think the US is pushing for war but using it as a bully tactic to get their way. I also think this is a calculated move on the part of the Iranians to create a threat to try and unify the people. Once unified he will use it to crush the reform movement under the pretext of that “outside” threat he harps on so much about. I can’t see any other reason for the regime to divulge the sites existence. Check out http://www.enduringamerica.com they have a lot of good coverage on Iran and they go into some detail on the political forces behind the scenes. I found it extremely helpful in understanding the dynamics from the Iranian side. Ironically I don’t think they intended to focus so much on Iran but their coverage of the Quds protests caused their page count reads to go up exponentially.

I think your correct about Ahmandinejad using this to distract people away from the issue. I think he has correctly surmized that the US is not capable economically or politically of engaging in another war. Worst case scenario in his mind is a military strike which if it happens he can use to crush the reform movement. Sort of sad because it is a lose lose for the great Iranian people looking to throw of the chains of political Islam.

No, actually, I meant that one possible outcome of the move to scrap the missile defense plan might be greater Russian willingness to tow the U.S. line on Iran. The NYT and other mainstream reports have noted this quite frankly. But you are right that it’s a point that’s been marginalized. You can find it in a single sentence towards the end of an article, if you find it at all.

I agree with your point on coincidences. I don’t believe they are. No time now, but let’s continue the discussion.

When I suggested that I hadn’t read one probing account, what I mean to suggest is that I would like a good journalist address the throbbing coincidence–finding a “secret” nuclear facility with all these other aforementioned events taking place: the secret meeting, the missile shield, the UN security council meeting…add these to the notion that (and I’m taking this from the Brookings report issued last June) the US/Israel strategy with Iran was set to emerge September/October anyway. This seems like an awful lot of coincidence to me. If it is a coincidence, fine, let’s talk about what makes it a coincidence. If it’s not, let’s talk about that instead. But either way, my gut feeling tells me that these relationships need to be analyzed with some intelligence. By an honest journalist (or journalists) that have a far more nuanced understanding of the gears and levers of foreign policy than myself.

Sanctions or air strikes? Either one of these brutal policy options is presently founded upon a dubious cover story of wrongdoing.

Is it dubious? You have addressed one angle of this ‘dubiousness’ in your article, but it seems there are many others.

If journalists have addressed these coincidences, please send me some links. I would be curious to read what others think.

The missile shield plan was “scrapped” (actually, Obama announced a new-improved version would continue) in part as a concession to Russia with the hopes of getting Russia to play ball with the U.S. on Iran and the move for “crippling sanctions”. This has actually been pointed out by the mainstream media quite candidly. Israel’s diplomatic front with Russia no doubt is intended to serve the same purpose, although I don’t know what Israel expects it can offer in return for Russia’s cooperation in the U.N. Security Council.

A lot of people, including Iranian dissident and opposition organizations, agree with you. This is why there was a lot of pressure for the “democracy fund” to be removed from the overt agenda. Funding continued, but in a less in-your-face manner. Still overt, such as USAID and NED funding, but without an official U.S. declaration attached saying “We want regime change!” That purpose, of course, also remains, they just aren’t declaring it from the hilltops anymore.