Yesterday's New York Times reported, "The Obama administration and its European allies are preparing proposals that would shift strategy toward Iran by dropping a longstanding American insistence that Tehran rapidly shut down nuclear facilities during the early phases of negotiations over its atomic program."
That fits with our developing analysis that the faction within the Administration which favours an improvement of diplomatic relations with Tehran, linked to co-operation on issues such as Afghanistan, is winning an internal battle. That faction, which includes President Obama, has recognised that there is no hope of getting Iran to drop the nuclear programme and, I suspect, that the programme is devoted primarily to civilian purposes rather than acquisition of the Bomb. Equally important, they have likely concluded that there is no good option to block Iran's nuclear development: the US is unlikely to get strengthened multilateral economic sanctions, and an Israeli military strike --- which still accepted by some within the Administration --- would have serious, possibly disastrous, political consequences.
This does not mean that the internal battle is over. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, showing nerves over the leaked story, denied that it reflected an Administration decision. The dramatic declaration in the "Times" was hedged with the escape clause: the phrase "allow Iran to continue enriching uranium for some period during the talks" also allows for a move back to sanctions --- or a halt to discussions --- if Tehran does not allow inspections that the US considers suitable. And a "senior Administration official" maintained that the Iranians would ultimately have to halt uranium enrichment, “Our goal remains exactly what it has been in the U.N. resolutions: suspension.”
Still, the trend continues to be towards US-Iran negotiation, rather than confrontation. Substantive talks, especially in public, still have to await the Iranian Presidential elections in June. However, Tehran's signals that discussions will be welcomed, and Obama's gradual ascendancy over his own hard-liners, points to another date in this new US-Iran relationship.
Enduring America can exclusively reveal that CNN, well-known propaganda arm of the Obama Administration, bumped the very important story of Obama's bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia for in-depth coverage of the White House arrival of Bo, the Portuguese water dog.
I never thought I'd be leading off this program with a dog story. All right. It's not just any dog. It's the new Obama family dog. But it's also about White House media manipulation.
Media manipulation? Quite right, Howard. For several minutes, guests Chrystia Freeland of the Financial Times, Tara Wall of The Washington Times, and David Corn pondered how "all the CNN people...were saying, 'Oh, look at the dog. It's so cute.'"
Post-dog story, Kurtz did put up Obama's statement, "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation." He even played the criticism of Fox's Sean Hannity, "We're an arrogant country and we're not a Christian nation and we bow before the Saudi king."
But did CNN show the bow? It did not.
Instead, Kurtz let Freeland --- who is quite clearly not an American and quite clearly works for a left-wing British newspaper --- bury the incident, "[Obama's comments] were picked up by some of the more shrill right-wing critics of the president, but what I thought was really interesting about those remarks...was how smoothly that went over in the U.S."
Now some readers may think we're making too much of a fuss of this obvious conspiracy between the mainstream media and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to keep the real news from us. But please consider....
What was the closing world-shattering story, even more important than Bo the White House Dog, that Kurtz and Reliable Sources pondered?
The father of Bristol Palin's baby speaks out on the television circuit, but do we really need to feast on the uncomfortable details of a teenage breakup?
As U.S. and NATO officials revamp their strategy in Afghanistan, a renegade Afghan commander could prove central to U.S. plans to rein in the insurgency through negotiations.
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is a 61-year-old veteran of Afghanistan's three decades of war who gained infamy for rocketing his own capital during a brief stint as prime minister in the 1990s. More recently, his supporters have carried out several devastating attacks on the Western-backed government of President Hamid Karzai.
But with casualties among foreign forces at record highs, and domestic and international confidence in Karzai's government at an all-time low, U.S. and Afghan officials may have little choice but to grant Hekmatyar a choice seat at the bargaining table.
Five months later, those talks are happening.
US officials have been in discussions with a key Hekmatayar assistant, Daoud Abedi, an Afghan-American businessman based in California. Abedi told the Asia Times:
I was approached by the US government here and we did speak....I spoke to some people here and al-Hamdullilah [thank God] the results of the talks were positive....The purpose of those meetings was to see how we can bring peace Afghanistan and to make sure foreign troops leave Afghanistan as soon as possible.
Saying that this is a shift in US policy is a bit of an understatement. In the first years after the overthrow of the Taliban, the US military was intent on destroying Hekmatayar's group. Indeed, it tried to assassinate Hekmatayar was a "test case" for the US missile warfare now being carried out in northwest Pakistan: the Americans tried to assassinate him with a strike from an unmanned drone planes.
Now, however, Washington is prepared to overlook Hekmatayar's bloody period in power in the early 1990s. (The Washington Post reference to "rocketing his own capital" is another understatement, not mentioning the thousands who died during the fighting.) Put bluntly, the US can't find his group and the Taliban and other insurgents at the same time.
Whether or not Hekmatayar is "the great hope of all parties as the only Pashtun strongman untainted by al-Qaeda and possibly capable of taking on the Taliban", the US is trying to bring him inside the camp rather than fighting him outside it.
That, however, poses an immediate question and a tricker one down the road. Immediately, is the US hoping really hoping that Hekmatayar will "take on the Taliban"? Daoud Abedi is making clear that Hekmatayar wants the Taliban around the negotiating table:
Taliban are also the sons of Afghanistan. They are sacrificing for Afghanistan and for the freedom of Afghanistan so we are hopeful that they will give a positive answer to our request [to join talks] as well.
And beyond those talks, what would a US relationship with Hekmatayar mean for the Karzai Government or indeed any central government in Afghanistan? The current Afghan President is no friend of Hekmatayar; while Karzai has openly called for discussions with the Taliban, he has not included Hekmatayar's group in those statements.
This, however, may be a trivial enquiry compared to the pointedly immediate: the US military "surge" cannot face down all the insurgents that it faces. So Hekmatayar, formerly one of the most wanted US targets, has once again become an acceptable political leader.
JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR Here to talk about the president's visit and the challenges in keeping with the withdrawal schedule is the top U.S. commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno. He joins us from Camp Victory in Baghdad.
Sir. Happy Easter to you, and thank you for joining us. Let me start with the big challenge you face. In just 11 weeks you're supposed to have your troops out of Mosul, out of Baqubah, out of other major cities. And you have an uptick in violence in recent days. Will you meet the deadline or will you have to keep the troops there?
GEN. RAY ODIERNO, COMMANDER, MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE-IRAQ: Well, first, John, if I could, I would like to wish happy Easter to everyone back in the United States, especially to all of the family and friends of our service members who continue to serve over here. It's a real dedication to their great work that has helped our soldiers over here.
John, what I would tell you is overall violence remains at 2003 lows. However, as you have seen over the last week or so, there are still some elements here that are able still to conduct some very serious attacks.
So we will continue to conduct assessments along with the government of Iraq as we move forwards the June 30th deadline. If we believe that we'll need troops to maintain a presence in some of the cities, we'll recommend that, but, ultimately, it will the decision of Prime Minister Maliki.
KING: And when the president was there, sir, just the other day, did you discuss this with him and did you, in fact, maybe ask him to pressure the Iraqi government? You know the political pressures, not only on our president here in the United States, but on Prime Minister Maliki.
Did you ask the president to say, look, if we need more time you need to nudge them to give it to us?
ODIERNO: Well, again, we did have good discussions. We went through all of the major issues facing Iraq now with the president. What we discussed is there is some diplomatic actions that have to be taken.
Listen, Prime Minister Maliki understands the tensions in Mosul. He understands there's an assessment that has to be made. I'm confident that we will make a joint assessment and then he will make a decision. We will tell him what we believe is the right thing to do but ultimately it will up to him to make that decision.
KING: I want to remind our viewers, as we have this conversation, about the timelines and the deadlines you face. June 30th of this year, all U.S. combat troops are supposed to be out of Baghdad and the other major Iraqi cities. It is August 31st, 2010, all U.S. combat troops are supposed to be out of Iraq, leaving about 50,000 behind. And then by December 31st, 2011, all U.S. troops out of Iraq.
Sir, in your conversations with President Obama, how comfortable do you feel that if you go to him at any point, whether it's one of these interim deadlines or the bigger deadline in 2011, you say, sir, I need more time or, sir, I need more troops, that you will get what you need?
ODIERNO: Well, again, he understands, as he has stated, that there is still much work to be done here in Iraq. I believe he has given me the flexibility over the next 18 months in order to adjust the size of the force that I need in order to accomplish the mission. What we're trying to do is set the conditions for Iraq to take over and be able to secure themselves.
And so we'll continue to do that. And I have the flexibility to do that. The president has given that to me.
John, if I could make one correction. On August 31st, it is that we will have a change in mission here in Iraq and we will no longer conduct combat operations. It's not necessarily that all combat troops will be out of Iraq by that date.
KING: Thank you for the correction, sir. And it's well noted, because let me follow on that point. Are you concerned at all? The mission went off-track at the beginning, way back, six years ago when there weren't enough troops to do everything that needed to be done. Are you concerned, sir, when you get to that point, when you're looking at 50,000 troops or so that you will have too few troops to do what you need to do or are you confident that if you need more, you'll get them?
ODIERNO: Well, what has changed, John, is that the Iraqi security forces have matured significantly. They now have 250,000, army. They have over 400,000 police. They are continuing to improve in their competency. So that is helping significantly.
So it is not the same as it was in 2004 or 2005 or 2006. So part of the judgment will be how much can they do. They are proving every day that they are becoming more competent, so the decision will be made as how much of U.S. forces are needed in order to continue to support them to keep the stability that we're starting to see here in Iraq.
KING: And, sir, I've walked over to our map so can I show our viewers what has happened over the timeline of the past six years. Back in May 2003, a little over 142,000 troops. And if you follow the timeline over, you see here in October 2007 because of your surge strategy, 170,000 troops on the ground. And we're down now somewhere in the area of 140,000 troops on the ground.
In terms of the pace of operations, the last time I was there and out with troops in the field was a little more than a year ago. And I did a convoy run up from Camp Anaconda up to Baqubah. That was a pretty dicey time, about every other convoy was experiencing an IED attack.
In terms of the reports you get back from the daily operations of the troops, is it as bad as it was then or have things improved significantly?
ODIERNO: Yes, they've improved significantly. And I think you would be surprised if you were here again. Obviously, we still have some very serious incidents, based on one this week.
But, again, it's much safer. In March, our combat fatalities were the lowest they've been since the beginning of the war. The number of incidents in March was the lowest month of incidents we've had since really right back to June of 2003 before the insurgency started.
So there has been a clear improvement of security here. The issue is, can we maintain that -- can the Iraqis maintain it? And that is what we're working through now is we want them to be able to maintain this stability as we pull out.
And that is what we're assessing and constantly doing. I believe we're on track to do that. We have a schedule to reduce our forces. I have flexibility to change that within the next 18 months, and we'll continue to look at that very closely as we move forward.
KING: And you mentioned that March was a relatively good month. I want to, again, play a little timeline here so that our viewers can see it here. This is U.S. troops killed in Iraq and you see the numbers from 2003 moving forward. 2007 at the height of the surge was the highest year and 51 so far, I hesitate to say, only 51 so far in 2009.
You mentioned that March was a good month, sir. That was nine Americans killed in March. But already we've hit the number nine 12 days into the month of April because of a few tragic events in recent days.
Why? Are you seeing that this -- is this just random events or are you seeing some coordination of increase in violence?
ODIERNO: Yes. What I see is there are some cells out there who are still capable of conducting suicide attacks. And, unfortunately, had a tragic attack in Mosul this past week of a suicide bomber who killed five of our soldiers. Tragic, tragic event.
They have that capacity still. It's much less than it has ever been. They are very small cells throughout Iraq. We continue to be aggressive at going after them with the Iraqi security forces.
But this is not a significant increase in overall lack of security. There just are still some suicide bombers and those who profess suicide attacks that are still very dangerous.
KING: And help those military families and other Americans watching on this Easter Sunday morning assess where you are now. We talked at the beginning about the potential that you might have to ask for a little bit more time in Mosul, in Baqubah, in other cities.
Is this in part because you're saving the worst, the hardest challenges for last, if you will? That al Qaeda in Iraq and other groups that oppose your being there have concentrated in certain areas and these are the last fronts?
ODIERNO: Well, what we've done is we've driven them there, John, through our operations over the last two years. And we've continued to eliminate areas where they are no longer welcome by the Iraqi people. They are rejected. They are no longer able to conduct operations so they've moved to certain areas.
One is in the desert near Syria between Syria and the city of Mosul, and then inside of Mosul. So we now are working very hard with the Iraqi security forces to finish off this last group of individuals who are still able to conduct some serious attacks.
The same in Baqubah. Although Baquba actually has been extremely safe, areas east of there towards the Iranian border still have some remnants of al Qaeda and other extremists that are still able to do some operations.
So we're in the process of routing them out with the Iraqi security forces.
KING: You just mentioned there, sir, areas near the Syrian border, and areas near the Iranian border which begs the question for the past six years we've had these conversations about Syria letting people back and forth across the border, in fact, maybe even supporting some of them.
Iran letting people back and forth, letting weapons across the border, and in fact training some of the people who are trying to kill the men and women who serve under you, sir.
What is the status of Iran and Syria? Are they still as problematic as they were before or have we seen any improvement?
ODIERNO: Well, first, we've been able to significantly limit the ability of them to traffic foreign fighters in through Syria. We have done that through major operations. We made it extremely difficult. The Iraqis have helped significantly in closing their borders and making it more difficult for foreign fighters and suicide attackers to come across.
They are still able to come across in very small numbers. There's still some of a facilitation network that still is in Syria.
In terms of Iran, Iran, although I would -- the support is a bit less than it was, there's still reports that training, funding, and the providing of weapons still goes on. Although it's at a smaller level, it's still very sophisticated and is still trying to impact the stability situation here in Iraq.
KING: More of our conversation with General Ray Odierno in just a moment. And later, also, is President Obama the most polarizing president of recent times? We'll debate that question and more with two of our top political strategists. Our "State of the Union" report will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We're back with the top U.S. commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno.
And, General, I want to ask you a bit about what I find fascinating is; that is, your relationship with the new commander in chief, someone who was so vigorously opposed to the war effort you now lead.
And I want to show our viewers a bit of a timeline, here.
It was back in October 2002 when then-Illinois state senator Barack Obama, not even in the United States Senate yet, declared he was against the war in Iraq.
And then, in January of 2007, Senator Barack Obama, a United States senator, at this point, and candidate for the presidency of the United States, spoke out strongly against the surge policy that General Odierno pushed for.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The responsible course of action for the United States, for Iraq, and for our troops is to oppose this reckless escalation and to pursue a new policy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: But since winning the election and becoming commander in chief, a decidedly different tone from President Obama, when it comes to the war in Iraq, including his visit to Baghdad just this past Tuesday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: Every mission that's been assigned, from getting rid of Saddam to reducing violence to stabilizing the country, to facilitating elections, you have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country. That is an extraordinary achievement, and, for that, you have the thanks of the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
General Odierno, you are the father of the surge strategy. You pushed for it when even many of your commanders wanted to get troops out of Iraq.
How hard is it to develop a rapport with a president of the United States who thought your strategy was a reckless escalation?
ODIERNO: Well, first off, he's our commander in chief. And as the commander in chief, we take direction from him. He has -- in all of the meetings I've had with him, he is very attentive; he's very -- he listens. He is incredibly intelligent. He talks through the issues, and -- and we discuss it. He makes a decision and then we execute those decisions.
And that's all you can expect out of your commander in chief. And he's -- I've been very pleased with the interaction that I've been able to have with him.
KING: Has he ever said, General, you know, Ray, you were right; I was wrong about the surge?
ODIERNO: I don't think we talked about that ever.
(LAUGHTER)
KING: Let me -- let me ask you -- let me move back to a more serious question, and the idea that, in the previous administration and in your service prior to this administration, you were very clear that you thought these decisions should not be based on political timelines; they should be based on conditions on the ground.
I understand you're executing the orders of the commander in chief. I just want to get a sense of, are you concerned at all that the bad guys, the enemy, knows the timeline, too, and they are simply going into hiding, hoarding their resources, gathering their weapons and waiting for you to leave?
ODIERNO: There is always that potential. But, again, let me remind everyone what change was in December when the United States and the government of Iraq signed an agreement, a bilateral agreement that put the timeline in place, that said we would withdraw all our forces by 31 December, 2011.
In my mind, that was historic. It allowed Iraq to prove that it has its own sovereignty. It allows them, now, to move forward and take control, which was always -- it's always been our goal, is that they can control the stability in their country.
So I think I feel comfortable with that timeline. I did back in December. I do now. We continue to work with the government of Iraq so they can meet that timeline, so that they are able to maintain stability once we leave. I still believe we're on track with that, as we talk about this today.
KING: You say you're comfortable with that timeline, sir. I want you to expound on that, a little bit. Because, back in -- I'm holding up a copy of Tom Ricks' book, "The Gamble." It's a fascinating book from the Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post journalist about the war effort in Iraq.
And you told him, in that book -- this is -- he's quoting you in that book. "When asked what sort of U.S. military presence he expected in Iraq around 2014 or 2015, well after Obama's first term, Odierno said, 'I would like to see a force probably around 30,000 or so, 35,000, with many troops training Iraqi forces and others conducting combat operations against Al Qaida in Iraq and its allies.'"
Now, certainly, this was before the agreement with the Iraqi government was negotiated -- and I want to make that clear -- when you made those remarks.
But you have to implement this strategy because it is a signed agreement between the government of Iraq and the United States of America. But do you personally think it would be best that, for the foreseeable future, to leave 30,000 or so behind?
ODIERNO: Well, again, what I would tell you is it really has always been about Iraqi -- Iraqis securing their own country. So the issue becomes, do we think they will be able to do that?
As they continue to improve in the operations they've been able to conduct, I believe that they will be able to do that by the end of 2011.
And so the most important thing for us is to help them now to reduce the risk that will be left with them once we depart at the end of 2011. We will continue to train and advise. We'll continue to assist; we'll continue to conduct combat operations, where we believe it's necessary.
And I do believe, now, that it is probably the right time frame.
KING: And on a scale of 1 to 10, sir, how confident are you, 10 being fully confident, that you will meet that deadline, that all U.S. troops will be gone at the end of 2011?
ODIERNO: As you ask me today, I believe it's a 10 that we will be gone by 2011.
KING: That's a -- that's a bold statement. I want to ask you, a little bit, about your current work. Because a lot of what you're doing requires the Iraqi security forces to get up to speed, and that, of course, is part of your mission.
But the other part of the equation is the Iraqi political environment. And in that environment, you are finding yourself, I'm told, in some meetings that you would prefer that the lead person be the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, and you don't have a U.S. ambassador at the moment. The nomination of Chris Hill is held up at the moment in the United States Senate.
Does that hurt the U.S. effort in Iraq, not having an ambassador on the ground?
ODIERNO: Well, I mean I believe it's important to have an ambassador here. It's important to have an ambassador in all of our key countries. And Iraq is a very important country in our national strategy. So, of course, it would be much better to have our ambassador here. We have a process that we have to go through to get our ambassadors confirmed. We're going through that process. Hopefully we'll have an ambassador out here very soon. It would certainly help to have an ambassador here as quickly as possible.
KING: You work now in an administration that doesn't like the term war on terror. The Bush administration used that term quite frequently. Does that matter to you? The men and women who are risking their lives every day, are they fighting the war on terror in General Odierno's view or something else?
ODIERNO: Well, what they are doing is fighting for the security of United States. So it doesn't matter what you call it. We're here to ensure that we better secure the -- all of the people of our country and that by doing that, by defeating terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else, we're here to accomplish what we believe is important to maintain security for our country.
KING: I want to ask you, sir, as a general and as a parent of someone who was hurt in Iraq, your son suffered a devastating injury, but, thank God, was not hurt any further than that in Iraq. We have a new policy where they have opened Dover and allowed media coverage of the returning bodies, the caskets of those who suffer the ultimate sacrifice overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you support that policy? Do you think it helps the American people better understand the price those young men and women are paying, or do you think it's too much?
ODIERNO: I think the most important piece of that was that you give the families the choice. What we care about is the families have their choice. We want to respect the families. So it always comes down to that. So I'm very pleased the families gets to choose whether that coverage happens or not and I think that's the right thing.
KING: I want to ask you lastly, sir, a lot people now watch more troops going into Afghanistan and say well, the surge worked in Iraq, a surge will work in Afghanistan. I want to give you an opportunity to say what you think is similar and importantly what you think is different in Afghanistan than in Iraq.
ODIERNO: Well, I don't really -- I don't want to comment too much on Afghanistan. I've spent an awful lot of time here in Iraq and I consider myself to understand Iraq. I don't consider myself to fully understand Afghanistan. But what I do know, some of the concepts are the same. You have to secure the population. Once you secure the population, it is much easier than to fight the terrorists, because the population then helps you. When they're not secure, when they feel like they are being terrorized, it's much more difficult for them to support any effort to defeat these terrorists. So I think that concept is clearly the same. The only other thing I would say is that it is a civil/military problem. It is not just a military solution. And I know that in Afghanistan, they're working towards a civil/military solution. So I think those are the keys as we move forward.
KING: General Ray Odierno joining us from Baghdad this morning. Sir, we thank you for your time and we thank you and the thousands of men and women under you there in Iraq for their military service and you should know you are in our thoughts and prayers every day as we go forward.
ODIERNO: Thank you very much, John. Once again, Happy Easter to all Americans.
KING: General, one other thing I wanted to mention. I'm sorry, before I do let you go. I'm an old-fashioned kind of guy and thought I had a friend in Ray Odierno on the show but I understand you have launched Facebook site so that you can better communicate with folks back here in the United States and we're showing it on our monitors before we let you go.
I just want you to know my resistance to Facebook has now crumbled thanks to Ray Odierno. Explain why you think this is important.
ODIERNO: Well, I want to -- I think it's important that people can reach out and ask questions and maybe educate them a little bit more on what is going on here in Iraq. And get to know us a little bit better. This is new for me. This is new ground so we'll see how it goes but I'm actually pretty excited about it.
KING: Well, we'll see how many people are watching today by how many friends you get in the next few hours. Again, general, Happy Easter to you and the men and women serving in Iraq and take care, sir.
On Friday, Scott Lucas wrote of "Iran's Pride" in the speech of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the country's nuclear program. No surprise to the trained eye here: rallying around the flag is of great importance to any Iranian politician involved in forthcoming elections, and vagueness of Ahmadinejad's announcement was designed to create a media circus around the incumbent President.
Beyond the electoral short-term, the Iranian nuclear program should be compared to a ’slow boat to self-independence’. It is a long and expensive journey, but it will get there in the end.
Yet, beyond that obvious statement, there is a key element forgotten by the international community and sceptics of the Iranian program, one to consider alongside the statement issued by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, ‘It would benefit the Iranians, in our view, if they cooperated with the international community.' The view and constant rhetoric of the Iranian government is that Iran IS abiding by such rules, rules set by the Non-Proliferation Treaty to which Iran became a signatory in 1969.
The key with diplomacy at this level is communication. Iran and the US have failed to seize upon clear opportunities to talk face-to-face on this issue. After 30 years of mistrust since the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iranians may ask why their scepticism of Washington should change. Each time Iran has tried to reconcile with the West, for example in negotiations with the European Union 3 of Britain, France, and Germany, the US that has undermined any progress, for example, rejecting the admission of Iran to the World Trade Organization.
Tables have now started to turn, however, with ‘corridor diplomacy’ taking place on issues concerning Iran's border states of Iraq and Afghanistan. The common ground for Tehran and Washington is that Iran can assist with the rebuilding of Iraq, bringing regional security, support the American eradication of the Taliban.
In time, diplomatic corridors become negotiating rooms where bilateral talks can begin. However, this requires time and patience. Instead of looking at this like a business negotiation, where no deal is considered a success until both parties have signed the dotted line, one should consider in diplomacy that the mere fact of US-Iran talks is a victory.
The truth about Iran's supposed pursuit of nuclear weapons is that if Tehran obtained and used them, it would be the end of the country. If it obtained the weapons and did not use them, it will open the door to either 1) a strike by other countries to cripple Iran's military capability or 2) a ‘horizontal proliferation’ in which all states in the region become nuclear powers, causing a very uncomfortable global security dilemma.
This summer should reveal these truths and the possibilities in US-Iran discussions. Change has occurred in the US with the Obama willingness to extend the hand of diplomacy; now the question is whether Iran will accept it. If President Ahmadinejad remains in office after the elections, that acceptance might not come, in which case the issue will be how long US patience will last. If Ahmadinejad fails, however, it will be a question of how much time it takes for the Iranians to start direct talks.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009 at 7:23 
Yesterday's New York Times reported, "The Obama administration and its European allies are preparing proposals that would shift strategy toward Iran by dropping a longstanding American insistence that Tehran rapidly shut down nuclear facilities during the early phases of negotiations over its atomic program."
Last November, Barack Obama's election as President overshadowed 
On Friday,