As you may recall, Qatar was trying hard to prevent the US/UK invasion of Iraq, right up to the last minute. Qatar is friendly toward Iran, and I think Iran does well when it follows policies that aid stability in the Gulf, in the mutual interest of all the people of the countries fronting on the Gulf.

After “9/11″, the Saudis forced the Americans to evacuate the bases so foolishly kept after the Gulf War. Some of the idiots who pushed for the invasion of Iraq, saw it as an opportunity to obtain replacement military bases.

The Saudis oppose any attack on Iran, by Israel or the US. On the other hand, the Saudis do have concerns about Iranian-supported efforts to create instability in their country. I think the Saudis and the Iranians need to work together to bring about a resolution of the Israel/Palestine problem.

” Qatar, Iraq and Turkey are adamantly opposed to any US attack on Iran, or any attack on Iran by Israel. Yet all three countries have US military bases “. The Saudi regime is complicit in many conspiracies against the Islamic republic.

” As I understand it, attacks on oil facilities (overt or covert) and blocking of the straits of Hormuz are precisely such deterrents Iran is counting on to prevent being actually attacked (by that I mean hot war, not some proxy attacks like Jundullah). If Iran were to go ahead and carry out the sabotages anyway without a serious provocation first (aerial strikes against nuclear facilities for example) wouldn’t this have the effect of Iran losing her deterrence towards future attacks? “. Well a small act of sabotage against some Saudi oil facilities will not compromise Iran`s deterrence , Iran will still have the S. of Hormuz and other oil facilities plus U.S military bases. The sabotage acts would be just reminders towards the Zionist servants in Washington !

” Also, if Iran was to carry out such acts of sabotage and no matter how clever they are there is a possibility that it could be traced back to her, what makes you think that it could not cause global outcry and allow the US and her allies to carry out all out war against Iran (by that I mean round the clock bombing not an actual occupation)….. “.The Iranians are clever to clean their finger prints , plus they can do what the U.S does : Deny and blame Al – Qaeda ! :) Finally the U.S and its western allies cannot sustain round clock bombing for too long , they will need to refuel the fighter jets , but then Iran has the capabilities to disrupt the supply lines , plus I doubt if all the key countries such as Iraq will allow the use of their airspace to facilitate any bombing campaign against Iran.

SAY WHAT? Where the hell do you get THAT notion? Obama has been VERY CLEAR that he will NOT accept Iran enrichment on Iranian soil PERIOD! HE has stated this a number of times. He may have a few advisers who disagree, but I can assure you that his main advisers, including the Vice President, his Chief of Staff, the Secretary of State, and Dennis Ross most definitely DO NOT want Iran enriching AT ALL.

Please, you’re just being disingenuous now. I realize that you’re one of these people who simply can’t emotionally accept that the US intends to go to war with Iran – and is merely trying to figure out how without losing the next election due to some hypothesized discontent from the US electorate once the war goes bad – but really, you need to get a more realistic view of the situation. Obama most definitely is on a collision course with Iran based on his basic and repeatedly stated view that he will not accept ANY Iranian enrichment.

All this 20% stuff is just the latest reaction. You need to go back a ways and realize that what I’ve said here is true – Obama is totally against ANY Iranian enrichment and it doesn’t matter what this or that adviser might think or say in some public media. US policy at its heart is identical to Israeli policy on this issue: NO enrichment whatsoever.

If you hear Obama say otherwise, it’s merely because he’s trying to lure the Iranians into a pointless discussion that will go no where as a prelude to trying to get them to stop enrichment completely before ANY serious negotiations. Which is a complete non starter and he KNOWS that. It’s just a game, just like the swap proposal was just a game – when Brazil and Turkey made it real, the US backed off like it was scalded. If that doesn’t tell you what Obama is about, you really don’t understand what’s going on here.

You write: “What use does Iran have for LEU? None, for years to come.” Many strategists like George Friedman of Stratfor postulates that Iran sees its program (overt program) primarily as a bargaining chip that could be traded for geopolitical concessions while its actual capabilities remain hidden. If so, why would they sacrifice on such key issues for nothing in return? Isn’t that the mistake that Khatami made? You know full and well that once Iran does what you prescribe there would be added pressure and calls for additional concessions.

One more thing James. I’ve seen you write that China and Russia supports Iran’s right to low level enrichment and it’s the 20% level they have a problem with. Do correct me if I am wrong on this but my understanding is that they helped pass security council resolutions calling for a complete cessation of Iran’s enrichment activities.

You write about “US/UK intelligence preparing a fake video to represent, falsely, that Iran is helping the Taliban (and al-Qaeda)?” I usually don’t take anything emanating from a Basiji mouthpiece like PressTv seriously but I think here you are proving my point. This just shows that Iran would be continued to be portrayed in a negative light and hostilities towards her would continue regardless of what it does. I strongly believe this hostility is because of geopolitical reasons (balance of power in the Gulf) and pressure on Iran would continue to persist regardless of what Iran does or what kind of regime it has.

If the Iran-Iraq war and recent Israeli actions have proved anything then it is that the moral highground matters very little in this region. The US and her allies would continue to back those opposed to Iran (Saddam, Salafists, putting up with Saudi and Pakistani transgressions) no matter how unsavory they may be and no one seems to be able to convince the US that it would be easier just to have a better relationship with Iran. Given all this, don’t you think it is in Iran’s best interest to stop any cooperation with the US and quit making their job any easier?

And yes they should continue to support the Palestinian cause but it might be in Iran’s interest to have some understanding with the Israelis (maybe open some back channel talks).

“There are Google Ads on EA, automatically posted to the site based on the scope of our coverage. I have not noticed AIPAC being amongst those ads but will keep an eye open.”

They’re easy to miss, Scott, but this may help you to spot them: on nearly any Enduring America web page, look in the center column about one third of the way down.

Iran should keep the moral hight ground, and stand for peace and stability in the Middle East, in the context of justice for the Palestinians.

Did you see the report on PressTV’s site today (regarding US/UK intelligence preparing a fake video to represent, falsely, that Iran is helping the Taliban (and al-Qaeda)? The fact Iran is hostile to the Taliban is one major reason intelligent Americans can argue that US policy in Afghanistan is idiotic in that it tries to ignore Iran when Iran’s help in achieving stability is essential.

While I welcomed the Turkey-Brazil-Iran deal, I thought the chances of preventing another round of sanctions from being approved by the UN Security Council, were close to nil. The passing of the latest sanctons measure does not mean that the deal cannot proceed; if fact, it should proceed as fast as possible.

What use does Iran have for LEU? None, for years to come. So, why not have the LEU stored in Turkey?