More interesting readings on Iran

As we discussed this morning, things have taken an interesting turn with Iran. Iran appears to be cooperating, and last week's international talks appear to have been somewhat productive. Although, depending on who you ask, the emphasis on "appear" may be especially apt. In particular, Iran has agreed to allow inspectors into its previously secret Qom enrichment plant on October 25. They have also agreed to begin talks with Russia on October 16, to arrange for Russia to perform additional enrichment on Iran's Uranium stockpile, so that it can be used in Iranian research reactors. This latter development is particularly intriguing and we should keep our eyes on it. Will that actually happen? Does such a concession by Iran mean that they will be making further demands of the international community in the future?

There is a very broad range of opinions out there on how to interpret Iran's statements and actions on the nuclear issue. I found the following opinion round-up interesting:
New York Times "opinionator" blog, with excerpts from many different opinion pieces
Is Iran ahead? Are we ahead? What's going on exactly?

I also took a quick peek at your homeworks for this week, and I think it's worth posting links to a handful of opinion pieces that you all discovered. The articles that you found (and your reactions to them) show a huge range of possible opinions on this issue - many more than we really explored in class today. Wish we'd heard from more of you! It's tough to get discussion going at 9a.m.

"Pinches of Nuclear Salt" from the Daily Times, in Pakistan - compares the current situation to the WMD situation before we invaded Iraq.
"The Subject was Nuclear Weapons" a New York Times Editorial - discusses a recent U.N. Security Council resolution and why it should have been stronger. Interesting thing to me - the article claims we should, in particular, place limits on the use of highly enriched Uranium for medical research. I guess that's Iran's claim - that that's why they need highly enriched Uranium?
"Negotiating with Tehran" another New York Times Editorial - argues that Iran is just playing along in order to buy more time, and we shouldn't trust them.
"Obama's Iran Talks will Fail" a Washington Times Editorial - written before the talks started, claiming that they would fail. Paints Iran as definite bad guys.
"Lifting Iran's Nuclear Veil" yet another New York Times Opinion Piece - argues that the Qom enrichment plant doesn't make sense unless it's a part of a bigger enrichment program.
Blogger Juan Cole's site - here is a completely different perspective, claiming that Iran really isn't out for nuclear weapons and we should believe them in their claims. This is the set of opinions Jesus described in class - offers a very interesting counter-point to most of the stuff we are finding in the New York Times and our usual news sources.