Iran's first nuclear reactor caps decades of living dangerously

What in the world is the West going to do about Iran? News that Iran had started loading fuel into its first nuclear power plant in Bushehr is a reminder of the limits of muscular foreign policy. Decades of confrontation with Tehran, including economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation, have served only to get us where we are now: less control over events combined with deepening mistrust and growing animosity. "Despite all the pressures, sanctions and hardships imposed by Western nations, we are now witnessing the start-up of the largest symbol of Iran's peaceful nuclear activities," Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi told a news conference on Iranian television as technicians prepared a fuel rod assembly at the plant, according to the Reuters international news service. Iran completed the plant with the help of Rosatom, Russia's state nuclear corporation, over the objections of the United States. But a U.S. State Department spokesman said Washington did not consider the Bushehr reactor to be a proliferation threat because Russia would be providing fuel and taking back spent fuel rods for reprocessing. "Russia's support for Bushehr underscores that Iran does not need an indigenous enrichment capability if its intentions are purely peaceful," spokesman Darby Holladay told Reuters. Russia backed a U.N. Security Council resolution in June that imposed a fourth round of economic sanctions on Iran to discourage Tehran from trying to develop nuclear weaponry. Construction of the reactor at Bushehr was started in the 1970s, before the Islamic revolution that toppled the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran and started what has now been more than 30 years of animosity between Tehran and Washington.

Obama grows into commander-in-chief role

Today's White House ceremony marking the signing of new economic sanctions against Iran illustrates the recognition by U.S. President Barack Obama that his well-meaning leftist ideology does not always translate well to international affairs. The kind of world Obama envisioned when he spoke so hopefully in Cairo just after taking office in 2009 is not the kind we have. Iran has not responded forthrightly to U.S. efforts to convince Tehran to abandon nuclear weapons development and, instead, has threatened the United States and its allies -- notably Israel. Iran denies trying to develop nuclear weapons and insists its program is for peaceful purposes. But Tehran has lied before and, given the tense relations between Iran and the United States almost continuously since the violent 1979 revolution that replaced the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran with an Islamic government, could reasonably be expected to do so again. Previous rounds of sanctions imposed by Western nations have not been effective in getting Iran to honestly discuss its nuclear ambitions. Obama's endorsement of further sanctions -- this time, expected to restrict Tehran's import of oil for domestic purposes and severely penalize private companies that enable Iran to get around them -- indicates that he, too, is frustrated by the lack of progress and convinced of the need to take determined action short of outright war. "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons," Obama said at the signing of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act. "With these sanctions -- along with others -- we are striking at the heart of the Iranian government's ability to fund and develop its nuclear programs. We are showing the Iranian government that its actions have consequences." Iran has already starting feeling the effects of the newly toughened sanctions, Reuters said. French oil giant Total announced it would stop selling refined fuel to Tehran and Spain's Repsol withdrew from a contract to help develop Iran's South Pars gas field in the Persian Gulf, the news service said.

Hard-to-believe election drama plays out in Iran

Does anyone find it difficult to believe that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad can possibly be voted out in Friday's election? As amazing as it sounds, the unseating of Ahmedinejad, yet another virulently anti-U.S. leader of an oil-rich nation, appears to be a possibility when voters go to the polls to between him and Mir Hossein Moussavi, a former prime minister, according to the Cable News Network (CNN). Moussavi seems to have closed a huge deficit in the polls as late as 10 days ago and could be poised to win, based on the crowds that attend his rallies and the amount of campaign bunting on the streets of Tehran, CNN said. But this is Iran, where Shiite religious leaders hold enormous power, even the power to block whatever the parliament tries to do, according to Mohamad Bazzi of the Council on Foreign Relations, writing in the Washington Post. The country's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, controls the 12-member Guardian Council, which has the power to block candidates and veto legislation. It's impossible to tell what the council will do if Moussavi, who supports detente with the United States, wins the election. More likely, neither Moussavi or Ahmedinejad will get a majority of the votes in the four-candidate election, and will be forced into a runoff. The other candidates are Mehdi Karroubi, a former former speaker of Iran's parliament, and former Revolutionary Guards commander Mohsen Rezaee. Iran has had reform candidates win before, since the Islamic revolution in 1979, but the power of the senior clergy was not seriously challenged.