Iran puts into writing what everyone knew all along

Well, it's finally put up or shut up time for the West on Iran's nuclear program, as if what happened wasn't obvious all along. We're discussing, of course, Tehran's formal rejection of a United Nations proposal to send most of the country's enriched uranium abroad for processing. The International Atomic Energy Agency announced that it had received a letter from Iran rejecting parts of the proposed deal, designed to prevent the country from developing nuclear weapons, according to the Reuters international news service. Western nations had backed the plan offered by former IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei but Iran allowed the proposal's Dec. 31 deadline to pass despite threats of economic penalties for noncompliance. The plan would have required Iran to transfer at least 70 percent of its nuclear fuel to a European nation for enrichment to levels suitable for power but not for weaponry. Iran reportedly agreed to the deal in principle in October at six-party talks in Geneva, but has raised objections to its provisions ever since. Now, it's up to the United States, European Union and other Western nations to either come up with a sanctions regime that will force Iran's capitulation or raise the stakes and put some threat of force on the table. Parties to the October talks -- the United States, France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China -- have started to discuss future actions, Reuters said. Of course, that only makes sense if the six powers really thought Iran would comply with the terms of the deal -- a considerable reach given Iran's behavior in the past. The six powers, and the West, surely already have plans in place for what to do now -- hopefully, they'll let the rest of us know soon, because the security of the entire world would seem to be at risk.

'Chemical Ali' gets sentenced to death -- again

While it's certainly exciting to see society returning to normal in Iraq after all those terrible years of uncertainty before and after the 2003 U.S. invasion ousted Saddam Hussein's despised government, it's getting harder to tell how interested the country's elected leadership in Baghdad is in justice as opposed to revenge. What brings this to mind is Sunday's decision by the Iraqi High Tribunal to sentence Ali Hassan al-Majeed to death for the fourth time, according to the Reuters international news service. Nobody, apparently, disputes that Majeed, a Saddam cousin who became known as "Chemical Ali" for ordering the use of poison gas against civilians, was an awful person. But nobody who saw the extraordinary show trial and execution of Saddam in 2006 -- except, perhaps, those bent on revenge for his widely renowned cruelty -- could help but be troubled by the apparent lack of fairness in the proceedings. Saddam's conviction and execution were so obviously predetermined that there was little justification for the trial at all, except as a formality. At least Saddam was only sentenced to death once -- for crimes against humanity in the slaying of 148 Shiite men and boys after a failed assassination attempt in 1982 -- even though he is believed to be responsible for the deaths of nearly 300,000 people, Reuters said. But Majeed had already been sentenced to death three times before the trial that concluded Sunday for a 1988 gas attack that killed 5,000 Kurds. Then again, Majeed is still alive, while Saddam was rushed to the gallows and hung while the families of tens of thousands of his victims waited for some accounting. In addition to Sunday's verdict, Majeed has been sentenced to death for a 1988 military campaign against ethnic Kurds, for ruthlessly suppressing a Shiite revolt following the 1991 Gulf War and for a 1999 slaughter and displacement of Iraqi Shiites, Reuters said. Everyone hopes post-Saddam Iraq will be a stable, democratic nation going forward. But show trials and executions only undermine the moral character of the state and serve as a warning that the inhumanity that flourished in Saddam's Iraq may not yet be extinguished.

Vermont nuclear plant controversy raises same old questions about reliability

Reports of a resurgence of interest in nuclear power plants may well be accurate as well as troubling but are, hopefully, premature. Reports from the state of Vermont demonstrate why. From Montpelier comes word that officials of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant are under investigation for allegedly misleading state regulators about the source of radioactive tritium discovered in a well near the plant, according to radio station WPTZ. The state Public Service Board was not informed of the existence of a system of underground pipes carrying radioactive fluids around the plant, the radio station said. The issue has sparked a statewide controversy because Vermont Yankee is seeking permission to operate beyond 2012, when its 40-year operating license is due to expire. "I'm very unhappy about what we've learned about their representations to the PSB," said Gov. Jim Douglas, a longtime backer of the plant. Douglas asked the plant's operator, Entergy Corp. of New Orleans, to explain what happened -- whether the misrepresentations were inadvertent, which appears likely, or deliberate, which is far more sinister. Entergy Vice President Jay Thayer told a local television station that the mistake was inadvertent, that he didn't know about the pipe system at the time he testified at a PSB hearing. "I take full responsibility," Thayer said. "It's pretty serious, and I'm very sorry about it." Sorry? About a nuclear plant, where thousands of lives and future generations could be at risk? Does sorry really cut it? That's really the problem -- that humans, even humans with the best of intentions, are inherently incapable of being perfect -- and perfection is required when dealing with radioactivity on such a large scale. To their credit, state legislative leaders have demanded a new reliability report on the plant, even though their consultants delivered one last year. The new report is due Feb. 16, the radio station said.

What is so important about NBC's late-night spat?

The only real question left unanswered about NBC's late-night schedule shakeup is why anybody outside of the television networks should care. Whether Jay Leno or Conan O'Brien or Jimmy Fallon or David Letterman or even Russell Brand and Katy Perry host the Tonight Show is not a big deal to anyone but Leno, O'Brien, Fallon, Letterman, Brand and Perry -- and their agents, of course -- despite all the mindless jawing on network television. Sure, O'Brien looks like the loser in this, since it's his tenure on NBC's Tonight Show -- a program with a long, mostly admirable history -- that faces the most uncertainty. But NBC is not threatening to kick him off its station without a penny -- he has more than two years left on a five-year contract and should get some $30 million if he loses the Tonight Show, according to the New York Times. Big deal. Thirty million and he's complaining? He'll never have to work another day in his life unless he wants to, and, if he does decide to, the unbelievable publicity of the last two weeks means he'll make a ton of money. His continuous pouting is at best disingenous and at worse -- well, something worse. An unnamed TV executive told the Times that under the most likely scenario, O'Brien will host the Tonight Show for one more week beginning Monday.

U.S. oil companies launch new Iraq invasion

And they're off! We're talking, of course, about the latest charge by U.S. companies toward financial nirvana in Iraq, where their expertise is apparently essential for the world's second largest proven oil reserves to be re-equipped for full production. Iraq officials are aiming for a five-fold increase in production to more than 11 million barrels a day in the next seven years, according to the New York Times. That level of oil production would rival Saudi Arabia and Iran for No. 1 in the world, the Times said. Such an increase means billions of dollars in contracts for new oil drilling, repairs to thousands of miles of pipeline, updating current facilities and construction of many more -- including, possibly, a new port on the Persian Gulf. U.S.-based oil-services companies Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International and Schlumberger have either started sending workers and equipment to Iraq or have plans to, and construction and engineering giants KBR, Bechtel, Parsons, Fluor and Foster Wheeler are not far behind, the Times said. But Halliburton and its former subsidiary KBR, which used to be run by former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, Bechtel and Parsons were criticized by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction for earlier work in the country, and could be headed for trouble before they're offered more. The companies have denied intentional wrongdoing and say that their experience in Iraq and in other oil-producing countries in Central Asia gives them an advantage, the Times said. “KBR has historic experience on previous oil and gas production projects ranging from Azerbaijan to Kazakhstan,” said Heather Browne, KBR’s director of corporate communications, in an e-mail to the Times. “Our pursuit of additional contracts in the region is based on this experience in addition to KBR’s work on Project RIO (Restore Iraq Oil).” David Lesar, Halliburton’s chief executive, said in October that his company was already doing work on oil wells there. “I think you see everybody trying to establish a base there, and we’re no exception,” he said. “Clearly, a great future there and one we will participate in — in a big way.” Iraq has signed 10 production contracts with international oil companies in the past few months and officials say they hope to drill at least 430 oil wells during the next two years, the Times said.

What's going on with Google and China?

Is Google doing the bidding of the U.S. government by threatening to leave China, ostensibly in a dispute over Beijing's efforts to censor content on the Internet? It might as well be, since last week's surprise announcement by the Internet search giant suggests many of the responsibilities the United States expects China to voluntarily accept as a world superpower. Of course, the most important among them is to stop jailing political opponents and otherwise mistreating its citizenry. Good luck with that, right? But it does demonstrate to China the urgency and complexity of good world citizenship. Google's threat -- so far not implemented -- already has affected relations between China and the United States, and not in a good way, according to the Reuters international news service. Top officials in the Obama administration called Google's announcement "a big deal," Reuters said. China has not commented officially on Google's threat, which the company said was in reaction to censorship of its Web sites from Beijing and to a series of cyber attacks emanating from China. But Google and other U.S. companies have done Beijing's bidding for years, even allowing the Chinese government to use their servers to track down dissidents. And the U.S. government has seemingly gone along with it. But now, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke called Google's concerns about Internet security in China "troubling." "The administration encourages the government of China to work with Google and other U.S. companies to ensure a climate for secure commercial operations in the Chinese market," Locke said. Of course, the new U.S. focus could be due to the change of administrations in Washington, even though Obama government officials spent last year trying to make Beijing comfortable with lending $800 billion to Washington. Lately, however, the United States has angered China by agreeing to sell sophisticated weaponry to Taiwan, agreeing to meet with the Dalai Lama and putting tariffs on some of China's exports. Reporters Without Borders, a press freedom group that had criticized Google in the past for complying with Beijing's demands, applauded the Silicon Valley company for what it called "standing up to the Chinese authorities."

U.S. environmental regulators decide to protect jaguar

U.S. residents got another example of the kind of change they voted for in 2008 when the Obama administration announced Tuesday that it would protect the habitat of the jaguar, even though the last of the big cats in the United States is believed to have died last year. Tuesday's announcement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service settles, at least for now, a long-running dispute over the jaguar's status as an endangered species, according to the New York Times. The jaguar has been listed as endangered since 1997, but regulators never designated any critical habitat for the wide-ranging animals, which were formerly believed to have ranged from Louisiana to California, the Times said. Wildlife activists sued to force the government to come up with a species-recovery plan, as required by the Endangered Species Act and a federal judge in Tucson ordered regulators to draft such plans or explain why not. This time, the Fish and Wildlife Service dropped longstanding opposition to such planning and agreed to comply despite fierce opposition from ranchers, who long opposed protecting the habitat of such wide-ranging predators, the Times said. The designation will protect the jaguar if it returns to the western United States. There are 5,000 jaguars in Mexico and thousands more in Central and South America. Conservationists applauded the decision as historic. "It will reorient land conservation in the Southwest," said Michael Robinson of the Center on Biological Diversity of Tuscon, the nonprofit group that sued. "We will see planning to ensure jaguars can reach each other." Robinson said the new designation could affect decisions to allow tree harvesting or mining on public lands within the jaguar habitat, the Times said.