WarSclerotic

BBC News – Navy Yard: Swat team ‘stood down’ at mass shooting scene.

( Feds didn’t want the DC police to know who was really doing the shooting? Aaron Alexis may well have been a victim rather than a perp. They may be using him as a patsy to cover for the real 3 attackers. Who could they have been? False flaggers? Islamic terrorists? If we ever find out it will be the END of the police state that has taken over our country. Call me a “conspiracy theory nut.” I don’t care. The story of the one crazed gunman never made ANY sense. – JW )

By Debbie Siegelbaum BBC News, Washington

On Wednesday, investigators continued to process the scene

One of the first teams of heavily armed police to respond to Monday’s shooting in Washington DC was ordered to stand down by superiors, the BBC can reveal.

A tactical response team of the Capitol Police, a force that guards the US Capitol complex, was told to leave the scene by a supervisor instead of aiding municipal officers.

The Capitol Police department said senior officials were investigating.

Aaron Alexis, 34, killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard.

“I don’t think it’s a far stretch to say that some lives may have been saved if we were allowed to intervene,” a Capitol Police source familiar with the incident told the BBC.

Assault weapons ready

A former Navy reservist, Alexis was working as a technical contractor for the Navy and had a valid pass and security clearance allowing him entry to the highly secure building in south-east Washington DC.

About 8:15 local time (12:15 GMT), Alexis entered Building 197, headquarters for Naval Sea Systems Command, which builds and maintains ships and submarines for the Navy, and opened fire.

Armed with a shotgun and a pistol he took from a guard he had shot, he sprayed bullets down a hallway and fired from a balcony down on to workers in an atrium.

He fired on police officers who eventually stormed the building, and was later killed in the shootout.

Multiple sources in the Capitol Police department have told the BBC that its highly trained and heavily armed four-man Containment and Emergency Response Team (Cert) was near the Navy Yard when the initial report of an active shooter came in about 8:20 local time.

The officers, wearing full tactical gear and armed with HK-416 assault weapons, arrived outside Building 197 a few minutes later, an official with knowledge of the incident told the BBC.

‘A different outcome’

According to a Capitol Police source, an officer with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), Washington DC’s main municipal force, told the Capitol Cert officers they were the only police on the site equipped with long guns and requested their help stopping the gunman.

When the Capitol Police team radioed their superiors, they were told by a watch commander to leave the scene, the BBC was told.

The gunman, Aaron Alexis, was reported killed after 9:00.

Several Capitol Police sources who spoke to the BBC asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal.

Capitol Police Officer Jim Konczos, who leads the officers’ union, said the Cert police train for what are known as active shooter situations and are expert marksmen.

“Odds are it might have had a different outcome,” he said of Monday’s shooting and the decision to order the Cert unit to stand down. “It probably could have been neutralised.”

A spokeswoman for the Metropolitan Police Department, which protects the city of Washington DC, said allegations that a Capitol Police Cert team was on scene and later stood down were “not true”.

On Wednesday, the Capitol Police said in a statement its leadership had “opened a preliminary investigation into the allegations”.

“The [Capitol Police] offered and provided mutual support and assistance at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday,” said spokeswoman Lt Kimberly Schneider.

‘A blind eye’

Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Terry Gainer, who oversees the Capitol Police department, confirmed officials were pulling radio logs from Monday’s incident and interviewing the officers involved.

“It’s a very serious allegation and inference to indicate that we were on scene and could have helped and were told to leave,” he said. “It crushes me if that’s the case.”

Mr Gainer said that while the department’s primary responsibility was to protect the Capitol complex, which houses the US Congress, that mission did not allow it to turn a “blind eye” when asked for help.

Alexis had a history of mental health problems, previous gun-related brushes with the law, and citations for insubordination.

On Wednesday, US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel acknowledged “there were a lot of red flags” in Alexis’ background that had been missed in the security clearance process which ultimately resulted in his having access to the secure building where he undertook the attack.

“Why they didn’t get picked up, why they didn’t get incorporated into the clearance process, what he was doing, those are all legitimate questions that we’re going to be dealing with,” he told reporters.

Right call?

He said he had ordered the Pentagon to conduct a wide-ranging review of the physical security at all US defence installations across the world and of the security clearance process.

“Where there are gaps, we will close them,” he said. “Where there are inadequacies, we will address them. And where there are failures, we will correct them.”

A Capitol Police officer who heard the Cert request over the radio to engage the gunman reported colleagues within the department felt frustrated they were told to stand down.

The officer described a culture in which emergency responders are instructed to not extend themselves beyond the Capitol grounds for fear of discipline.

“They were relying on our command staff to make the right call,” another Capitol Police officer said. “Unfortunately, I don’t think that happened in this case.”

Russia says it would present UN Security Council with evidence of rebel chemical arms use | JPost | Israel News.

( Now this is interesting.  They wouldn’t be presenting this evidence if it wasn’t at least pretty good.  Given the Al Qaeda forces in the opposition, it’s not beyond credibility that they would have used chemicals.  – JW )

Iran sees ‘opening’ in nuclear debate with the West | JPost | Israel News.

Assad using tunnels to smuggle arms to Hezbollah, Saudi daily claims | The Times of Israel.

Opposition sources claim underground passageways have replaced vegetable trucks as means of getting Syrian chemical weapons to Lebanon

A smuggling tunnel on the Gaza-Egypt border (photo credit: AP Photo/Kevin Frayer, File)

Opposition sources reportedly told a Saudi newspaper that the Assad regime is smuggling chemical weapons to Hezbollah through tunnels connecting Syrian and Lebanese villages.

According to the Wednesday report in the Al-Watan daily, the move is part of a drive by the regime to remove its chemical weapons stockpiles from Syrian territory before the arrival of international observers as part of a Russia-US agreement aimed at stripping Syria of its non-conventional arms.

The Al-Watan report could not be confirmed by other sources and appeared in a Saudi establishment daily staunchly supportive of the Syrian opposition, which has called for a Western military strike against Syria.

The regime has chosen three destinations for its weapons, the daily claimed: Iraq, under the supervision of Iran’s Al-Quds Force and with the agreement of Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki; Hezbollah in Lebanon; and Russian warships docked in Syria. Previously, the transfer of the internationally banned weapons was undertaken using vegetable trucks, Al-Watan reported.

Salim Idris, the commander of the opposition Free Syrian Army, has claimed numerous times over the past week that the Assad regime is busy hiding its chemical weapons in Lebanon, Iraq and in multiple locations throughout Syria.

On Monday, Free Syrian Army spokesman Fahed Al-Masri claimed that the Assad regime completed two transfers of chemical weapons to Hezbollah three months ago, storing the weapons in four locations in northern and central Lebanon.

“We have video recordings and irrefutable documents proving the truth of this,” Al-Masri said.

However, Maj.-Gen. Yair Golan, head of IDF Northern Command, said Wednesday that Israel now believes Hezbollah does not want Assad’s chemical weapons.

Speaking to Yedioth Ahronoth, Golan said that in exchange for sending troops to help Assad against the rebels, Hezbollah requested advanced munitions such as anti-aircraft and ground-to-ground missiles, which could change the balance of power vis-a-vis the IDF, but “as far as we can tell, they don’t want” chemical weapons.

Israel has conducted airstrikes inside Syria at least three times this year, in what sources said were attempts to block shipments of advanced weaponry to Hezbollah.

A UN report published Monday found “clear and convincing” evidence that sarin gas was used in an attack against civilians in the outskirts of Damascus on August 21, but fell short of accusing the Assad regime of perpetrating the attack.

Gavriel Fiske contributed to this report.

Obama softens on nuclear Iran: Keep components, just promise not to weaponise them.

Omani Defense Minister M. Al Busaidiat

The moderate mien of Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani has had its intended effect – even before nuclear dialogue began. President Barack Obama had only one demand of Tehran:  “Iran would have to demonstrate its own seriousness by agreement not to weaponise nuclear power,” he said Wednesday, Sept. 18. He thus took at his word Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who declared the day before: “We are against nuclear weapons. And when we say no one should have nuclear weapons, we definitely do not pursue it ourselves either.”

The symmetry between the words from Washington and Tehran was perfect in content and timing – and not by chance.

debkafile’s Washington and Iranian sources disclose that it was choreographed in advance.

Obama and Khamenei have been exchanging secret messages through Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said of Oman, who visited Tehran in the last week of August and conferred with both Khameini and Rouhani.

In the last message, carried to Tehran by Oman’s Defense Minister Sayyid Badr bin Said Al Busaidiat, the US president said that Rouhani’s conciliatory gestures towards Washington needed to be backed up by an explicit pledge not to weaponise Iran’s nuclear program.

That pledge must come from the supreme leader in person and delivered publicly to Iran’s most hawkish audience, Revolutionary Guards chiefs.

And indeed, Khamenei acted out his part Tuesday under TV cameras.
Full details of the exchanges going back and both between Washington and Tehran will appear in the coming DEBKA Weekly 603 out Friday, Sept. 20.
They will confirm that the US president has come to terms with a nuclear-capable Iran and will be satisfied with Ayatollah Khamenei’s word that Tehran will not take the last step to actually assemble a bomb.

Our sources note that in his direct secret dialogue with Tehran, Obama is pursuing the same tactics he used for the Syrian chemical issue with Russian President Vladmir Putin: Moving fast forward on the secret track while pretending that the process is still at an early stage and then a sudden leap to target – a particular form of diplomacy consisting of verbal calisthenics.
This pretense was played out at the G20, when the two presidents acted as though they were irreconcilably divided on the Syrian question, while secretly tying up the ends of the chemical accord.

Obama’s willingness to accept Khamenei’s oft-repeated assurance that his country’s  nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes – while letting its military program advance to the brink – leaves Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu lagging far behind and his Iranian policy with nowhere to go.

At the Israeli cabinet meeting Tuesday, the prime minister said his White House talks with President Obama on Sept. 30 would focus on Iran and his four demands:

1) Complete halt of uranium enrichment; 2) Removal of enriched materials from Iran; 3) Closure of the Fordo enrichment plant; 4) Termination of plutonium production at Arak.
Notwithstanding the briefing offered by Secretary of State John Kerry when he visited Jerusalem on Sunday, Sept. 15, it looks as though Obama is keeping the Israeli prime minister in the dark on his moves towards Iran.

Netanyahu postpones UN General Assembly speech to meet with Obama – Montreal Politics | Examiner.com.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Tuesday morning, Sept. 17, 2013 at the weekly cabinet meeting that he will postpone his speech to the United Nations General Assembly by one day to make time to meet with United States President Barack Obama.

Netanyahu was scheduled to address the General Assembly on Sept. 30 instead he will now meet with President Obama at the White House in Washington D.C. before flying to New York to speak at the U.N. on Oct. 1.

Prime Minister Netanyahu requested to meet with the President, and the only day Obama was available was Sept. 30; Obama is occupied with hearings for the implementation of his health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, more popularly known as Obamacare. Obama has refused to meet however, with the new Iranian President Hassan Rohani, who will also be speaking at the General Assembly and requested to meet as well with Obama.

The announcement and confirmation comes from Netanyahu’s meeting with his cabinet Tuesday morning Israel time and from senior Israeli and U.S. officials. The cabinet meeting was delayed two days from its usual Sunday date because of the high holiday of Yom Kippur and the Yom Kippur War 40th anniversary ceremony observed this past Sunday. In his opening remarks, PM Netanyahu stated; “In another week and a half I will attend the United Nations General Assembly, and before that I will meet with President Obama. I intend to focus on the issue of stopping Iran‘s nuclear program – a true halt to the nuclear program.” The two leaders will also discuss the crisis in Syria.

The request to meet with Obama comes one day after Netanyahu met with Secretary of State John Kerry at the Prime Minister’s office in Jerusalem. At their meeting on Sunday, Sept. 15, 2013, Netanyahu and Kerry spoke primarily about the Syria chemical weapons disarmament agreement, but also Iran’s nuclear weapons’ threat, and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Last year, both Netanyahu and Obama were in New York at the same time to speak at the U.N. General Assembly. They did not meet because Israel and the U.S’s differences over dealing with Iran’s growing nuclear capabilities and possession of uranium to create nuclear weapons. Netanyahu requested to meet with Obama last year, and instead of meeting with Netanyahu, the President chose to campaign for the 2012 President election and made an appearance on the ABC daytime talk show “The View.” This left both heads of state on the outs until Obama’s reelection and first formal trip to Israel in March 2013, resulting in a thaw between the two leaders.

This is the third year in a row Netanyahu will speak at the United Nations General Assembly. He first spoke in 2011 requesting that the U.N. not grant the Palestinians’ request to be admitted to the international body as a non-member observer state. More memorable however, was Netanyahu’s “Red Line” speech from last year, which became well known, not just for the speech itself, but rather more for the graph the Prime Minister used to accompany it.

Netanyahu spoke about a nuclear Iran and the red line in Iran’s nuclear development timeline where Israel will no longer tolerate the Iranian threat to their national security. The Prime Minister requested that the U.N. to adopt this red line, asking; “It’s not a question of whether Iran will get the bomb. The question is at what stage can we stop Iran from getting the bomb.”

Accompanying his address Netanyahu displayed a drawn type graphic of a nuclear bomb indicating before what stage Iran should be stopped from further developing nuclear weapons. Netanyahu stressed the red line that should be adopted in a cartoonish graphic with a literal red line under the bomb’s fuse, dramaticizing and clarifying his and Israel’s position.

Netanyahu plans to speak again at the U.N. about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. At the weekly cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Sept, 17 the Prime Minister discussed the steps that need to be implemented and taken against Iran to end their nuclear development program. Netanyahu explained; “There are four steps. The first is the cessation of all uranium enrichment activity, the second is the removal of uranium from Iran, the third is the closure of the Qom facility and the fourth is the halting of plutonium enrichment. Only all four steps will constitute an actual halt of the nuclear endeavor. Pressure on Iran must be intensified, not withdrawn, until all four goals are achieved.”

Netanyahu making a comparison to Syria’s Aug. 21, 2013 chemical weapons attack emphasized that Israel must step up as the threat to Iran; “Events in recent weeks have strengthened the assumptions under which we operate: A rogue state that develops or obtains weapons of mass destruction may use it, or better yet will eventually use it. Only a credible military threat can allow diplomacy to stop armament. Israel must maintain force so as to be able to defend itself at all times, against any threat.” Concluding with Hillel’s saying; “If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?”

Netanyahu addressing this topic has become even more relevant in light of Syria’s chemical weapons attack against its citizens and the three weeks in limbo where the U.S. first planned as a response an unpopular limited military attack to the transformation into a diplomPM Netanyahu’s Remarks at the Start of the Weekly Cabinet Meetingatic situation early last week. Kerry made a comment on Monday, Sept. 9 about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad relinquishing his arsenal, prompting Russia’s reaction, a proposal suggesting that Syria actually give their chemical weapons for international control for destruction. Then on Saturday, Sept. 14, the U.S. and Russia came to an agreement in order to dispose of Syria’s arsenal. With the publication of the U.N.’s inspectors’ report on Monday Sept. 16, there is now confirmation of the chemical weapons attack.

Throughout the three weeks, Iran figured prominently when the U.S. considered a military response; they felt they had to demonstrate a strong response to deter Iran from moving forward with their nuclear program. The U.S. was concerned a lack of repercussions would send the wrong message to Iran. Even with the diplomatic solution, the threat of a military action remains if Syria does not comply with all the terms of the arranged agreement. This is partly to show Iran, America still has a strong arm and there are severe consequences in crossing the red lines.

Maybe PM Netanyahu’s planned meeting with President Obama following the recent Syria crisis has opened the eyes of the world of the gravity of the Iranian threat Netanyahu was trying to emphasize a year ago in his “Red Line” speech. Last year Netanyahu stated in his address; “I believe that faced with a clear red line, Iran will back down. This will give more time for sanctions and diplomacy to convince Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons programme altogether.” This year Netanyahu might have more open audience to his warnings and message at the U.N. in light of recent events; a year later is better than never.

Netanyahu’s deceptive tactics obscure strategic success – Opinion Israel News | Haaretz.

Rather than being bad news for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Iranian strategy, the agreement to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons is proof of its success.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: His bluster hides a successful strategy. Photo by AP

The prevailing argument regarding the U.S.-Russian agreement to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons is that it’s a bad development, even a failure, for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Iranian strategy. Since Israel behaved as though it was hoping for a U.S. attack – both behind the scenes and in the dissemination of reports to the effect that Military Intelligence had intercepted conversations confirming that Syrian President Bashar Assad had deliberately used chemical weapons – the natural conclusion is that the cancellation of the operation is a blow to Israeli policy. A policy that hoped that an attack would send a signal to Iran and undermine its ally.

Even Netanyahu’s “If I am not for myself, then who will be for me” speeches early in the week and anonymous statements by ministers reinforce the sense of Israeli disappointment. And in fact, Iran is presumably watching the behavior of U.S. President Barack Obama and concluding that it won’t be attacked either. Netanyahu therefore remains alone. It is tempting to mock him, as many are doing.

This point of view confuses the prime minister’s tactics and his strategy, which is now in its optimal and most promising stage. The truth is that Israel, in contradiction to Netanyahu’s belligerent declarations, does not want to attack Iran, not alone and not with the help of the United States. That is a last option, whose effectiveness is not guaranteed, even in the opinion of those who favor a military strike. Israel – also in contradiction to Netanyahu’s declarations – does not really fear a second Holocaust, but rather the very fact that Iran possesses nuclear weapons, which weakens Israel strategically and is liable to cause the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

In order to prevent that, Netanyahu is threatening an attack. In order to strengthen the threat, he is using the card of Holocaust awareness. That, in effect, is a deceptive tactic: to create a sense of horrifying danger to the country, which will require the U.S. to defend its ally, or require Israel to embark on a preventive action.

The strategic objective is different: to carry out in Iran what will happen in Syria. Because it’s clear to everyone that Iran’s nuclear program, like the chemical weapons in Syria, cannot be destroyed completely in a military attack. The disarmament agreement in Syria produces a result more effective than any bomb – even if it is not implemented in its entirety. Netanyahu is now at the peak of implementing his strategy – precisely because of the reasons that ostensibly prove that it is weakening.

Nore does the fact that Russia prevented an attack prove the other side of the coin. In effect, Russian President Vladimir Putin has joined the effort against non-conventional weapons. Since Russia’s status in the world has been strengthened as a result of the agreement, it is likely to join a similar move against Iran. Because even Russia is not interested in the proliferation of non-conventional weapons, but in strengthening its diplomatic power.

In addition, Obama’s foot-dragging before the attack also reinforces the threat against Iran. Had the U.S. attacked in Syria – after the tiring process leading up to a vote in Congress and in light of the collapse of his international support – we can reasonably assume that the administration would have been too exhausted to embark on another campaign. In Iran, they are probably concluding that Obama can’t threaten twice and give in both times. Next time, he’ll shoot. That is why the chances that Iran is willing to compromise have increased.

The trap in which Netanyahu finds himself lies in his inability to boast of an achievement. If he declares that he is satisfied, he will lose, He must continue to threaten, and through his ministers to convey ostensible disappointment in the Americans. If the cooperation with the U.S. administration continues to be conducted clandestinely, until in the end Iraq’s nuclear projects are dismantled, the newspapers will continue to mock Netanyahu’s lack of proportion in connection with the Iranian threat – but historians will judge his Iranian policy positively.

A president’s word – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: Obama knows if he fails to keep his promise on Iran he will be tossed into trash can of history

Baruch Leshem

Barack Obama was born from words. In 2004 he was elected to the US Senate for the state of Illinois and was still unknown on the national level. John Kerry, the democratic presidential hopeful, asked him to deliver the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. The rumor about Obama’s rhetorical abilities had already circulated among the party’s leaders, and he was also perceived as a person who could help recruit black people in the election campaign.

The national channels failed to cover the address as he was still an unknown figure, and it was broadcast on local TV. That’s when the major buzz began among journalists and broadcasters about a new star that had been born. The video of Obama’s performance became a hit on national news programs and everyone spoke about the next big thing in politics. These rhetorical skills helped him close the gap in the polls with Hillary Clinton in Democratic Party presidential primaries and defeat experienced Republican McCain with the glorious military career.

A great speech requires great words. The keywords are “change,” “hope,” “a better future.” For democratic politicians there are of course the words which represent their worldview: “Peace,” “democracy,” “human rights.” Presidency is not a debate club in Harvard. The person holding the highest position in the American nation is also required to perform.

This is the booby trap Obama has fallen into more than once – the gap between words and performance. His first term as president began with a huge speech in Cairo, in which he declared the start of the era of peace in the Middle East. Since then, the sounds of fire in the region’s countries have not ceased. He promised to end the American army’s involvement in Iraq, which took years, and to withdraw the soldiers from Afghanistan. Their number there has only increased ever since.

American public still trusts him

Obama declared in his speeches that he would shut down the Guantanamo detention facility. He realized that an al-Qaeda attack on Americans may shut down his presidency. He promised to take military action against Syria if it used chemical weapons. He delivered another big speech about giving diplomacy another chance.

What does this say about Obama’s presidency? Is he a great speaker but a small statesman whose word cannot be trusted, as Netanyahu rushed to imply? I’m not so sure. Obama is doing the things, but slower than the speed of his punch lines. The US Army is in the stages of pulling out from Iraq and Afghanistan, Secretary of State John Kerry brought about the start of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, and Obama reached an agreement with Putin to strip Syria of its chemical weapons.

Commentators may have lost their faith in Obama, but the American public still trusts him. Despite the great economic crisis before the 2012 elections, he was re-elected as president. That wasn’t obvious. Jimmy Carter lost his presidency in 1980 following the Iranian students’ takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran, and George H. W. Bush lost in 1992 because of the economic situation.

The politician Obama admires the most is President Abraham Lincoln, who wrote: “I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me.” Perhaps Obama has realized that he doesn’t control events either, however he knows that if he fails to manage those events forced on him, including his promise that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon, he will be tossed into the trash can of history.

Iran’s supreme leader: We’ll be flexible in nuclear talks | The Times of Israel.

Khamenei says he doesn’t want nukes; reports claim he’s ready to allow surprise inspections and ‘real-time’ oversight of facilities

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, left, speaks during his meeting with President-elect Hasan Rouhani in Tehran, Iran, on Sunday, June 16, 2013. (photo credit: AP/Office of the Supreme Leader)

Iran is not opposed to dialogue with the West concerning its nuclear program and will show flexibility in negotiations, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Tuesday.

“I am not opposed to correct diplomacy,” Khamenei said. “I believe in what was named many years ago as ‘heroic flexibility.’”

Khamenei’s comments came a day after German news magazine Der Spiegel reported that Iranian President Hasan Rouhani was prepared to shut down Iran’s uranium enrichment facility at Fordo in exchange for eased Western sanctions.

“A wrestler sometimes shows flexibility for technical reasons. But he does not forget about his opponent nor about his main objective,” Khamenei added.

Speaking at a meeting with Revolutionary Guards commanders, Khamenei went on to deny that the Islamic Republic strove to acquire nuclear weapons, calling the possession of such weapons contrary to Islamic ideals.

“We do not believe in nuclear weapons because of our beliefs, not for the sake of the US or other countries, and when we say that no country should possess nuclear weapons, we ourselves are definitely not trying to possess them,” he said.

In an apparent reply to Khamenei and Rouhani’s statements, US President Barack Obama said Tuesday that he would test Iran’s willingness to engage in dialogue about its unsanctioned nuclear program.

“There is an opportunity here for diplomacy,” Obama said. “And I hope the Iranians take advantage of it.”

Khamenei is ready to allow real-time oversight of Iran’s nuclear facilities via camera, and surprise visits by UN inspectors, Israel’s Channel 2 news further reported Tuesday night. Assuming Iran did not have secret facilities elsewhere, such oversight, the report said, would preclude a “break out’ by Iran to the bomb, as might be possible in the current situation during periods between scheduled visits by inspectors.

The report also said Iran seeks to maintain its “civilian” nuclear program, but would agree to limit the number of centrifuges enriching uranium at its Natanz facility.

Earlier Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu set out his criteria for ensuring Iran did not attain a nuclear weapons capability.

On Monday, White House Spokesman Jay Carney said that the Obama administration continues to “hope that this new Iranian government will engage substantively to achieve a diplomatic solution” and that the United States “remains ready to engage with the Rouhani government on the basis of mutual respect to achieve a peaceful resolution.”

On Sunday, US President Barack Obama revealed that he had exchanged letters with the recently elected Iranian president.

The two leaders will both attend next week’s United Nations General Assembly in New York, with Obama expected to address the plenum on Tuesday morning, and Rouhani will speak for the first time on Tuesday afternoon. The White House says no meeting has been scheduled between them.

Negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program have hit a deadlock concerning the future of the 20% enriched uranium being produced at the formerly secret Fordo facility. Iran says it simply wants to agree to a freeze in enrichment in exchange for having the stringent sanctions placed against Tehran lifted. The United States wants the plant to be dismantled altogether, and wants Iran to hand over all of its highly enriched uranium.

Uranium for civilian energy purposes requires 5% enrichment, whereas weapons-grade uranium is considered to be 20% enriched or greater.
Washington does not see Iranian suspension of enrichment as meeting its demands, but as a confidence-building measure.

The Obama administration has indicated that it would be willing to consider discussing relaxing some sanctions if enrichment is suspended. It has not publicly signaled how conciliatory it is willing to be.

Ahead of expected ‘gestures’ by Rouhani, PM urges world to remain firm on Iran nukes | JPost | Israel News.