We’re about to get President Obama’s reaction to today’s talks in Geneva between Iran and the so-called P5+1; the president will speak in the Diplomatic Reception room at 3:05 Eastern.

As for the talks themselves, there has been no indication that Iran is willing to back down on its nuclear program. But Tehran has agreed to allow international nuclear inspectors into its uranium-enrichment facility near Qum – no word on when – it also claims that last week’s disclosure of the facility means that Iran has now disclosed all of its nuclear facilities to the West.

At the talks, which included the highest-level bilateral discussions between the U.S. and Iran in years, Tehran also agreed to an additional meeting later this month.

Asked whether the additional talks are merely an attempt by Tehran to stall the West, presidential press secretary Robert Gibbs said: “The Iranians need to understand that we mean business.” If talks do not yield fruitful results soon – and by soon, the White House means Dec. 31 – then tougher sanctions will be on the table, Gibbs said.

What kind of sanctions is Obama considering? The President is said to be weighing the cutoff of gasoline supplies to Iran, the thought being that this would further weaken the wobbly Iranian economy. Why does Iran – the world’s 4th biggest oil producer – have to import gasoline in the first place? Because existing sanctions have choked its refineries of spare parts needed to process enough crude to meet its needs – it is estimated that Tehran imports about 25% of its gas.
These sanctions have, in fact, appeared to have an impact. The CIA has reported that fuel shortages forced the regime to ration fuel in July 2007 and impose a stiff fuel tax in October of last year. Both moves, intelligence analysts say, “were met with stiff resistance and violent protests.”

– TRNS Staff

David Menashri, Director for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University, warns that the world should not be distracted from Iran’s nuclear development program by the country’s post election disturbances. Menashri argues that although the Iranian people will ultimately bring about change, it is unclear whether this will take place before or after Iran goes nuclear. (0:46)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:46m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen argues that, as a long-time economic partner of Iran, Russia may play a critical role in reducing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But, Cohen adds that Russia may want to avoid tension with Iran because of its commercial interests in the Middle-Eastern state. (0:31)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:31m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

By Celia Canon- Talk Radio News Service

Charles D. Ferguson and Stephen Sestanovich, Senior Fellows at the Council on Foreign Relations, explained that the 1991 START non-proliferation treaty may not be renewed following the U.S.-Russia Summit this July.

“There can’t be an agreement unless there’s also a formal renunciation by the U.S of the missile defense plan. That’s rather unlikely to happen, and if the Russian stick to that line, the chances of arms control are [slim],” said Sestanovich.

START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was ratified in 1991 by Russia and the U.S in an effort to achieve a dramatic reduction in strategic forces such as warheads and inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in the post-Cold War era.

According to the U.S. based Arms Control Association, “Russia claimed 4,237 total deployed strategic warheads under the terms of the 1991 START nuclear reductions agreement” while the U.S has 3,696 deployed strategic warheads.

“What has really agitated the Russians… is the American plan to deploy some rather basic elements of the missile defense system in Eastern Europe,” Sestanovich explained, referencing the Bush administration’s decision to install missiles at a base in Poland and to build a radar station in the Czech Republic. Both deals intended to protect Europe from “rogue states” such as Iran.

Ferguson added, “The [Obama] administration has a review of its missile defense policy on the way, and that makes it a little more difficult for them to reach any specific understandings with the Russian about this issue. They can’t offer certain kinds of assurances.”

President Barack Obama has recently agreed to halt military developments in Eastern Europe if Russia agrees to participate actively against Iran.

Ferguson countered Moscow’s accusations that a U.S presence in neighboring states is a serious military threat, saying “What we are looking at is a much smaller, much more modest missile defense system… There’s really no technical reasons for the Russians to be worried at this stage about missile defense as it is currently proposed.”

Congressman David Scott (D-Ga.) describes life in North Korea as one of despair, stating that Kim Jung Il does not care for his people. Scott says that North Koreans are starving because their government is solely concerned with its image abroad — implying it may become a nuclear state. (0:50)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:50m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Members of the Senate Republican Conference have adopted the challenge of creating 100 new nuclear plants in the United States in the next 20 years. The main objective of the proposal is to produce more American energy while using less.

“If climate change is the inconvenient problem of the day, then nuclear power is the inconvenient answer,” said U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Senate Republican Conference Chairman.

Alexander said it is “hard to imagine” why the most urgent solution would not be how to produce more nuclear energy in the next 20 years. He said without nuclear power, the U.S. would not have a chance of a clean air economy.

David Blee, executive director of the U.S. Transport Council, discussed the building process of the 100 new nuclear plants. There is currently only one nuclear energy plant under construction in the United States, TVA’s Watts Bar unit 2.

Blee said that nuclear energy is the “most potent clean energy baseload power option, the most powerful stimulator of jobs per megawatt and enjoys record performance reliability, safety, economics and strong public support.”

However, nuclear energy was removed from the stimulus package and there is not a nuclear title in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s recently passed clean energy bill.

“To me this is almost a P.R. situation. I don’t think Americans are aware of the potential associated with nuclear power.” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi explains how the alleged nuclear and missile tests conducted by North Korea has reinforced Sino-American cooperation against nuclear proliferation. Pelosi adds that China acknowledges North Korea as a threat to North East Asia. (0:40)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:40m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Former Secretary of Defense William Perry explains the dangerous of nuclear proliferation. Perry says that there is a risk that North Korea will leak fissile materials. In addition, Perry mentions the strategy to follow in order to avoid these leaks. (0:43)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:43m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Former Secretary of Defense William Perry explains why Iran has no other choice but to carry on with its nuclear operations. Perry suggests that as the Iranian population supports a nuclear program, not developing it would result in the overthrow of the current regime. (0:35)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:35m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

By Celia Canon- Talk Radio News Service.

Analysts for the Brookings Institution gathered to assess the North Korean threat on America and its allies in reaction to N.Korea’s recent underground nuclear bomb detonation and the launch of two short-range missiles.

The think tank was pressed into discussing the matter following North-Korea’s acceleration in its military activity.

Pyongyang had already caught the international community’s attention in October 2007 by unsuccessfully testing a nuclear weapon.

However the threat posed by the North Asian state has reached new heights after N.Korea announced that it had conducted underground nuclear tests on Monday, followed by two short-range missiles (a ground-to-ship missile and a ground-to-air missile) launched from an east-coast base on Tuesday.

Michael O’Hanlon, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution warned that although “Their options are limited,” threats must be taken seriously, they must be mitigated.

Richard Bush, a Senior Fellow and Director for the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, confirmed that “They have a problem though, and that is that deterrence is not yet credible; their missiles don’t fly far enough and accurately enough, the weapons design is not yet perfect and so they need to test, that’s the only way they can demonstrate to others that they have the capability to inflict harm on the United States and on Japan.”

If the production of the missiles is one leap closer to achieving significant nuclear capabilities, O’Hanlon explained that “The real issue is the size of the weapon and how deliverable it would be by the North Koreans, if they were to choose to deliver it some day.”

Additionally, “[The missile] has to survive the stresses of missile flight, which are no trivial,” said O’Hanlon.

However, according to the analysts, this does not mean that a threat is nonexistent but rather that the U.S should not be concerned by missiles coming from North Korea directly.

O’Hanlon said “I would say the most worrisome question is the sale of nuclear material because if they attack South Korea, their regime will end.”

O’Hanlon concluded that “The only thing they can plausibly get way with is the sale.”