http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/27/us.iran/

<quotes>

U.S. to Iran: Prove your nuclear program is peaceful

In an interview broadcast Sunday on the CBS program "Face the Nation," 
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for the strongest possible 
sanctions if Iran can't prove a peaceful intent for the newly disclosed 
facility and its entire nuclear program.

"It would have been disclosed if it were for peaceful purposes," Clinton 
said, adding: "The Iranians keep insisting no, no, that's for peaceful 
purposes. That's fine. Prove it. Don't assert it. Prove it."

</quotes>

Not sure how anyone proves anything is for peaceful purpose; it would be 
interesting to pose the same challenge to the US itself and every other 
state known to hold nukes.

Presumably, by Clinton's same argument, if Israel has nukes - which is 
widely believed to be so - then they would have been disclosed if held for 
peaceful purpose ?

Very likely a point Tehran will seize upon and it could ultimately prove to 
be a case of Washington putting foot in mouth, more ammo for those who say 
American Administrations don't know how to do diplomacy but can be experts 
at shooting themselves in the foot.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:07:13 +0100, The Happy Hippy  
 wrote:

> U.S. to Iran: Prove your nuclear program is peaceful

http://garybaumgarten.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-sudden-urgent-revelation-of-irans.html

<quote>
Yesterday, after President Obama, French President Sarkozy and British  
Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave statements to reporters at the G20 Summit  
in Pittsburgh about newly revealed evidence that Iran had a second,  
undeclared, nuclear facility, I asked some tough questions both here and  
on News Talk Online on Paltalk.com.

I wanted to know why, if intelligence agencies were aware of this second  
program for two years now, they waited until now to make it public. And  
why the International Atomic Energy Agency wasn't made aware of it so it  
could demand access.

A reporter asked Obama the same question directly during his afternoon  
news conference at the G20, and the president responded that they wanted  
to be perfectly certain the intel was correct before announcing it to the  
world.

But the McClatchy newspapers, in an analysis today, offers another  
possible explanation. The announcement was purposely timed, the piece  
says, to coincide with the United Nations Security Council meeting on  
non-proliferation that was chaired by Obama and with the G20.

It also, the analysis suggests, coincides with the October 1st meeting  
between the permanent members of the Security Council and Germany with  
Iran to discuss that nation's continued non-compliance.

In other words, the analysis suggests, it was not, as I had argued, a  
failing of the world leaders to disclose this threat before, but part of a  
brilliantly calculated strategy to force Iran's compliance with the  
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, denies that his country hid  
anything, protesting to CNN's Larry King that the second plant had been  
dutifully reported to the IAEA.
</quote>

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free.

"Robin T Cox"  wrote ...

> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:07:13 +0100, The Happy Hippy 
>  wrote:
>
>> U.S. to Iran: Prove your nuclear program is peaceful
>
> http://garybaumgarten.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-sudden-urgent-revelation-of-irans.html
:
> Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, denies that his country hid 
> anything, protesting to CNN's Larry King that the second plant had been 
> dutifully reported to the IAEA.

So perhaps the onus is on the IAEA to prove it did not know about the 
facility ;-)

Obama said, "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow"; I wonder 
what those specific rules are and which other countries don't follow them ?