"So far, though, there's ample evidence of a very significant shift."

Huh? Where's the shift. The Bush policy was that we will not negotiate with Iran until it halts enrichment permanently. The new position is that we will not negotiate with Iran until it halts enrichment permanently. So where's the difference? The only real difference is a practical one. Under both situations, the only way Iran could legally restart it's program is for the Security Council to pass a new resolution allowing them to do so. Such a resolution had a 100% chance of being vetoed under the Bush Administration. Under Obama, it will only have a 99.99% chance of being vetoed. The some sea change, isn't it?

Huh? Where's the shift.

The shift is that the Obama administration is holding out a carrot and promising that they WILL engage in direct diplomacy with Iran given certain conditions. Please find the quote from the Bush administration saying that they would engage in direct diplomacy with Iran under any circumstances. McCain spent his entire campaign mocking Obama for saying he'd be willing to talk to our enemies, including Iran.

The implications of this, if we seek to look behind the curtain, are politically enormous in their scope....

The great fear of the GOPer community and their AIPAC friends in this development is that Iran will eventually broach the subject of Israel's suspected nuclear arsenal, thus allowing Tehran to play the "why-should-we-unilaterally-disarm?" card. That, in turn, will place Tel Aviv in the hotseat, as the UN seeks to place nuclear inspectors on Israeli soil.

What then might we hear from Tel Aviv? To permit inspectors who, unfettered, could in all likelihood discover that the IDF does, indeed, have in its possession a number of nuclear/thermonuclear devices would add irreversible credence to the Arab world's grievances against what they label the 60-year occupation of Palestine---and to blatantly refuse such inspections would place the Israeli regime in the same global POV as is currently directed against the mad-hatter Ahmadinejad by the Western nations.

the shift is that the US government is actually functioning.

it's a disorienting change after eight years of paddling in apparently random circles. people have become conditioned to react with alarm at the scenery changing from day to day.

it's going to take a while for people to not freak out at what would have at one time been considered normal government activity.

Such a resolution had a 100% chance of being vetoed under the Bush Administration. Under Obama, it will only have a 99.99% chance of being vetoed. The some sea change, isn't it?

"the Obama administration is holding out a carrot and promising that they WILL engage in direct diplomacy with Iran given certain conditions. Please find the quote from the Bush administration saying that they would engage in direct diplomacy with Iran under any circumstances."

Umm "any circumstances" and "certain conditions" are two very different things. The Obama Administration won't negotiate under "any circumstances" either, they put the precondition that Iran halts all enrichment permanently. That is the exact precondition that Bush used. It is a non-starter. Basically, what Obama is saying is that if Iran does what cannot possibly be done, then we will negotiate. Until then, the situation remans the same. Look, I'll promise to give you 100 Billion dollars if you can travel to the center of the galaxy and back in under a year. But you have to give me a dollar in earnest money first. Want to take that bet? I'll take it, it's a free dollar for me. By setting impossible preconditions, Obama is doing the exact same thing as Bush did.

"Actually, the change from "impossible" to "possible" is in fact a sea change"

Fair enough. I get the philosophical nature of it. But from a practical standpoint, it makes no difference. I will die long before any American administration ever negotiates directly with Iran. Iran will have an advanced nuclear energy sector and maybe even some weapons long before any negotiations start. If the starting point remains that Iran can never use nuclear energy to produce electricity, than there's nothing to talk about, is there? That starting point remains, so there is no change.

Iran should demand suspension of smuggling US arms to Israel before any talks about its nuclear program take place. Any dialogue and diplomacy must go hand in hand with a very firm message from Iran that the US needs to take some responsibility for the murdered Palestinian people. America's refusal to accept its responsibility for Israel's murders will represent a continuation of W. Bush's policies.

"Fair enough. I get the philosophical nature of it."

Wait a minute, I don't. Under Quantum Electrodynamics, everything is possible. There is no such thing as impossible, only that which is highly improbable. I fall into that trap myself all the time. My only defense is that the word "impossible" should still carry some meaning. So my definition is this: "less likely than the sun dying tomorrow." The chance of Iran giving up its primary demand before the negotiations start carries a similar likelihood as the sun burning out tomorrow.

"But U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice warned that Iran must meet U.N. Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment before any talks on its nuclear program."

Substitute "Secretary of State Condi" for "U.S. Ambassador Susan" and we could have read this same line a month ago.

See how much stronger and better it feels already now that the U.S. has returned to aligning with the U.N. on such issues?

Please find the quote from the Bush administration saying that they would engage in direct diplomacy with Iran under any circumstances.

This from The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/21/barack-obama-president-first-day-in-office

The Bush administration had refused to negotiate with Iran until it first suspended its uranium enrichment programme, suspected by the west as a move to secure a nuclear weapons capability

The position of the Security Council is that sanctions will be continued until Iran stops enriching uranium and fully cooperates with the IAEA. The latter condition appears close to being fulfilled according to ElBaradei.

But will Obama's new policy on Iran undercut the Security Council and the sanctions regime? Guess not. Besides, who cares? We're not attacking. Israel can't attack. If Iran wants to build a bomb (or, more likely, create everything but not assemble one)who's going to stop them?

But U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice warned that Iran must meet U.N. Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment before any talks on its nuclear program.

How in the world is this a "significant shift"? Like it or don't like it, but that's the exact same position as the Bush administration.

"Israel can't attack."

Sure they can, they have plenty of nuclear weapons and the prevailing winds blow away from them. You think they give a damn about fallout in Pakistan and Afghanistan? That's feature for them, not a bug. They will get some flak from the international community, but we'll veto any resolution against them. You might think that the Israelis might refrain from committing unspeakable atrocities, but if you believe that, please reread the Book of Joshua to see how they really feel.

"If Iran wants to build a bomb (or, more likely, create everything but not assemble one)who's going to stop them?"

Nobody will stop them. Their nuclear research facilities would be the only structures surviving the Israeli nuclear attack. Given that nuclear research will be the only part of the Iranian economy left, one would assume that it will continue. And they'll be desperate enough to sell nuclear weapons to anyone in exchange for food. They'll probably have some poor guy standing in front of the UN with a "will sell nuclear weapons technology for food" sign.

"The latter condition appears close to being fulfilled according to ElBaradei."

No surprise there. Nuclear weapons are the world's worst investment. They are extremely expensive and provide no financial returns. The best case for Iran is to use their uranium and their technology to produce electricity. But at the same time, they would like to have deterrence. But deterrence can be bluffed. Think of what happened in "Dr. Strangelove." The Russians created the ultimate deterrent, but it was of no value because nobody knew about it. But the opposite is also true. If everyone believes your deterrence, there's no reason to even have it. So Iran's best interest is to make people believe they have weapons without spending the money to actually make them. The deterrent effect works fine as long as their enemies believe it. The path they are on now is consistent with that. They want enrichment, which opens up the possibility of weapons (and guarantees neocon reactionary rhetoric), but also gives them control over their electricity. As long as it keeps raising questions, it gives the the best of both worlds. But if we can get them to agree to the verification that is already in place, the deterrent effect goes away. The deterrent effect requires neocons in America to write insane editorials about enrichment. If the neocons don't do that, Iran's bluff on deterrence goes away. As always, moderation is the enemy of extremism on both sides. And extremists on both sides are always friends.

If Israel wants to be dismantled by the entire world, then they would only need to drop nukes on any of their neighbors. The radioactive fallout would contaminate the world and the world would respond.

Question is, are the Crazies in charge in Israel or are there sane people, even scared sane people, who have enough self-control to elect a leader who will seek peace while maintaining their conventional military for self defense.

"Question is, are the Crazies in charge in Israel or are there sane people, even scared sane people, who have enough self-control to elect a leader who will seek peace while maintaining their conventional military for self defense."

Don't worry, the crazies will win the next election. We can just go about our business with confidence that Palestinians and Israels will kill each other until one side has no single person left. The only real approach we have to take is the decision about whether we should kill the remaining people. We love killing people, so it's hard to believe we might save them. But the remaining people will mostly be Israelis, so we probably will save them. I would, but I've done medical treatment on people I beat the crap out of. I don't make judgments in those cases. Or any, for that matter.