The title of a recently released Yahoo! article is "UN: Iran nuclear DISPUTE shifting to cooperation". So it's going in the right direction? Is this possible? "dispute" and "cooperation" seem to contradict each other.

The first sentence is "The head of the nuclear watchdog said Sunday (that) there is a "shifting of gears" in Iran's confrontation with the West to more cooperation and transparency and he announced that international inspectors would visit Iran's newly revealed uranium enrichment site Oct. 25". There are so many contradictions in this statement: "confrontation" vs. "cooperation and transparency" (we know from the recently rigged presidential election that Iran is far from "cooperation and transparency") and it's "newly revealed uranium enrichment site" may well be just another way of saying 'Look, we're developing nuclear bombs AND NO US OR UN SANCTIONS CAN STOP US' which is yet another signal of defiance and belligerence.

According to Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the IAEA "has no concrete proof of an ongoing weapons program in Iran", but there are "CONCERNS about Iran's FUTURE INTENTIONS". The question is: what can be done about these "concerns", IF ANYTHING? Furthermore, Elbaradei says that "I see that WE ARE A CRITICAL MOMENT. I see that we are shifting gears from confrontation into transparency and cooperation", but this "transparency and cooperation" is not full. Otherwise, it wouldn't be "critical".

According to National Security Adviser James Jones, speaking on CNN's "State of the Union", "FOR NOW, things are moving in the right direction". The emphasis is obviously on "For now", which implies that we don't know what Iran will do in the future or even tomorrow. THEY MAY WELL go back to their defiant and belligerent ways VERY SOON.

ElBaradei continued, sitting next to Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran's nuclear agency: "It is important for us to send our inspectors TO DO A COMPREHENSIVE VERIFICATION of that facility, TO ASSURE OURSELVES that it is a facility built for peaceful purposes". "to do a comprehensive verification" and "to assure ourselves" both signify/imply suggest skepticism. "WE agreedthat our inspectors would come here on the 25th of October to do the inspection and go to Quom and I hope and I trust that IRAN WILL BE AS TRANSPARENT WITH OUR INSPECTORS AS POSSIBLE". First, let's look at "We agreed". Is it possible for IRAN and UN WEAPONS' INSPECTORS to agree on ANYTHING? MOST LIKELY NOT. As far as "Iran will be as transparent with our inspectors as possible", transparency and accountability in places such as Iran, North Korea, Cuba and China simply DO NOT EXIST.

According to UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Iran had a "finite period" to comply with UN regulations/demands. In other words, patience on Iran's nuclear issues is running out.

Here's Ahmedinejad's response: "Outstanding issues were resolved BECAUSE OF GOOD COOPERATION (?) between Iran and the agency. Today, there are no ambiguous issue(s) left". This is just a show statement (i.e. Iran is showing off for the media). Also, Ahmedinejad's English is TERRIBLE/AWFUL: "there are no ambiguous issueleft?" This should be issues.

ElBaradei continued: "As I have said before and I continue to say today, the agency has no COMPLETE proof that there is an ongoing weapons program in Iran". "no complete proof" is different from "no proof". "There are allegations that Iran has conducted weaponization studies. However these allegations we are still looking into AND WE ARE LOOKING TO IRAN TO HELP US CLARIFY" or comply, but WILL Iran comply? This is the million-dollar question.

According to Salehi, "We announced the facility earlier than we were required to do...The inspection will take place within the safeguard agreements". Salehi represents Iran and this is a typical mechanical response, like a spokesman. There is no guarantee that Iran will comply with UN directives in this statement.

Elbaradei responded: "WE DISAGREE with the interpretation of Iran...IRAN SHOULD HAVE informed the IAEA the day it decided to construct the facility", but Iran didn't, but Iran has ALWAYS been defiant and belligerent, so this isn't exactly surprising or a shock. At least, it shouldn't be.

Salehi's response: "Iran stopped applying (Additional Protocol to NPT) after the UN Security Council UNJUSTLY INTERVENED in Iran's nuclear issue". OK, this is a numbers issue now: Iran is clearly against the IAEA, but THE WHOLE WORLD IS AGAINST IRAN. Of course, Ahmedinejad will never admit this, until he is forced to.

ElBaradei, however, wouldn't budge: "IT IS IMPORTANT TO US that Iran reapplies the Additional Protocol", but Iran most likely won't listen. They are defiant, belligerent and above all, STUBBORN.