The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.N. Approves New Sanctions to Deter Iran,” describes the fourth time the United Nations has imposed restrictions designed to dissuade Iran from its nuclear program.

The 12-3 vote in the Security Council was opposed by Turkey and Brazil (with Lebanon abstaining) who had negotiated a separate accord with Iran to transfer some of its enriched uranium overseas in return for a medical-grade substitute.

The article casts doubt on the efficacy of sanctions and notes alarmingly that there is an active debate going on right now among high-level Iranian officials about the possibility of creating a “break-out” capability, the option to quickly manufacture a nuclear weapon if deemed necessary.

The sanctions, in my opinion, could not be much weaker. They only target the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and about 40 individuals in the top reaches of government. They do not affect trade with Iran in any way, and the price for getting Chinese support involved not hurting the Iranian economy.

Though the United States and Europe tried to save face by saying they would impose their own tougher restrictions later on, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be deemed correct when he said the sanctions were like “annoying flies, like a used tissue.”

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Web of Shell Companies Veils Trade by Iran’s Ships,” describes the attempt of the Iranian government via the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (Irisl) to hide its assets and continue to do business as usual despite the United States and U.N. sanctions.

The United States stopped and sanctioned business with Irisl in 2008, but, according to the article, Irisl just changed the names of the ships, created shell companies and flew flags from other nations to conceal the owner’s origin.

The New York Times does some excellent investigative work in this article, providing examples of actual ships and how exterior elements changed while substantive matters, such as ultimate ownership by Irisl remained the same.

Iran experienced a temporary setback in their efforts at concealment when they tried using charter boats from other nations. However, the non-Iranian charter crews often cooperated with attempts to board the ships and, on one occasion, a treasure trove of weapons was discovered, believed to be bound for Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The article demonstrates what a slippery opponent Iran can become and the difficulty in reining them in through non-military means. For this reason, in my opinion, sanctions can only be used as a stopgap measure, and a more permanent solution must be found.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Iran is Shielding Nuclear Efforts in Tunnel Mazes.” It describes the scope of Iran’s efforts to hide its nuclear facilities in tunnels dispersed across the nation.

The tunnels provide an effective defense against the military option by the United States and especially Israel, described in the article as having more limited intelligence necessary to locate and destroy the tunnels.  The article notes three characteristics making it difficult to counter Iran’s nuclear development program: 1) well hidden, 2) widely dispersed, and 3) deeply buried.

Further bad news involves President Ahmadinejad’s background: he began his career as a transportation engineer and founded the Iranian Tunneling Association in 1998. Previously, during the 1980s war with Iraq, Iran began its tunneling program for shelter from waves of missiles.

As a counterpoint, the United States is currently developing a tunnel weapon known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. Due to be deployed next summer, it is ten times more powerful than its predecessor, and 20 feet long with thousands of pounds of explosives. It will be carried by the Stealth bomber and is specially designed for deep tunnels.

The problem with all these efforts, however, is that Iran has created a maze of decoy tunnels as well. And we only need to miss one area, one receptacle with a newly developed bomb for the whole effort to fail. This speaks volumes in favor of the Obama administration’s policy of engagement albeit with the big stick of sanctions included.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Tehran Rejects Nuclear Accord, Officials Report.” It describes the decision by Iran to reject an agreement negotiated with the United States and European Union to transfer about three-quarters of its uranium to Russia for processing. This processing would render the uranium useful for nuclear reactors but not for making an atomic bomb.

While Iran expressed a willingness to continue negotiating, this decision to reject the core plank of the agreement just concluded will inevitably lead to stricter sanctions of the country, provided that Russia and China can be persuaded to endorse them.

The decision also seems to represent a failure of President Obama’s attempt to engage our enemies instead of rejecting them out of hand. On the other hand, having tried the diplomatic approach and going the extra mile for a peaceful resolution, the United States is now in a stronger position when the issue of sanctions is debated.

In my opinion, there will never be an unforced nuclear agreement with Tehran because the development of nuclear weaponry represents a status symbol that the nation is desperately pursuing, if only to mollify its population with national pride. And after looking at our tepid response to North Korea, Iran must feel they will be able to get away with this approach.

Another thorn bush for President Obama to untangle.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “U.S. is Seeking Tougher Tactics Against Tehran.” The article describes recent developments in our Iran foreign policy including the push for new sanctions in light of the revelation of a secret nuclear facility there.

The article describes some of the possibilities and limitations of the sanctions approach. It lists possible new sanctions such as banning the import of refined gasoline products but notes it will be hard to get Russia and especially China to agree. It also notes the difficulties of pursuing sanctions that are bound to be “leaky” and the fact that Iran will probably allow inspectors to visit the new plant, thus making it even more difficult to enforce and obtain a broad coalition. In other ominous news, Iran fired three short-range missiles yesterday in an apparent act of defiance.

This doesn’t look good. What happens when we impose sanctions and nothing changes? Do we just wait while Iran continues to build a bomb? Our people, and by extension our government, are not known for their patience. At some point, when sanctions fail, hawks will start to beat the drums for military action.

The article notes that some sanctions that are effective with other people, such as suspending passports and visas for high-ranking officials, aren’t effective with members of Iran’s Islamic Republic because they don’t want to indulge themselves in foreign pleasures in the first place. And in addition, sanctions are bound to hurt the Iranian people more than the government, a people we have started to bond with in light of the protests against the recent election there.

In short, escalation seems bound to occur with no alternative in sight.

The lead story in The New York Times today is titled, “U.S. and Allies Press Iran Over Nuclear Plant Deception.” It describes the action of Western allies after the revelation of a new, previously hidden, nuclear plant being built by Iran deep inside a mountain at a Revolutionary Guard headquarters near Qom. Because of the small size of the plant, it is unsuitable for commercial uses but perfect for building a bomb that only requires 55 pounds of enriched uranium.

Iran, after learning that the Western allies had discovered the plant, rushed to declare it in a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Meanwhile, President Obama, Sarkozy of France and Gordon Brown of Great Britain, revealed the deception and warned Iran to cooperate during the first direct negotiations with the United States in 30 years, due to start on October 1.

The article requires little commentary because it speaks for itself. Iran was caught and its pretense of only wanting peaceful nuclear energy was shown to be a farce. I am pessimistic about any change in direction by Iran; it’s attempt to build a bomb has become a matter of national pride, and it will be unable to reverse direction without losing face. This crisis, however, does present an opportunity for President Obama to really show what he’s made of. It will be interesting to follow events over the next few weeks to see how he handles the situation.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama, at U.N., is Backed on Iran and Arms Curbs.” It describes a major breakthrough with Russia regarding sanctions against Iran as well as progress on future arms negotiations and the renewal of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

President Medvedev agreed, for the first time, that serious sanctions against Iran may be necessary. In addition, both China and Russia, agreed to support a U.S. resolution in the Security Council to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

In my opinion, these results clearly demonstrate the superiority of President Obama’s approach compared to the bluster and threatening of the Bush administration. Though the Administration maintains there was no quid pro quo, one can’t help but attribute part of the results to the decision to modify the U.S. approach to missile shield technology originally slated for installation in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Being agreeable and personable with other leaders gets results. And it doesn’t hurt to be intelligent for a change, too. While there is still an impasse in the Middle East, you have to believe that, if any one person can make a difference, it would be President Obama.

Compared to the Bush administration approach, “You’re either with us or against us,” President Obama says, “Come, let us reason together.” That’s true leadership.

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama Reshapes a Missile Shield to Blunt Tehran.” The article describes a decision by President Obama to stop President Bush’s proposed anti-ballistic missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic and use smaller ground-based interceptors instead.

The article notes several advantages to this system. First of all, they meet an immediate threat due to Iran’s recent success in developing short and medium-range missiles. President Obama will be using SM-3 interceptors based on current technology. As a result, these interceptors can be deployed on ships in 2011 compared to a much later activation of an ABM shield.

Also, 40 to 50 interceptors can be activated instead of the 10 bigger missiles planned for Poland.  And the new configuration does a better job of protecting Israel, thus delaying an independent attack by that country on Iran. And even though the Republicans are doing their usual knee-jerk reflexive opposition to anything that President Obama decides, it isn’t such a terrible thing to have better relations with Russia who had expressed deep opposition to the Bush plan.

In my opinion, this is a win-win situation. We gain a better defense system sooner and placate the Russians and Israelis at the same time. We are reacting to the events on the ground (a phrase that Republicans love to use), namely Iran’s focus on shorter range missiles in a flexible manner.

Today’s lead article in The New York Times is titled, “Obama Condemns Iran’s Iron First Against Protests.” It describes President Obama’s press conference yesterday in which he attacked the Iranian government for its violence against demonstraters who were peacefully demonstrating against the result of its recent Presidential election. The article noted that there was little President Obama could do to enforce his strong words.

The article also noted that President Obama has come under strong criticism from conservatives and Republicans, especially John McCain, for not speaking out sooner. It described his shock of seeing Neda Agha-Soltan, a young woman, dying in the streets and the unexpected nature of recent events by analysts of the region.

In my opinion, President Obama handled the developing story in a cool, calm and responsible manner. One of his strongest statements at the news conference, in response to a question by NBC correspondent, Chuck Todd, was that despite the nature of the press today, he is NOT on a 24-hour news cycle like most of the journalists.

President Obama, of course, has to consider the long-term strategic interests of the United States, and while I believe he could have been stronger in his reaction and followed his heart a little more, the essence of the criticism by Republicans is irresponsible and does not add anything to the national security of this country, supposedly their strong point.

Because, in the end, we must balance our outrage with the imminent threat of Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. So yes, let’s lead the world in the promotion of our values (which Republicans should note is also a major reason for closing Guantanamo), but let’s do so in a callibrated way so they maximize our impact.

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “Iran Announces Election Errors Amid Crackdown.” It describes a report by the Guardian Council that there were irregularities in the voting in 50 cities because the total vote exceeded the number of registered voters in those locations. As many as three million votes may be affected. However, because President Ahmadinejad won by 11 million votes, the Guardian Council ruled that the result would have been the same.

The article, however, notes other complaints by the opposition candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi. The margin of victory remained the same throughout election evening. The votes were counted centrally by the Interior Ministry instead of locally, as in the past. Some ballot boxes were sealed before candidate inspectors could verify them. The government counted 40 million paper ballots just two hours after the polls closed.

In my opinion, the refusal of the Guardian Council to address these complaints suggests they have already made up their minds regarding the decision. Despite all the noble intentions of the opposition, it is hard to see how they will be able to affect a change in the final result. Already, the demonstrations have fizzled out.

Perhaps, there is a slim hope in calling a general strike and the recent martyrdom of “Neda,” a young woman who was struck by a sniper bullet and bled to death in the street. She is being elevated by the opposition as a rallying cry. Yet the results on the ground have already been established by the Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei, and the opposition must continually think of ways to prolong the strife. I’m afraid that they will soon run out of strategies.