Iran has attacked the United States ahead of a major meeting on the troubled global anti-nuclear arms treaty, slamming U.S. cooperation with Israel and India while ignoring President Barack Obama’s offers of dialogue.

Four working papers prepared for the meeting by Iran and obtained by Reuters show Tehran is redoubling its efforts to draw attention away from its own nuclear program by turning the spotlight on Washington for what it says are clear breaches of the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, Western diplomats say.

The signatories of the 1970 NPT, which is aimed at halting the spread of nuclear arms and demands that those with atomic arsenals take steps to get rid of them, gather on Monday to prepare for a major conference in 2010 that many countries hope will result in an overhaul of the landmark treaty.

They want the nuclear powers to make good on disarmament pledges and agree on a plan to end loopholes that have enabled states like North Korea, which withdrew from the pact in 2003 and tested a nuclear device in 2006, to develop atomic weapons under cover of civilian nuclear energy programs.

Iran, U.N. diplomats involved in the conference say, has gone on the offensive ahead of the meeting to keep the focus away from its nuclear program, which

The United States and its allies say Iran’s nuclear program is a covert quest for atomic weapons. Tehran denies the charge and has refused to halt uranium enrichment despite three rounds of U.N. sanctions imposed by the Security Council.

In the four papers Iran’s delegation submitted for the May 4-15 NPT conference, Tehran says Washington is in clear breach of the treaty by developing new atomic weapons and providing nuclear aid to Israel and India. Neither country has signed the NPT, but India has nuclear weapons and Israel is presumed to have built up a nuclear arsenal.

Iran also criticizes Washington, Britain and France, for working to prevent it and other developing countries from having complete nuclear energy programs. Diplomats from developing nations say Iran has many supporters on this issue due to fears among poorer states that the rich Western powers want to keep their monopoly on nuclear technology.

But Western diplomats say it may be harder for Iran to divide treaty members than at other NPT meetings in recent years. Obama, in a turnaround from the George W. Bush administration, last month called for a “world without nuclear weapons”, new disarmament talks with Russia and more nuclear cooperation with developing countries.

‘DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS OVERLOOKED’

Iran makes no mention in its NPT papers of the new U.S. stance, nor of the fact that Obama has offered direct talks with Iran nearly 30 years after Washington severed ties with Tehran over a hostage crisis.

“Iran is very worried that Obama’s commitment to disarmament … will make it harder to portray the Americans as the enemy,” a Western diplomat said. “The same goes for Obama’s engagement policy. So they (Iran) want to come out punching.”

Under the NPT, the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China were allowed to keep their atomic arsenals but were obliged to enter into talks on getting rid of them.

“The risk of proliferation posed by certain nuclear-weapon states is the most essential and immediate danger threatening the non-proliferation regime,” Iran says in one paper, adding that this should be the focus of this week’s NPT meeting — not the “risks of proliferation of non-nuclear weapon states.”

“Nuclear disarmament obligations have been totally overlooked and access to peaceful nuclear materials and technologies have been denied,” Iran says.

Western diplomats say this is an attempt to draw attention away from what they said was Iran’s own violations of the NPT.

Iran also criticizes the “nuclear-related cooperation of the United States with the Zionist regime” and says the endorsement of the U.S.-India nuclear deal by the world’s top producers of atomic technology had “severely damaged” the NPT by showing that those outside it can get special treatment.

The point of the two-week NPT meeting is to clear a path for a month-long review conference next year, which will take stock of the pact and possibly amend it. Delegates aim to agree on an agenda and make recommendations for the 2010 conference.

The last NPT review conference in 2005 was a failure. Delegates had hoped to agree on a plan of action to repair loopholes in the treaty that enable countries to acquire sensitive atomic technology and to hear from the five major nuclear powers that they are committed to disarming.

But it descended into procedural bickering led by the United States, Iran and Egypt, and accomplished nothing.

Washington tried to focus attention on Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs, while Iran condemned the failure to disarm and Egypt pointed to Israel’s presumed nuclear arsenal.

Western diplomats hope to pick up where the abortive 2005 conference left off but worry that Iran wants another debacle and will work to keep the pact’s 189 signatories divided.

Iran has attacked the United States ahead of a major meeting on the troubled global anti-nuclear arms treaty, slamming U.S. cooperation with Israel and India while ignoring President Barack Obama’s offers of dialogue.

Four working papers prepared for the meeting by Iran and obtained by Reuters show Tehran is redoubling its efforts to draw attention away from its own nuclear program by turning the spotlight on Washington for what it says are clear breaches of the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, Western diplomats say.

The signatories of the 1970 NPT, which is aimed at halting the spread of nuclear arms and demands that those with atomic arsenals take steps to get rid of them, gather on Monday to prepare for a major conference in 2010 that many countries hope will result in an overhaul of the landmark treaty.

They want the nuclear powers to make good on disarmament pledges and agree on a plan to end loopholes that have enabled states like North Korea, which withdrew from the pact in 2003 and tested a nuclear device in 2006, to develop atomic weapons under cover of civilian nuclear energy programs.

Iran, U.N. diplomats involved in the conference say, has gone on the offensive ahead of the meeting to keep the focus away from its nuclear program, which

The United States and its allies say Iran’s nuclear program is a covert quest for atomic weapons. Tehran denies the charge and has refused to halt uranium enrichment despite three rounds of U.N. sanctions imposed by the Security Council.

In the four papers Iran’s delegation submitted for the May 4-15 NPT conference, Tehran says Washington is in clear breach of the treaty by developing new atomic weapons and providing nuclear aid to Israel and India. Neither country has signed the NPT, but India has nuclear weapons and Israel is presumed to have built up a nuclear arsenal.

Iran also criticizes Washington, Britain and France, for working to prevent it and other developing countries from having complete nuclear energy programs. Diplomats from developing nations say Iran has many supporters on this issue due to fears among poorer states that the rich Western powers want to keep their monopoly on nuclear technology.

But Western diplomats say it may be harder for Iran to divide treaty members than at other NPT meetings in recent years. Obama, in a turnaround from the George W. Bush administration, last month called for a “world without nuclear weapons”, new disarmament talks with Russia and more nuclear cooperation with developing countries.

‘DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS OVERLOOKED’

Iran makes no mention in its NPT papers of the new U.S. stance, nor of the fact that Obama has offered direct talks with Iran nearly 30 years after Washington severed ties with Tehran over a hostage crisis.

“Iran is very worried that Obama’s commitment to disarmament … will make it harder to portray the Americans as the enemy,” a Western diplomat said. “The same goes for Obama’s engagement policy. So they (Iran) want to come out punching.”

Under the NPT, the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China were allowed to keep their atomic arsenals but were obliged to enter into talks on getting rid of them.

“The risk of proliferation posed by certain nuclear-weapon states is the most essential and immediate danger threatening the non-proliferation regime,” Iran says in one paper, adding that this should be the focus of this week’s NPT meeting — not the “risks of proliferation of non-nuclear weapon states.”

“Nuclear disarmament obligations have been totally overlooked and access to peaceful nuclear materials and technologies have been denied,” Iran says.

Western diplomats say this is an attempt to draw attention away from what they said was Iran’s own violations of the NPT.

Iran also criticizes the “nuclear-related cooperation of the United States with the Zionist regime” and says the endorsement of the U.S.-India nuclear deal by the world’s top producers of atomic technology had “severely damaged” the NPT by showing that those outside it can get special treatment.

The point of the two-week NPT meeting is to clear a path for a month-long review conference next year, which will take stock of the pact and possibly amend it. Delegates aim to agree on an agenda and make recommendations for the 2010 conference.

The last NPT review conference in 2005 was a failure. Delegates had hoped to agree on a plan of action to repair loopholes in the treaty that enable countries to acquire sensitive atomic technology and to hear from the five major nuclear powers that they are committed to disarming.

But it descended into procedural bickering led by the United States, Iran and Egypt, and accomplished nothing.

Washington tried to focus attention on Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs, while Iran condemned the failure to disarm and Egypt pointed to Israel’s presumed nuclear arsenal.

Western diplomats hope to pick up where the abortive 2005 conference left off but worry that Iran wants another debacle and will work to keep the pact’s 189 signatories divided.

African Americans Optimistic About Obama

THERE IS A BIZARRE twist to the old adage that when white folks have a cold, black folks have pneumonia. On the face of it, black folks and brown folks have the economic equivalent of swine flu. The African-American unemployment rate is 13.3 percent. The Latino unemployment rate is 11.4 percent. The national white unemployment rate is 7.9 percent.

The black unemployment rate has been under 8 percent just once in the last 37 years. And that golden year was – it figures – 2000, just before President Bush restored the gloom by underfunding or gutting program after program related to economic opportunity.

President Obama inherited a setup for failure, with the black adult male unemployment rate now 15.4 percent. The only time in the last 37 years that it was higher was during – it figures again – the first four years of Ronald Reagan, going as high as 20.3 percent. White folks got morning in America. Black folks were in mourning.

This time, we are witnessing the Amazingly Optimistic African-American. A New York Times/CBS poll this week found that 70 percent of African-Americans think the nation is going in the right direction, while only 34 percent of white Americans think so. Ninety-one percent of African-Americans approve of the way Obama is handling the economy, compared with 55 percent of white Americans.

Is this because we now have Ronald Reagan in blackface? Obama said in the primaries that Reagan “changed the trajectory of America . . . He tapped into what people were already feeling, which was, ‘We want clarity, we want optimism, we want, you know, a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.’ ” Clarifying his remarks after rivals said this was too cheerful a tribute, Obama said Reagan was a “transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through their agenda, an agenda that I objected to.”

It will be awhile before Obama proves transformative beyond being the first black president, but he continues to tap optimism to buy time for his agenda. Despite the divides in the poll numbers above, there are plenty of findings in the same poll to show that optimism is not just an ecstatic black thing. Sixty-two percent of white Americans approve of how Obama is handling his job, compared with 27 percent who disapprove. Sixty-six percent of white Americans are optimistic about the next four years of Obama.

With perceptions still high that he is working hard on the economy, the environment, and the wars, only 28 percent of white Americans and 12 percent of African-Americans consider him a “typical” politician.

This is almost seismic, since Obama lost the white vote en route to the White House, earning just 43 percent of it against John McCain. That may be a reason he flew to Missouri this week, a state he barely lost, to note his first 100 days in office. He knows that swaths of middle America represented by the “Show Me” state are permanent, teetering battlegrounds to get them to vote for their economic interests.

It is fascinating to consider if his legacy teeters to the positive. In a 1992 New York Times poll, 67 percent of white Americans and 75 percent of African-Americans said race relations were “generally bad.” Today, a stunning 59 percent of African-Americans are in close agreement with the 65 percent of white Americans who think relations are “generally good.”

That is more than generally good. Some white Americans are exploiting Obama’s election to call for the end of voting rights protections. This is premature since white Americans just flashed a lingering red flag, voting in the majority for a white man to continue the disastrous policies of a white president who had a 67-percent disapproval rating among white people.

But white Americans and African-Americans appear on many levels to be on an unprecedented path toward a shared view of the nation. A shared view can lead to a shared vision, giving birth to the dynamism that closes the racial divide once and for all

Michelle Obama has taken casual to a haute new level.

While volunteering Wednesday at a D.C. food bank, the First Lady sported her usual J.Crew cardigan, a pair of utilitarian capri pants and, on her feet, a sneaky splurge: trainers that go for $540.

That’s right: These sneakers – suede, with grosgrain ribbon laces and metallic pink toe caps – are made by French design house Lanvin, one of fashion’s hottest labels. They come in denim and satin versions, and have been a brisk seller all spring.

They’re out of stock at posh Meatpacking District boutique Jeffrey, and Barneys New York boasts a limited selection of the sneaks, which are a cult favorite among fashionistas.

It’s likely Michelle got hers through Ikram, the Chicago retailer that often outfits her.

“They’re shoes,” the First Lady’s reps sniffed when curious reporters inquired about the fancy footwear.

Michelle has stepped out in Lanvin before while getting down to business. A week ago, she shoveled dirt at a tree planting while wearing the line’s chiffon tank.

Dresses and strappy pumps cost upward of $1,500, while tops go for $400 to $1,000.

Other celebrity fans of Lanvin’s costly kicks include Ellen DeGeneres and Kanye West, who has blogged about his faves.

As the family’s primary dog walker, Michelle clearly requires comfortable footwear.

“I got up at 5:15 in the morning to walk my puppy,” she joked Thursday. “That’s how my day starts. Even though the kids are supposed to do a lot of the work, I’m still up at 5:15 a.m. taking my dog out.”

She’ll be trodding on New York’s sidewalks Tuesday for the first time as First Lady. Michelle will meet with staff at the U.S. mission to the United Nations. Later, she headlines Time magazine’s “100 most influential people” gala.

Hints of a class divide are emerging in voter impressions of Barack Obama, according to a new poll that shows wealthy voters far more skeptical of his economic agenda than poorer ones.

The survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center to gauge Obama’s popularity around his 100th day in office this week, demonstrates broad popularity for his young presidency. But while 71 percent of voters earning less than $30,000 annually approve of Obama’s performance, only 58 percent of those with incomes over $75,000 do. Barely half of the wealthier voters applaud Obama’s handling of the economy, compared with over three-quarters of those in the lowest stratum.

The findings suggest that Obama’s agenda of activist government – including unprecedented federal involvement in the corporate world – are more likely to spark concerns from upper-income voters than lower-income ones.

“A good part of [the class divide] may have to do with a negative reaction to some of Obama’s policies: taxing the rich, most specifically, and government exercising too much influence over the economy,” said Andrew Kohut, who directed the survey.

This month Obama declared that his budget, which would reduce the burden on 95 percent of taxpayers, amounted to “the most progressive tax cut in American history.” He has described plans to shift more of the tax burden onto high-income workers and small-business owners who received substantial tax cuts during George W. Bush’s presidency. Obama, who earned $2.6 million last year, has said that taxes on the wealthy will be no higher than they were under Bill Clinton.

Yet Obama has proposed changes that directly attack the modern culture of wealth in the United States. He would raise taxes on money earned overseas and through hedge-fund partnerships. He tried unsuccessfully to scale back the deduction for charitable contributions, which is most largely utilized by the wealthy.

“We’re also doing away with the unnecessary giveaways that have thrown our tax code out of balance,” Obama said at an event acknowledging “tax day” on April 15.

Despite having stuck similar themes during his campaign, Obama drew substantial support from upper-income voters, accelerating the gradual movement of upscale suburbanites into the Democratic coalition. Obama ran even with Republican John McCain among voters making more than $75,000, a massive increase over his party’s performance four years earlier, when John Kerry lost that group by double-digits. Obama carried voters earning more than $200,000 by six percent. In 1976, Republican Gerald Ford carried 10 of the 12 wealthiest states in the country; last year, Obama won them all.

A poll last week by Allstate and National Journal showed that Obama was slightly less popular among those with business-oriented jobs than with the broader electorate, although he still commanded impressive numbers for a Democrat. Fifty-eight percent of the self-employed, 55 percent of “knowledge workers,” and 53 percent of senior business managers approved of Obama’s performance.

Indeed, Obama has maintained a friendly posture toward the business world even as he seeks a greater role for government in it. He gave top posts to those with Wall Street ties, including Treasury Timothy Geithner and economic adviser Lawrence Summers. He has presented his support for federal bailouts in the financial and automotive sectors as a way of maintaining vitality in those industries, and describes the need for changes to healthcare and energy policy as a matter of competitiveness.

“Obama enjoyed an enormous amount of support from those upper-class elites, and the people he had surrounded himself with are hardly populist in inclination,” said Steven Fraser, a historian and author of “Wall Street: America’s Dream Palace.” “Obama is operating, in many respects, in a probusiness way and acting very gingerly about executive pay and government control of corporations.”

Kohut noted that the disparity could simply reflect of polarized opinions along party lines: the president is wildly popular among Democrats but predictably disliked by Republicans, who still attract a higher share of the wealthiest voters. His lowest approval ratings in the Pew poll were among the wealthiest group on the issue of the deficit: only 38 percent of those voters approved of Obama’s budgeting.

“There’s something called buyer’s remorse,” said Adam Geller, a Republican pollster. “There’s a little more anger and frustration among people who are making incomes above average.”

Republicans say the class gap on budgetary issues may reflect their focus on the fiscal implications of Obama’s proposals. While some Republicans have asserted that the deficit spending could trigger inflation – which would have a direct effect on low-income earners – party leaders have usually repeated the charge that Obama “taxes too much, spends too much, and borrows too much.”

“Sometimes messages take a while to penetrate, and we’re still on Obama’s honeymoon,” said Alex Conant, a consultant who advises the Republican National Committee. “As the threat of higher taxes and inflation becomes more imminent, you’ll see a wider swath of the public will become more concerned with Obama’s profligate spending.”

So far, the strongest organized opposition to Obama – culminating in a series of rambunctious “tea party” demonstrations held nationwide on April 15 – was incubated at the Chicago Board of Trade by a former derivatives trader who now reports for the financial network CNBC. “This is America!” exclaimed Rick Santelli, as traders joined him in lampooning an Obama proposal to intervene in the mortgage market.

President Obama has been handed his first chance to reinvigorate the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and add another woman to the bench, with the planned retirement this year of David Souter.

Justice Souter, 69, one of the youngest members of America’s highest court and a reliable liberal, is leaving the bench because he has become disaffected with the political machinations of Washington, his friends say.

His departure will not change the delicate political and social balance of the court, which is split between four liberals and four conservatives, with Justice Anthony Kennedy often providing the swing vote when judgments are handed down.

Mr Obama will be under pressure to pick a woman, as there is only one on the bench — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 76. She had pancreatic cancer diagnosed this winter but says that her treatment has been successful and that she has no plans to retire.
Related Links

* US Supreme Court justice ‘to retire’

* Shock defection boosts Obama’s grip on power

Several names have emerged, including Judge Sonia Sotomayor, of New York, Elena Kagan, Mr Obama’s Solicitor-General, and Kathleen Sullivan, former dean at Stanford Law School.

Asked in 2007 about how he would choose a Supreme Court justice, Mr Obama said: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognise what it’s like to be a teenage mum. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old.”

Judge Sotomayor, 54, grew up in the South Bronx and graduated from Yale Law School. Vice-President Joe Biden is drawing up a list of possible candidates.

One possibility is the current U.S. Solicitor General, Elena Kagan. She’s a former law professor at Obama’s alma mater, Harvard University.

Another well-known name who might make the list is Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

Most of the rest of the likely possibilities are sitting federal judges. Among them are Ruben Castillo of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Margaret McKeown of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, and Diane Wood of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

Law professors Pam Karlan of Stanford and Cass Sunstein of Harvard might also make the list.

Republicans are already promising a fight in the Senate over a liberal choice but Mr Obama, on the verge of a 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority, is in a good position to seat his nominee without a bloody political battle.