And here we go. A bunch of opening remarks praising Pittsburgh (a rad city, it’s true), and on the global economy, as would be expected from, you know, the G-20 Summit. Now: time to seek “security of a world” without “nuclear weapons” and the world is united, including, he says, Russia and Japan. Now it’s question time.

“It’s important to see what happened today building on what happened in New York,” he said, referring to “an unprecedented show of unity” on the world stage about Iran. “The U.S., the U.K. and France, who initiated the intelligence that brought this to light,” plus Russia and China calling for an IAEA “rapid response” is “not typical.” Iran is “on notice” next week in Geneva. “They are going to have to come clean and they are going to have to make a choice”: either “giving up the acquisition of nuclear weapons” or “continu[ing] down a path which is going to lead to confrontation… The international community has spoken.” Won’t speculate on “the course of action we will take. We will give October 1 a chance.” But Obama, referencing President Medvedev’s statement in New York, wants to send the message that he has a firm coalition alongside him.

“I have always said we do not rule out any options when it comes to U.S. security interests, but I will also emphasize that my preferred course of action is to respond to this in a diplomatic fashion.”

Ah, Afghanistan! Will he increase troops? Obama restates the rationale for remaining in Afghanistan, “my overriding goal, is to dismantle the al-Qaeda network, to destroy their capacity to inflict harm” on us and others worldwide, “and that is our overriding focus. Stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan are critical to that mission.” ISAF coalition is strong, “but there’s also a recognition after that many years of drift, it’s important to examine our strategy” to ensure it will succeed. Succeed in terms of getting rid of al-Qaeda safe havens.

Fraud! “Allegations of fraud in the recent election are of concern to us… What is more important is there a sense of legitimacy in Afghanistan among Afghans… If there is not, that makes our task more difficult.” Reminds that he has said all year that he would reassess strategy post-Afghan election, which is the same thing Gen. Petraeus said on Wednesday. “I put in a new commander, Gen. McChrystal, and asked him to give me an unvarnished assessment, and he has done that as well… Our military strategy is only part of a broader project” of civilian-military approaches.

Public opinion? “I understand the public’s weariness of this year, given that it comes on top of weariness of war in Iraq.” Extraordinary military sacrifice, both ours and among ISAF coalition partners. “I would expect the public would ask some very tough questions. That’s exactly what I’m doing… We’re not going to arrive at any perfect answers… But my solemn obligation is to get the best answers possible,” especially ahead of ordering troops to war.

Protests at the G-20 are “directed generically at capitalism” and agrees to disagree. Has a condescending tone toward the protesters and defends the G-20′s regulatory commitments.

Another Iran question. Why meet with the Iranians at all? And whatever happened to that 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran had abandoned nuclear weapons ambitions? Obama says the current intelligence was the “work product of three intelligence agencies not just one,” which “checked over this work in a painstaking fashion, precisely because we didn’t want any ambiguity… and the response you saw today indicates that the intelligence was solid.” Recommits to the two-track approach, whereby he negotiates with Iran while keeping more punitive approaches open. That will “strengthen world unity and our collective efforts to hold Iran accountable, and I think you’re starting to see the results of that unfold this week.” The IAEA is strengthened by strengthening the global nonproliferation regime, to the detriment of “those countries that don’t follow those rules,” and “when we find diplomacy doesn’t work, we will be in a much stronger position to apply sanctions that have bite.” Not that he wants that! It depends on Iranian actions.

So what kinds of sanctions have bite? And why did he announce this now? “This isn’t a football game,” Obama replies. “I’m not interested in victory. I’m interested in resolving the problem.” There will be a “variety of options” explored. Not going to get into details about sanctions. But if the international community is united, “then Iran’s going to have to pay attention.” Why now? To “make sure the intelligence is right.” All three agencies, he clarifies, are the intelligence apparatuses of the U.S., U.K., and France. And we’re out.

In the document, titled “Cooperation for Peace, Justice and Progress,” Iran reiterated many of its previous ideas for talks while scaling back specific requests made in previous proposals [2] (PDF). Among other things, Tehran called for an end to hostilities and for talks on issues of specific concern to Iran, such as drug trafficking and security in the Middle East. Unlike previous Iranian proposals, this one does not contain a litany of past grievances with the United States and does not assert an Iranian commitment to advancing its nuclear efforts.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that “the offer is still being evaluated” by the United States and its allies. “I will say Iran’s proposals have, time and again, failed to live up to its international obligations.” Iran’s offer is in response to coordinated efforts by the United States, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon.

Read the document yourself. National Iranian American Council head Trita Parsi, an opponent of the Ahmadinejad/Khamanei regime, finds some (small) reasons for cautions optimism, according to Politico’s Laura Rozen:

Parsi also said the letter’s rejection of a curb on Iranian enrichment could be seen as Iran’s opening bid in talks, not the end point.

“They ruled out a compromise on the enrichment issue,” he said. “Who can be surprised. That is what they have been saying for two years. Just because they will not make a compromise on that issue, doesn’t mean there can’t be a compromise on the [nuclear] issue as a whole.”

… at least three Iranian newspapers reported that of 290 members of the Iranian Parliament invited to a victory party for him Wednesday night, only 105 attended, suggesting a deep divide within the political elite over the election and its aftermath.

That won’t overturn an election, but it might be an indicator that the center of gravity for meeting minimal demands of the protesters is with the elites, and not out on the streets. In Qom, ex-president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is doing … something that we don’t really know about, but reportedly (well, much-speculated-ly) he’s attempting to convince the Assembly of Experts to dislodge Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei. I don’t know if this bit of elite-based speculation is well-grounded. But it looks like there needs to be some renewed exogenous event to re-spark a mass opposition movement. Mir Hussein Moussavi told supporters that he’s not backing down, but the regime has little incentive to compromise if it can break up the demonstrations through violence and withstand elite challenges.

“I am the definite winner of this presidential election,” [Mir Hossein Moussavi] told a news conference in Tehran.

No statement yet from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Supreme Leader Khamenei.

Update: Ahmedinejad is declaring victory too.

“The Iranian people would welcome a hand extended to it if the hand is truly based on honesty,” said Mr. Ahmadinejad in a speech at the central city of Isfahan today. The text of his remarks was reported by Iranian news services.

“Yet, if it has an honest appearance but is dishonest by nature, the Iranian people would give the same response that it gave to George Bush,” he said. “Therefore the change should be in action, not in words.”

Baby steps.

Ross said the United States should ask the Iranian representative during the private talks to explain how his government sees U.S. goals toward Iran and how Iran thinks the United States perceives Iranian goals. The purpose of this dialogue, he wrote, is to “find a way to show the Iranians that we are prepared to listen and to try to understand Iranian concerns and respond to them, but ultimately no progress can be made if our concerns cannot also be understood and addressed.”

Others, including counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, prefer a direct and more dovish approach. (Yeah, that’s right, that Brennan.) But here’s my question. What sense does it make to have Ross be a special envoy to … just one country?

The other special envoys, Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell, have numerous countries within their portfolios. When the government special envoy positions deal with single countries with which it doesn’t have diplomatic relations, it typically creates posts for specific issues, like human rights in North Korea, for instance. I know, I know, the Tehran embassy wasn’t built in a day, but it still seems like Ross’ would-be billet is an odd bureaucratic entity.

It’s also one that raises questions about how any special envoy sees the job. Is there a specific goal, like compliance with the Non Proliferation Treaty, or even normalized U.S.-Iran relations? Or is it to simply see what can be yielded through outreach, if anything? Where will the envoy talk with the Iranians — Iran, the United States, or a third country? It would be nice to have some clarity here.