True, they do not and did not.
Quote:
Iran doesn't need a nuclear arsenal today. It has China and Russia for that...
Though I'm not at all sure that the last sentence is true or realistic.
Quote:
...And frankly,with the release of the NIE, neither China nor Russia will support an increase in economic sanctions against Iran, and they clearly don't care what Washington thinks...
In this case I agree with the last sentence but am not all sure you're correct on the first one. Time will tell.
Quote:
From Tehran's perspective, Iran has come out ahead in all of this.
Nor do I see any basis for that statement; they will certainly shout that they are ahead, as you said above, they've been playing the bluff and fall back game like North Korea (though not quite as well) since '79. So they'll make hooray! noises -- whether they really think that or wonder what in the world we're up to now is a totally different thing.
The turn around from the 2005 NIE is bound to give them pause. They've miscalculated on us before and are rather cautious in fear of doing it again. They want respect for the Persian Empire and foreign investment but they are too proud to say that, they have to demand it indirectly, even while really understanding that is not a good approach. Complex folks.
All true and good points. That NIE is truly
a political document -- and by that I mean Intel community internal politics and leanings more so than the national or international variety...:rolleyes:
Lot of chatter, most ill informed and off the mark -- in the Op-Ed pages this morning. I got the impression that most of the punditocracy were relying on what others had said as opposed to actually reading the Estimate. I Read a bunch of articles; this LINK was probably the most accurate... ;)
Poor old Ahmadinejad is indeed scrambling, I'm sure and Khameini is lambasting his spooks for allowing them to be surprised. I suspect W was told some time ago what the Estimate was going to say and played along to heighten the surprise. :cool:
We aren't nearly as dumb as we sometimes appear... :D
Might agree with the end conclusion, but...
Originally posted by Norfolk:
Quote:
I suspect that Iran's options are narrowing and they are running out of time in which to make some important decisions. They may find themselves having to search for a way in which to pull a Libya without it looking like an outright capitulation. They know that someone's gunning for them, and that if the trigger is pulled, it will most certainly be sooner rather than later. This issue will almost certainly be decided one way or the other within a year, and probably much less than that. This is not a good situation, and especially not for Iran.
...can't buy into your logic in getting there. Here's why (realize, this is coming from a pol perspective):
01 The 2007 NIE really seriously damaged any efforts at building a coalition supporting military action again Iran. As long as Iran doesn't get stupid from where we are today, they've got a odds-on pass through November, 2008.
02 The problem Iran has vrs. relations with the US is that things are unlikely to change from now, regardless of political Administration, from now probably through the first term of the next POTUS. I mean, think about it - Iran basically has 3 doors to choose from (or no change):
Door 1: Current Administration. Door is good through 11.2008, expired after that.
Door 2: New Administration (Democratic): Assume most likely candidate for position is H. Clinton. How is Ahmadinejad going to make those negotiations work? (You've got elements of a religious repressive society, a host of women's issues, wants to eliminate Israel, homosexual oppression, and a whole host of other issues). There's going to be all sorts of SIG's (Special Interest Groups) all over this one, and they'll win.
Door 3: New Administration (Republican): Assume most likely candidate for position is R. Giuliani. How is Ahmadinejad going to make those negotiations work? (You've got elements of a religious repressive society, wants to eliminate Israel, a host of women's issues, homosexual oppression, and a whole host of other issues). Again, there's going to be all sorts of SIG's all over this one.
Honestly, looking at the above, we might as well put the US-Iran relations into the freezer and come back and re-visit them sometime in 2013.
As crazy as it sounds, the best US-Iran dealmaking climate looks to be right now (because a lame duck POTUS can tell all the SIG's to go sit on it & spin until it feels good). And more importantly, everybody else wanting the job will want this one off the table before their watch kicks in.
My question would be how Ahmadinejad, and more importantly, Khameini view dealing with the US? They might just be fine with putting any national relationship change with the US on hold all the way into 2013. Because once there's a new POTUS, nothing is likely to happen first term re: Iran (unless both/either party gets stupid). Thoughts?
If you qualify that by saying
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JeffC
What I mean't by that is that Iran is patient. While their ambition is to acquire nuclear weapons, they've been trying to do it for 50 years...
some, I could agree. Iran is not monolithic. Even among the Ayatollahs, there's disagreement on that score. What's the basis for your 50 year claim?
Quote:
...They don't need to draw a line in the sand or instigate a war over it today! If they walk away from this with economic incentives to give up their measely 3000 centrifuges that probably don't work properly, then what have they lost? Nothing. And they gain whatever incentives and aid that's been offered.
Haven't seen anyone offering any aid thus far; may happen, may not. Why would anyone give them any incentives? Incentives for what? They've already agreed to better cooperate with the IAEA. We just said we didn't think they were trying to build nukes and they agreed they weren't, loudly and predictably claiming yet another victory over the Great Satan -- so incentives to do what?
Quote:
Regarding China and Russia not supporting further resolutions against China, both countries have already announced their intention to not support further sanctions since the release of the NIE.
I've read articles today that said that and others that say China is still supportive of some efforts and Russia is not, other articles that say the reverse; Russia supports but China does not plus still others that say both are still leaning toward sanctions. All speculation by a clueless media and I doubt either nation has decided what they will do yet -- they know that NIE is virtually meaningless as a reality check; it's a relatively pointless political document pure and simple.
In any case, what China and Russia will do or not do is not material to the fact that Iran achieves no real benefit from the NIE other than a possible lessening of tension and rhetoric -- and they still don't know what we're up to... :D
Don't you just love it...
..when politicians and officials discuss sensitive methods and sources with and in the press? Sheeesh.
Details in Military Notes Led to Shift on Iran, U.S. Says
NYT, 6 December 2007
Quote:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 5 — American intelligence agencies reversed their view about the status of Iran’s nuclear weapons program after they obtained notes last summer from the deliberations of Iranian military officials involved in the weapons development program, senior intelligence and government officials said on Wednesday.
Do you know this or are you assuming
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Norfolk
It was certainly about policy in so far as that the Administration (Cheney's speech in May to representatives of the Gulf States) had promised a deployment of 4 carrier groups in and around the Persian Gulf region in order to pressure Iran, and the local Navy commander basically said "no". This effectively prevented the required build-up of naval air power in the region necessary (4 carrier air groups, one of which was to be in the Red Sea) for anything other than rather minor operations, and effectively removed any military strike options that may have been afforded by carrier air power. One carrier air group doesn't cut it. Three or four can.
that's what occurred?