Not to literally beat a dead horse here, but
This whole acting rationally thing is really confuses me.
" By demonstrating that Iran has acted as a rational player, the report gives advocates of negotiations without preconditions a stronger hand."
Since when and in whose mind would such things as the following fall in the category of rational thinking:
1: Taking Hostages at Embassy (Sure if you want to take a wholistic view that their guiding light in this action was to accomplish what was better in the long turn; you would have to however illustrate that it was, and good luck with that)
2: Having a nuclear weapons program in the first place if you haven't even gotten to the place where you could use it without nefarious actions to obtain the materials /which in turn would point to nefarious intent
3: Using all governmental assets to keep the entire populous under restrictions which discourage any uprising or even simple disagreement with government.
4: The need for review of historic happenings to which there is no doubt and mainly because right now so many who actually lived it are still alive to tell about it. ( Wouldn't it have been more rational to wait until the witnesses are gone before trying to rewrite history?)
5: Anything that comes out of the mouth of the current leadership such as-
We dont have any vs We eliminate any ( If i'll blow smoke in your face on TV about something so notably identifiable as the existence of those with alternative lifestyles, are you really sure you want to take my word on something like nuclear power?)
Just a few things which make it really hard for me to buy the rationality argument.
That being said there is still nothing wrong with negotiating as long as we remember:
The quote from JFK that rings true
" Let us never fear to negotiate , but let us never negotiate from fear "
NIEs, States, Aggregates, Actions, Inferences
Hi,
1) It's unclear to me whether the drafters of the NIE had any political motivation one way or the other. I can think of many, all plausible, but in the absence of additional information, it seems to me impossible to infer the drafters' intentions from the finished product. Additionally, people might not be angels, but they also often take pride in their work and their identity as "professionals." Maybe this betrays incredible naivete, but it does not seem beyond the realm of the possible that the drafters assessed the best available evidence, and made their conclusions accordingly. I recognize this may well not be the case, but I do think, as with all these hypotheses, it is probably difficult to rebut absent additional information.
2) I think the NIE does a reasonably good of acknowledging it is assessing issues that are uncertain - that is, cannot be quantified with any degree of precision. Moreover, I think the NIE does a reasonably good job of acknowledging, and trying to overcome, the difficulty of trying to convey that uncertainty via inevitably imprecise language. I think Sherman Kent once wanted percentages placed on intelligence estimates. I'm not sure about the practicality of that, but again, I think the scope conditions at the beginning of the NIE move in that direction.
3) Because of 2) I think to a certain extent, it is probably not particularly useful to parse particular word choices too much, and even less useful to do so without reference back to the scope conditions outlined at the beginning of the documents.
4) To use the same reasoning as to 1), I'd be wary of inferring a state's motives from its actions, just as I'd be wary of inferring drafters' intentions from the final product. Aggregates can produce different outcomes than individuals simply acting together. (Put more simply, the sum can be different than the whole of the parts.) A state's motives may not be transparent. Moreover, "states" consist of suborganizations, and their interplay (e.g., bargaining, conflict) may result in actions neither suborganization (or only just one suborganization) intended. (See Graham Allison, Essence of Decision, for the classic cite on this.) To me, it's actually easier to find a rational explanation for every state's behavior, than it is to determine every (or any) action taken by a state is "irrational." And I can think of lots of rational reasons why people within a state, rather than the state per se - say, Ahmadinejab - might display given behavior. And finally, my suspicion is that since I know little about Iran or Ahmadinejab, and have never been Ahmadinejam, most of those rational reasons would probably be wrong.
My $.02.
Regards
Jeff
Iran Doesn't Need to Enrich Uranium
Russia sees no economic need for Iran to proceed with its uranium enrichment program, on which termination the international community insists, said Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
Quote:
“We think Iran has no economic need whatsoever to proceed with uranium enrichment program. We are trying to convince the Iranians that freezing this program will be of benefit to Iran itself, as it will immediately lead to negotiations with all six [states], including the United States,” Lavrov said in an interview with Vremya Novostei.
Russia that helps Iran construct its first Bushehr nuclear plant, has supplied to it the first consignment of nuclear fuel this month.
“These negotiations [with Russia, the United States, China, Britain, France and Germany] will be aimed at eliminating once and forever all suspicions that there are any other components in Iran’s nuclear program in addition to the purely peaceful ones. Iran’s agreement to this proposal will serve the interest of all,” Lavrov emphasized.
And, just a little more to add to the pile...
Russia Helps Iran Keep Balance of Power
Quote:
A delay in the U.S.-Iranian war is implied by the recent publication of a U.S. intelligence report indicating that Iran closed down its military nuclear program in 2003. Russia is clearly taking advantage of the situation to sell as many weapons as possible. Dmitriev stated that “Russia and Iran are strengthening stability in the region.” He added that “We are talking about defensive types of weapons… Iran has never asked for and Russia would never give Iran offensive weapons to encourage any, conditionally speaking, aggression against anyone.”
