Sajjil-2: Reaching Out to Enemies Everywhere
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520779,00.html
Iran Says It Test Fired Missile That Could Hit Israel, U.S. Bases in Mideast
The U.S. has criticized Iran's missile development and said such launches stoke instability in the Middle East.
The solid-fuel Sajjil-2 surface-to-surface missile tested has a range of about 1,200 miles, far enough to strike at southeastern Europe......."
Little of both, they're conflicted...
They want the Empire back -- Darius and Cyrus are ever present in their thoughts. Yet they know that is unlikely to happen. Conflicted people are hard to figure on occasion. They generally do not like to be dismissed as irrelevant.
They are also natural born hagglers and chips or rhetorical points in bargaining are prized. They tend to make hyperbolic statements and claims that they have no intention of backing up. They'll offer merchandise they do not possess. They make a lot of and things out of pot metal and then tin or copperplate them; they look good initially but too much polishing shows the poor quality underneath...
Different strokes.
Why yes, now that you ask -- do you have a
point? Germane questions do not always obviously show the point of their being asked...
Interesting item on Iran and the 2007 NIE.
Quote:
"President Obama has committed to trying diplomacy to stop the Iranian bomb. Time, though, is on the mullahs' side, not least because so much of it was wasted after the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate made the improbable case that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. This assessment not only contradicted previous U.S. intelligence consensus but -- as recent court documents show -- also the conclusions of a key U.S. ally with excellent sources in Iran -- Germany."
From The Wall Street Journal at the LINK.
There are many possibilities...
...but I wouldn't draw too many conclusions based on an oped with an obvious agenda.
Looking at the meager evidence provided in the oped, I don't think there's necessarily an inconsistency between the German intel and the NIE, but I haven't read the actual court report that's referenced, or the May 2008 BND report (if anyone could provide links, that would be great).
To begin with, the NIE conclusion was limited to Iran's work on warhead design and testing and not other, necessary, parts of a weapons development program. The article, however, makes no mention of that aspect in the NIE. Instead, it quotes from the report:
Quote:
the development of a new missile launcher and the similarities between Iran's acquisition efforts and those of countries with already known nuclear weapons programs, such as Pakistan and North Korea
Work on a missile system does not conflict with the NIE conclusions on warhead work, nor does nuclear-related acquisition efforts. There is a lot of selective quoting about "development of nuclear weapons" but what does that mean exactly? The oped leaves us wondering and assumes we will draw the appropriate conclusions after leading us partway down the path.
That Iran is continuing work on enrichment, building a research reactor (which is, coincidentally, a perfect design for plutonium production), and working on delivery systems is enough for many to conclude Iran is "developing nuclear weapons" even if there isn't currently an effort on the actual warhead. So until I see more information, I don't see any serious conflict between the NIE and what is quoted in this opinion piece.
Agendas abound, they can be found most anythwere.
People in surprising places have agendas.
I'm not drawing any conclusions -- nor did I draw any from the published unclas NIE at the time. In both cases, due to the agenda effect and because I don't have enough information to form conclusions. No comment on a public board is likely to offer more information. I posted it knowing that and that all you say is correct without comment for only one reason. ;)
Iran - A deficit in strategy or policy?
In April of this year, there was hoopla surrounding SECDEF Gates' statement in a memo that he did not think the US had an effective strategy to deter Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Others have expressed similar sentiments, perhaps extended a bit further - essentially lamenting that the U.S. does not have an "Iran strategy."
I'm trying to understand if the essence of those concerns is really about strategy or more about policy.
I have always understood "strategy" to refer primarily to a plan for how to accomplish an objective through specific means (e.g., Liddell Hart's definition of strategy as “the art of distributing and applying military means to fulfill the ends of policy”).
The U.S. has been pretty clear, I think, that it does not want Iran to possess "nuclear capability." And it seems to me that the plan - at least for now - about how to accomplish that is to use the quasi-coercive lever of sanctions to get them to stop.
In that sense, it seems that a plan exists to employ identifiable means to fulfill the ends of policy. Would that constitute a "strategy"?
Now, whether it is an effective strategy is certainly a more complicated and debatable matter, but is it not a strategy -- or is there a broader connotation (or definition) of what can be called strategy than what I have used here?
If it is a strategy - generally speaking - then I wonder if the underlying deficit might really be that the specific goal (i.e., Iran will not possess "nuclear capability") is insufficient as a matter of U.S. (foreign) policy. It is stated as something we do NOT want rather than as an out we do wish to achieve. And the "no nuke" goal does not transparently reflect the U.S.'s underlying interests, either in deterring Iran nukes specifically or in prevailing in this battle of wills. Without a focus on "interests", it seems we get reduced to a struggle of "positions"?
When a nation outlines a policy objective, shouldn't it be able to answer the questions of "why?" "so what if we accomplish it?" and "so what if we don't accomplish it?" -?
I cannot recall reading anywhere a clear explanation of what the U.S. wants from Iran or what the U.S. would like for Iran to be or to do. Only what it should not be or not do. Perhaps I'm not reading the right things. I would very much welcome any guidance from fellow Council members.
Thanks - Randy