Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 317

Thread: Iran, Nukes, Diplomacy and other options (catch all thread 2007-2010)

  1. #101
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Post 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 "

  2. #102
    Council Member bourbon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post
    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)
    See post #48 by Rex Brynen:
    US Embassy, Tehran.

    Largely fueled by the standard hyper-enthusiasm of the early revolutionary stage, this helped to undermine the government of then (relatively moderate) Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan, and helped to strengthen and ultimately consolidate the power of the hardline revolutionaries in the new regime—thus paving the way for the establishment of the Islamic Republic in its present form. In terms of domestic politics, therefore, it paid off well. Also encouraged other Islamist radicals in the region.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post
    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
    Nefarious activities to obtain materials? Lets substitute 'nefarious' for 'illegal', what have they done illegally?
    How did Israel obtain its nuclear program? The terms 'nefarious' and 'illegal' come to mind. Actually there are some great stories there; massive hijackings, extortion, and more black bag jobs then a John le Carré novel. Needless to say, did their nefarious proliferation activities imply nefarious intent?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post
    3: Using all governmental assets to keep the entire populous under restrictions which discourage any uprising or even simple disagreement with government.
    Dictatorships are not irrational, it is a fallacy of liberals and neoconservatives to think they are inherently irrational. Further it is a moot point on a realpolitik matter such as this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post
    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?)
    I assume you are referring to the whole Holocaust denial thing. Thats a complicated topic, beyond the scope of this thread, listen to Ahmadinejad though, he says it for a reason. Its not just Holocaust denial at face value, he uses it in a nuanced argument against Zionism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post
    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?)
    This is a moot point.

  3. #103
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    As has been noted by others, this thread began to go in circles while taking a nosedive a little while ago. In an attempt to clean things up, I've removed the last few posts and changed it up. None of the deletions are targeted at the posters invidiually - just trying to get this rebooted in a more substantive manner.

    This is an important subject, but I will lock the thread if it goes off-kilter or becomes stridently partisan.

    Thanks

  4. #104
    Council Member Galrahn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    17

    Default

    I'm not an expert on negotiations, but I've been largely unimpressed with the US approach of unconditional terms with Iran. It seems counter intuitive to me that the US should expect any results other than failure with the “unconditional terms” approach.

    I'd negotiate with Iran, and bring to the table every issue, even the most complicated or controversial. I'd also put the media microphone in front of the Iranian negotiators every day for as long as I could in the process. My observation on Iran is their government has a very difficult time articulating their message in person without advertising an obvious disconnect with the west that is very difficult to conceal in media spin. The thing about Iran’s message is, their talking points work for either an audience in the Middle East or the West, but almost never does the same hard line message work for both audiences at the same time.

    The region in general is less open to the hardliner message than in the past, too many economic interests counter to the hard line old school message Iran touts, so I'd let them talk. Their rhetoric adds little to their position in the region today, how would it be any different at the negotiating table.

    The examples are the UN over the last few years (which largely goes uncovered by the media), but an even better example was Columbia University earlier this year. I get the impression that negotiations and plenty of public attention would strengthen the west’s position more than it would hurt it, because while Iran's message is appealing to hard liners, the hard line message is losing its steam regionally among the major players.

    If it really is about talking, then let Iran speak. They really aren't very good at talking when they have to improvise, they are only good at it when they can package the message. That is my observation anyway.

  5. #105
    Council Member bourbon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galrahn View Post
    Post
    Very well said.

    Agree 100% about the Columbia University event. That worked out very bad for Iran. The only people who came away looking more of a buffoon then Ahmadinejad, were Bollinger and the people who complained so much about having him speak. Ahmadinejad came off more like a clown then a pariah, and I imagine his performance and how he was essentially laughed at in the west hurt his domestic standing.

    PS: The "I-Ran" song parody about Ahmadinejad in NYC this fall was probably the best sketch Saturday Night Live has done in a few years.

  6. #106
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bourbon View Post
    Agree 100% about the Columbia University event. That worked out very bad for Iran. The only people who came away looking more of a buffoon then Ahmadinejad, were Bollinger and the people who complained so much about having him speak. Ahmadinejad came off more like a clown then a pariah, and I imagine his performance and how he was essentially laughed at in the west hurt his domestic standing.
    I heard the opposite from many Iranians (including opponents of Ahmadinejad)--the open hostility of Bollinger was seen as so rude and contrary to the norms of hospitality that it overshadowed the content of Ahmadinejad's speech. As a result, he came off (remarkably!) looking like the statesman to domestic mass audiences...

    While many in the Iranian foreign policy elite cringe at the President's antics and declarations, don't underestimate the way it plays with both hardliners and his broader voter base, among whom tweaking the US can score domestic points.

  7. #107
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    26

    Default 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

  8. #108
    Council Member Galrahn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    While many in the Iranian foreign policy elite cringe at the President's antics and declarations, don't underestimate the way it plays with both hardliners and his broader voter base, among whom tweaking the US can score domestic points.
    I agree. In negotiation this is part of the give though. I'm not sure I believe this hurts those in opposition though. I do not see building domestic support for the civilian nuclear program within Iran as zero sum against a coalition opposition to a nuclear weapons program, because to sell domestic support for peaceful civilian nuclear eneergy, Iran is selling the absence of a nuclear weapons program.

    That makes any future IAEA discovery of a weapons program in Iran a silver bullet for both internal and external supporters and critics. Too bad the track record for uncovering silver bullets is checkered, at best.

    Iran has played their cards very smart. They have in effect been mostly legal in their process, which will allow them to achieve nuclear energy without a nuclear weapons program even under sanctions, and leave them in a position where a nuclear weapons program would only require a few months to convert into should they so desire in the future.
    Last edited by Jedburgh; 02-03-2008 at 02:32 PM.

  9. #109
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galrahn View Post
    Iran has played their cards very smart. They have in effect been mostly legal in their process, which will allow them to achieve nuclear energy without a nuclear weapons program even under sanctions, and leave them in a position where a nuclear weapons program would only require a few months to convert into should they so desire in the future.
    Hey Galrahn !
    How exactly will they achieve a weapons program in only a few months when the site and Russian-provided fuel are estimated as 'in-place and ready' in 2009?

    Regards, Stan

  10. #110
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Stan,

    I think he means "a few months" from when the reactor is completed...but I could be mistaken (happens all the time).
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  11. #111
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Hey Steve !
    The fuel being provided to Iran is something to the tune of 3 or 4% enriched and as I understand it, HEU or weapons grade is around 90%.

    God, where are the scientists and anthropologists when you need them ?

  12. #112
    Council Member Galrahn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    Hey Galrahn !
    How exactly will they achieve a weapons program in only a few months when the site and Russian-provided fuel are estimated as 'in-place and ready' in 2009?

    Regards, Stan
    I'm sorry, was written a bit confusing. I'm not talking a few months from now; I'm talking about a few months from a point in the future when they have their civilian nuclear program up and running.

    Probably about 5-8 years from now, but what I was thinking when I wrote it is basically Iran putting them in the same position nations like Japan and Brazil are in today, except Iran is much further along on some of the missile side aspects of nuclear tech than say a nation like Brazil.

  13. #113
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Poulsbo, WA
    Posts
    252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galrahn View Post
    I'm sorry, was written a bit confusing. I'm not talking a few months from now; I'm talking about a few months from a point in the future when they have their civilian nuclear program up and running.
    What evidence is there to support that theory? What's required to be in place and operating (technical details please) in order for your prediction to occur?

  14. #114
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galrahn View Post
    I'm sorry, was written a bit confusing. I'm not talking a few months from now; I'm talking about a few months from a point in the future when they have their civilian nuclear program up and running.

    Probably about 5-8 years from now, but what I was thinking when I wrote it is basically Iran putting them in the same position nations like Japan and Brazil are in today, except Iran is much further along on some of the missile side aspects of nuclear tech than say a nation like Brazil.
    Thanks for the clarification. No harm, no foul.

    I would agree, they are ahead in their missile program and caution as we proceed in negotiations is prudent.

  15. #115
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffC View Post
    What evidence is there to support that theory? What's required to be in place and operating (technical details please) in order for your prediction to occur?
    He's not making a prediction (note his use of the phrase "should they so desire in the future") as much as presenting a possibility. A prediction would use the construction "when they move to weapons-grade materials" or something quite similar.

    As Jed pointed out, this is an important subject. And most important subjects require clarity in communication. Let's all keep it clear and respectful.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  16. #116
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Poulsbo, WA
    Posts
    252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    He's not making a prediction (note his use of the phrase "should they so desire in the future") as much as presenting a possibility. A prediction would use the construction "when they move to weapons-grade materials" or something quite similar.

    As Jed pointed out, this is an important subject. And most important subjects require clarity in communication. Let's all keep it clear and respectful.
    I'm all in favor of clarity, and I agree with you that Galrahn suggested a possibility rather than making a prediction (my bad).

    Since defense of one's position, whether it's a possibility or a prediciton, is a time-honored tradition in military academies and civilian educational institutions, I'm looking forward to hear Galrahn's take on what technical requirements must be in place in order for any nation, including Iran, to convert enriched uranium supplied by Russia to HEU for use in a warhead, should Iran desire to do that in the future.

  17. #117
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    I continue to have my doubts when it comes to true Iranian enrichment capabilities. Even modest Russian views state openly Iran’s technical inability to make a WMD, as well as IAEA inspectors monitoring current activities and deliveries. Russia claims that the fuel being delivered has been enriched to 3.62%...far from weapons grade U-235. In fact, the number of large commercial enrichment plants in operation since 2002 are quite small (and those are all developed countries).

    I would also like to see more technical stats that conclude Iran’s capabilities.

    Honestly, I’ll continue to tread lightly but remain skeptical about feelings and press reports. I need a more logical approach…something to chew on.

  18. #118
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default 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.

    “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

    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.”

  19. #119
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Wink Everybody

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    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.
    wants to have a possy(term used very loosely)

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    And, just a little more to add to the pile...

    Russia Helps Iran Keep Balance of Power
    And I'm sure any mob boss would tell you those aren't as much fun as one would like. Kinda like family. You have to feed em , cloth em, Shelter Em, and worst of all you actually have to take responsibility for their actions because your where the buck stops



    I love it when a plan comes together

  20. #120
    Council Member MattC86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    REMFing it up in DC
    Posts
    250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    And, just a little more to add to the pile...

    Russia Helps Iran Keep Balance of Power
    Apparently everything that is not a ballistic missile is now a defensive weapon. . .

    . . .the Russians are so full of Sierra. Lest we forget, it was the acquisition of "defensive" SA-6 missiles that allowed the Egyptians to launch an offensive across the Suez Canal in 1973 and not be slaughtered by the IAF.

    Frankly I'm surprised the Russians care this much to make even such a weak denial. The plain fact is the government will sell weapons to anybody (remember the mysterious appearance of new Russian-made NVGs in Iraq in 2003?) and if they don't, they'll look the other way while weapons are smuggled out of decrepit bases. . .

    Matt
    Last edited by MattC86; 12-26-2007 at 09:45 PM. Reason: redundancy in post redundancy. . .
    "Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •