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

[Entropy]

...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:

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.

[Ken White]

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.

[Tukhachevskii]

Amitai Etzioni's take on the Iran nuclear issue from the PoV of deterence and rational actor theory, ‘Can a Nuclear Armed Iran be Deterred?’, Military Review, May-June, 2010;

Rationalist champions of deterrence often draw on the same assumption as mainline economists do: that people are rational. One way economists protect this assumption from obvious criticism is by using one data point to assess both the intentions and the actions of the person involved. Thus, economists have argued that if a person who never drank wine—and had no intention of drinking wine—suddenly purchased a bottle of wine, this must have been a rational choice—because otherwise why would he have bought it? And they state that when a person chooses to become a criminal, he “must have” weighed the pros and cons and made a rational decision that being a criminal was the optimal choice. As Nobel Laureate George Stigler pointed out, “A reason can always be found for whatever we observe man to do,” which “turns utility into a tautology.”(p.118)

In short, engagements and sanctions are very unlikely to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Hence, increasing attention is devoted to containment. It may well work, but given the high disutility of a nuclear strike by Iran, even a relatively small probability that Iran may use its nukes is unacceptable. The argument that the rulers of Iran are not irrational disregards that quite a few national leaders have in the past “bet” their lives and regimes and lost. Hence, a military option should not be off of the table. However, bombing Iran’s nuclear sites might not be the most effective one.(p.125)

By the way, does the picture on the first page look like the same old 60's vintage HAWK SAMs (though, perhaps, the airframe may be reverse engineered perhaps the guidance system is new?)?