Quote Originally Posted by Watcher In The Middle View Post
Originally posted by JeffC:


....for Iran. What they have gotten so far out of all of this is a ratcheting up of economic sanctions, along with a concerted effort by the West (US, in the lead) to cripple Iran's economic access to capital (at least through the IRGC).

The real problem is that IF the 2007 NIE is valid in it's conclusions (and again, assume it is valid), there is actually (from a political viewpoint) greater justification for continued, if not increased economic sanctions against Iran, with the goal of further extending out their development cycle in any attempts to develop a nuclear capability.

From a purely political standpoint (if I'm a pol) with the 2007 NIE being out there, I don't want military intervention, but I certainly want to make sure that Iran knows that any path they take toward developing a nuclear capability will be as expensive and drawn out as it can possibly be (with our complements).

And if Iran did in fact reverse their trend toward developing a nuclear capability in 2003, and it can be even partially attributed to the effects of economic sanctions at that time, well, what's the reason for the West to discontinue those?

I mean, if the goal for Iran was to deal something that was mostly all smoke & mirrors for something tangible, well, looks like that deal is blown. The 2007 NIE just blew that type of deal away.

I'm looking at this from a pol standpoint and trying to figure out where all the 80% who are pretty much in the middle of the road are going to go with all of this.

Thoughts?
Very much agreed that the NIE's revelations pretty much blow away Iran's diplomatic options (other than total "capitulation" - a la Libya), and may severely constrain even those of the U.S.

As for what way the more or less undecided 80% go, I offer the following possibilities:

1. There's a media brawl between opponents and proponents of an attack on Iran as they duke it out on international TV and each goes for the hard sell on their position.

2. The US, and perhaps others', media more or less go along as they did in 2003 and help to persuade enough people that there is a grave, direct, and imminent threat to the survival of the West if Iran's atomic capabilities are not completely and permanently eradicated, leading to enough popular "support" for said.

3. This is just another shot in the behind-the-scenes war that the military brass and senior intelligence officers are waging against the current Administration in an attempt to block/hinder/forestall/stave off, etc., any new war or major combat operation that the latter may be contemplating. As such, they may be more events like this one in the weeks and months to come until the issue is decided one way or the other.

In any case, I fear that if this was a case of number 3, that the exercise may have backfired in the longer-term even as it takes the wind out of the sails of the man-o'-war momentarily. And given the long silence in Congress until the last couple days on the matter of a military strike upon Iran, I'm not sure that there is the political will there to vigorously oppose said. Time will tell. And the undecided 80% will mostly bend whichever way the prevailing political and media winds blow.