The Missile Impasse In the Iran Negotiations 163
Lasrick writes: Upon resuming talks to end the nuclear crisis with the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany) in 2013, Iran made it clear that its missile program was behind a redline and would not be negotiated away. The missile program, Tehran argued, was an entirely separate issue from the nuclear program, part of the country's conventional capabilities and not aimed at deploying non-conventional weapons such as nuclear warheads. Last week, Tehran's missile program arose—seemingly suddenly—as an obstacle with the potential to derail the process altogether. Ariane Tabatabai explores the fascinating history of Iran's missile program, the largest in the Middle East, and asks whether negotiators for countries that hold such diametrically opposed views of the Iranian missile program can reach a compromise. We should know the answer to that within the next day or two.
Iranians with payload delivery ability (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow the US and USSR got through the cold war without nuking each other, but barely. Eventually we won't be so lucky.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, one of the remaining hurdles to us getting past the Great Filter [wikipedia.org] is the proliferation of technology and doomsday weaponry to all corners of the globe.
Honestly, I really only see the solution to this problem being the proliferation of humans to such an extent that warfare using the most powerful weapons available is not a threat to a substantial portion of the human race. If people colonized half the galaxy a nuclear war would take centuries to reach everybody simply due to the speed of light, to say nothing of effective countermeasures.
Obviously that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
The problem is that it is very difficult to put the genie back in the
yes, they can compromise (Score:2)
Suddenly? (Score:2)
Who brought up missiles this late in the negotiations? Someone with a vested interest in screwing up a settlement.
Three guesses who is running around behind the scenes queering the deal. And you will have two to spare.
It doesn't matter (Score:2)
The president is committed to GETTING a deal here regardless of how shitty it is.
Legacy and all that.
Re:Basic Engineering! (Score:5, Insightful)
Or the entire middle east keeps giving Israel the free pass to bomb Iran's missile and nuclear programs back into the stone age, the rest of the world poo poos Israel for it while quietly making sure there's nothing left but rubble, and the status quo resumes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At least someone steps up to do the dirty work.
Do you think that a country that thinks it's progressive with it's recent legislation permitting woman to attend sports matches should be allowed to have nuclear capacity... in this day and age?
Think about this, woman got the right to vote in 1920 in the US, when the cutting edge was a biplane.
That's almost 100 years and they haven't even figured out how to be civil, much less have access to 70 year old technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think that a country that thinks it's progressive with it's recent legislation permitting woman to attend sports matches should be allowed to have nuclear capacity... in this day and age?
People might not like your question, but it is easy to forget how much violence and war the West has gone through, until well, building peace wasn't so much a case of "because we're civilised", but rather, "because we're tired and thoroughly abused of our desire for war". It's the futility of war. But one only gets that futility when the wars are un-winnable, or the costs of the win too ironic. As discovered... from experience.
Much of the "developing" world, has yet to make this "exquisite" discovery. So, y
Re:Basic Engineering! (Score:5, Insightful)
As of 2014, 44 people in TOTAL have died from rocket/mortar/explosive attacks launched at Israel (almost all from mortar attacks, btw, which is not the issue being discussed).
In 2012, 263 people died in car accidentsin Israel.
Perhaps Israel should also nuke Detroit?
For reference Israeli security forces (NOT the army) kill more Palestinians than that per year in 'security checks'
Last years 'summer offensive' by the Israeli army (you know, the one to protect themselves from the horrific bloodshed caused by the rockets) killed over 2300 Palestinians. many women and children.
Tell me, what exact definition of civil do you use, because that certainly doesnt look very civil to me.
Or perhaps you mean the version of civil where their navy turns away sanctioned food and medical aid to the Palestinians?
Or the one where the bulldoze Palestinian towns so they can move their own settlers in?
I'm confused, perhaps you can let me know which version of Civil they are.
Re: (Score:3)
Having a terribly ineffective enemy to show as a scarecrow, that keeps the civilian population from protesting military spending and foreign money coming in, is a strategy that both the Israeli and American warmongers depend on
Moving Iran into a position of peaceful trade works against both parties and I would expect them to do everything possible to scotch the deal
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Genetic situation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the most telling thing of all here is how your entire argument literally is nothing more than you absolutely tantrumming over the fact not enough Israelis are dying to satisfy your hatred for Israel.
That's all it is. Nothing more. There is no substance to your argument beyond "But, but, but there's not enough of them dying! And the people whose government charter calls for total genocide are actually losing the fight! THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!"
Re: (Score:2)
Don't pretend you don't see the issue. That's 44 deads in over 60 years of conflict. In Gaza 44 deads under enemy fire is called "a good weekend".
Re: (Score:2)
There you go moving your goalposts again. The discussion was about civility. Killing thousands for the death of dozens (who were killed because of previous attacks which killed thousands) is not civil. Killing a few dozen is also not civil, but in the grand scheme of things seems a lot more civil than taking your massively-funded military on a civilian killing spree for no purpose other than stirring up contempt which can be used later in the election campaign or when grandstanding for the international
Re:Basic Engineering! (Score:5, Informative)
And there is nothing "civil" about the state of Israel.
Then goes completely nuts. If you had nukes and people launching rockets at you 24/7 how long do you think you'd be able to stop from eliminating the problem ?
See the Israelis are likely a hell of a lot more civil than you are.
Look at it from the Palestinian perspective.
WWI they're under Ottoman rule with a big Muslim majority and they rebel with the understanding that the allies will give them independence, instead after the war the allies put them under a British mandate and open the floodgates to Jewish immigration.
After WWII with the demographics significantly altered the UN suggests a partition that the Jews favour but the Palestians oppose, the partition is imposed anyways and the Palestinians start a war. They lose the war and lose even more land, and the Palestinians who lived in Israeli territories but fled the war aren't allowed to return and have their land confiscated. This only a half century after another population decided to immigrate with the express intent of founding a nation in their territory and they were given no option of refusing.
Another war in '67 and the Palestinians lose more land.
Then for the next half century Israel not only rules over Palestinian territory but they kick Palestinians off their land and then actively settle the seized land! This isn't just a few incidents, this is systematic, widespread, continuous land theft, it's so bad that as Israel considers pauses in Settlement activity to be significant negotiation concessions!
Any conversation about Israel/Palestine that ignores the reality of actively settling another people's land is completely missing the point.
Re: (Score:3)
+5 to that.
So many seem to ignore or are ignorant of this history. Or worse, think it's somehow ok.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not even that simple.
The Arab nations have kept the Palestinians in refugee camps for decades unlike how the US treated Cuban refugees. They have no path to citizenship or even any type of normal life.
Had the Palestinians lived with the UN mandate then things might have been very different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you go back earlier than WW2, the Israelis homeland was Israel. That was their homeland all the way back in 1100 BC all the way up until the Romans took over sometime around 90 AD.
So because they held the land 1800 years before they get to take it again in the 20th century? Somehow I don't think that's a standard you'd be willing to apply to any other group and territory.
If you go back even further, the garden of Eden was somewhere around there, possibly Syria/Persia, near the four rivers Pishon, Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. So the Israelis do have a valid claim on that land, before the Palestinians.
It you believe in the garden of Eden then Adam and Eve are also the Palestinians' ancestors so their claim is just as valid as the Jews.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is the parent's point. How far back do you go to decide who the "rightful" owners are? 3000 years is just as arbitrary as 50 or 100.
I don't think that's a defensible position, I could take your wallet right now and claim 30 seconds is just as arbitrary as 50 years.
Clearly Jews had no rights to the land in 1900 (except for the small population who was already there).
Either way this is my position. I don't think you can go back to the original mandate at this point, too much time has passed and multiple generations have lived there, however you should have some kind of compensation or recognition for the people who were expelled.
As for th
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing ignoring reality is the claim that there exists such a thing as a "palestinian" in the first place. Even members of the PLO executive board freely and publicly admitted that "palestinians" were a made up ethnicity designed for political gain.
The region was controlled for centuries by various powers, with arab historians such as Ibn Khaldun and Muqaddasi documenting not only the lack of any notable muslim population but the existence of a substantial permanent jewish population, right up until
Re: (Score:3)
There's a big difference between lacking self-determination and being forcibly displaced by another group.
Re: (Score:2)
The Arabs in Palestine fled at the urging of their brother Arabs in other countries that intended to invade and kill the Jews. The Arab leaders announced their intention to massacre the Jews and didn't want the Arabs living in Palestine to be in the way so they told them to leave, and many of them did.
Re: (Score:3)
The Arabs in Palestine fled at the urging of their brother Arabs in other countries that intended to invade and kill the Jews. The Arab leaders announced their intention to massacre the Jews and didn't want the Arabs living in Palestine to be in the way so they told them to leave, and many of them did.
Perhaps Arab leaders did make that announcement, but It's a lot more plausible to think they fled because there was an ethnic war and they were the wrong ethnicity to be living there.
That expulsions and ethnic cleansing [wikipedia.org] was occurring seems pretty incontrovertible.
You're also overlooking the current settlement driven displacements which are undoubtedly forced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet some Arabs stayed and they and their decendants ended up being treated like real people. Israel is the only place in the middle east where you are safe being part of any sort of ethnic or religious minority. Anywhere else you're subject to being a second class citizen or genuine ethnic cleansing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shhh this is Slashdot. Common sense goes out the window for most posters.
Bluntly the Region (much like Africa) has been in semi-chaos ever since it was "divided up" by European powers following WWII.
I would argue that the Palestinian people have gotten a raw deal in it all, but it seems like a lot of it is not being happy with what they are offered, deciding to roll the dice for more, losing, and then bemoaning what they lost. Life
Sadly Palestinian leadership (and that of the surrounding countries of Syri
Re: (Score:2)
According to history, and the people involved.
Time Now for a Declaration of Mideast Peace; Doomed Arab Refugees [nytimes.com]
In ''Semites and Anti-Semites'' (New York, 1986), Bernard W. Lewis quotes (page 270) from the memoirs of Khalid al-Azm, Prime Minister of Syria in 1948-49, listing the factors that led to Israel's success:
''Fifth: the summons of the Arab governments to the population of Palestine to leave the country and take refuge in the neighboring Arab countries . . . this collective flight served the Jews and strengthened their position without effort. . . . Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes when we ourselves were the ones who induced them to leave them. . . . We doomed a million Arab refugees, by calling on them and insisting that they abandon their land, their homes, their work and their occupations, and we made them unemployed and homeless.''
The Arabs had considerable enthusiasm for mass slaughter of Jews.
Azzam's Genocidal Threat [meforum.org]
An October 11, 1947 report on the pan-Arab summit in the Lebanese town of Aley,[9] by Akhbar al-Yom's editor Mustafa Amin, contained an interview he held with Arab League secretary-general Azzam. Titled, "A War of Extermination," the interview read as follows (translated by Efraim Karsh; all ellipses are in the original text):
Abdul Rahman Azzam Pasha spoke to me about the horrific war that was in the offing saying:
"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre[10] or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine's Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews.
"This war will be distinguished by three serious matters. First—faith: as each fighter deems his death on behalf of Palestine as the shortest road to paradise; second, [the war] will be an opportunity for vast plunder. Third, it will be impossible to contain the zealous volunteers arriving from all corners of the world to avenge the martyrdom of the Palestine Arabs, and viewing the war as dignifying every Arab and every Muslim throughout the world
Did you take notice that I was quoting actual sources there? It isn't just my "opinion."
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, they are incontrovertible. After all the Grand Mufti was very public about his political and military alliance with Hitler, even speaking highly of the "final solution" after being given a tour of Auschwitz. His nephew and successor who you'd know by the assumed name Yasser Arafat continued his goals, and his successors in Hamas have included the call for total genocide in the very founding charter of their government.
Rhetoric which the surrounding arab states have attempted to follow through
Re: (Score:2)
The land never belonged to the British Empire. Britain administered it as a League of Nations mandate that did specify Palestine.
Re: (Score:2)
I somehow doubt that Israel would be willing to nuke land that is right on its border. The damage to itself would be huge and last for decades in the best case scenario. It would also open up Israel for retaliatory nuking, since there would no longer be any reason not to.
The only thing that keeps it from really escalating is proximity and the fact that both sides consider the land to be holy, and thus un-nukable.
Re: (Score:2)
The rockets being launched cause absolutely minimal damage. Israel likes to point at them as they are the very limit of threat Israel faces, and are easily dealt with, yet will do anything it can to cause enough upset in the Palestinian areas in order to cause more rockets. The more Israel is under attack the less likely their government will be voted out, and the more likely they are to get more aid from other countries. The conflict is great business for Israel.
But whatever. I'm sure your once-sentenc
Re: (Score:3)
Israel doesn't chant death to [fill in the blank, country].
Who cares what people chant? Do you believe in the power of voodoo magic?
and they don't goddamn missile attack their neighbors every day... ahem, Lebanon and Palestine.
Good point. They batch their missile strikes on both countries so that thousands are killed and millions displaced all at once.
Re: (Score:3)
mindless cynical passivity is not an actual replacement for intelligence
Re: (Score:2)
A good machine shop and a knowledge of F=ma is all that is really needed. The rest is detail, easily accessible on Wikipedia.
Or, you can buy textbooks on Amazon [amazon.com]. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Iran is more than capable, though testing is probably hard for them being landlocked."
What the fuck??? How does this sort of garbage get modded +5 insightful on slashdot these days?
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, the comment is both utterly retarded and ignorant, Iran is not land-locked and there is no good reason why a land-locked country can't test missiles... perhaps the gp is getting missiles mixed up with nukes and thinks testing a nuke requires nuking a small island, IDK it's hard to mind-read a person without a brain.
Re:Basic Engineering! (Score:4, Informative)
Looks at SpaceX's record, looks at the original poster... *shrug* Yeah, whatever.
Have you ever actually looked at a map? Iran is anything but landlocked - they have hundreds of miles of coast on the Indian Ocean and clear range six thousand miles long before they reach the Antarctic coast.
Yeah, except for all the stuff you can't do with a "good machine shop" and all the math that is far more complex and F=ma. Which is pretty much all of it.
As they say, the devil is in the details - and Wikipedia is essentially a kindergarten introduction.
Or, to put it another way, you're not only wrong - you're completely clueless. How does bilge like yours get modded "informative"?
Re: (Score:2)
Looks at SpaceX's record, looks at the original poster... *shrug* Yeah, whatever.
SpaceX is not making missiles. They're making rockets and spacecraft that will be human-rated. That's a bit more challenging.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, look to Falcon I then. And note that they haven't launched a man-rated vehicle yet. Etc... etc...
Or, to put it another way, like the original poster you're clueless moron.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, look to Falcon I then.
Which is designed to deliver payloads safely to LEO. Again, that's far more challenging than dropping a bomb on someone. I repeat: SpaceX is not making missiles.
Or, to put it another way, like the original poster you're clueless moron.
I'll let our fellow readers make the call.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't an ICBM harder than LEO?
The ICBM needs higher reliability and launch on a short notice (and possibility on bad weather), plus you need to develop a re-entry vehicle for the warhead. And the warhead's landing (or explosion above a city) needs to be accurate after all that.
You have countries with access to LEO and no ICBMs (e.g. Iran, DPRK)
In fact I learnt that DRPK's Taepodong-2 missile didn't exist : it was the space rocket instead. In that case, instead of a rogue country secretly developing an ICBM
Re: (Score:2)
Iran is not landlocked. It has a long shoreline in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman which includes access to Indian Ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
Top trolling there.
Re: (Score:2)
"Really, the engineering to make and guide a missile is not formidable these days."
Depends on the range and accuracy that you need.
If you need long range and or pin point accuracy then it is actually pretty hard.
GPS will be jammed during a war and near targets and a really accurate INS is a very complex device.
People seem to forget that making big complex devices is still hard and expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Ukraine gave up their nuclear missiles and look where that got them. There will never be another country that has nuclear weapons willing to give them up based on paper agreements or treaties. There was never any down side to SA giving up their nuclear weapons program. They are not facing off against any great foe intent on invading their country. The US, Russia, and China arsenals are held in check by the MAD doctrine. On the other hand Israel is surrounded by 80 million implacable enemies who are alw
Re: (Score:2)
No matter how good Israels conventional forces are they could eventually be defeated by sheer numbers
Have you seen the Iraqi military in action lately?
here is certainly no shortage of raving lunatics from the surrounding Arab countries
I worry more about the raving lunatics with Israeli citizenship; they have nukes.
but the Iranian leadership knows exactly what would happen if they decided to play nuclear chicken with Israel.
Yes, they've decided they MUST have nukes in order to not be nuked by Israel.
They are much safer playing nuclear chicken with the US.
Because the US is slightly more rational at the moment with its foreign policy.
Re:Basic Engineering! (Score:4, Insightful)
Israel has had nuclear weapons for over 30 years and have not used them or even threatened to use them. They don't hold weekly "Death to Iran" parades and their leaders don't make speeches aimed at the elimination of Iran. Granted Israel is certainly not afraid to employ their conventional weapons when threatened. And they don't waste time gathering a consensus or asking permission or approval from the US or any other country.
Re: (Score:2)
Say WHAT?
Have you not read any of the reports of NutterNYahoo's threats and warnings? He is every bit as anti-Iran as Iran is anti-Israel. Both sides are like toddlers in a sandbox making threats they can't carry out.
Re: (Score:2)
What threats would those be exactly? Cite some actual examples instead of engaging in vague innuendo.
Re: (Score:2)
The elimination thing you're discussing has been debunked so many times it's now a great indicator of someone who is unaware of the truth, or someone to whom the truth doesn't matter. Thanks for clearing that up.
Israel has repeatedly threatened to blow the crap out of Iranian infrastructure, when even their own Mossad doesn't think Iran has or even wants nuclear weapons. Trying to paint Israel as some restrained, civilised country is fucking nuts. That doesn't exonerate Iran, of course, but then you seem
Re: (Score:2)
If people ever want Israel to back off from publicly naming their enemies and unilaterally conducting military operations to protect their state than the incitement to violence against Israel needs to end. And since every Arab country that has ever tried to militarily defeat Israel has had their asses handed to them incitement and the left wing useful idiots is all they have left to keep their fight alive. Forget about nuclear weapons. Right now the deadliest weapons in the world are the rockets that Hamas
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen the Iraqi military in action lately?
Saudi Arabia has 200,000 active-duty military personnel, in a country led by old men who consider the middle ages to be a little too progressive for their liking.
Re: (Score:2)
So why, exactly, should we not have the same expectation of Iran? With a similar outcome?
Why shouldn't we have the same expectation of Pakistan?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it wonderful the ignoramuses who think their opinions should be taken seriously?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
American style - if everyone had a gun, everyone would be safe right? So if everyone has nukes, world peace!
WRONG
The entire point of everyone having a gun is so the GOVERNMENT is not safe - from the people.
Which is why statists like Communists, Nazis, and Socialists HATE an armed populace.
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler actually reduced firearm ownership restrictions starting in 1938. Jews weren't allowed to buy guns, of course, but most Germans could buy long arms and ammunition without a permit, it got much easier to get a pistol permit, and members of the Nazi Party (and some other groups) were exempted from gun control laws altogether.
The laws that Hitler used to disarm portionsthe populace were actually from the previous government, the Weimar Republic. The Nazi Party just took advantage of what was there.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire point of everyone having a gun is so the GOVERNMENT is not safe - from the people.
How many people buy a gun to protect themselves from the government?
A 100% armed populace would make me mistrust my fellow citizens, not the government.
Which is why statists like Communists, Nazis, and Socialists HATE an armed populace.
Strawman. There are plenty of peaceful democratic countries in the world with rational policies on gun control. They aren't statist, and they don't "hate" an armed populace. They recognize that being fit to own a gun is something you must demonstrate to your fellow citizens. The government serves as a benign proxy for those citizens. That's what govenment do
Re: (Score:2)
The entire point of everyone having a gun is so the GOVERNMENT is not safe - from the people.
Oh give it a fucking rest you American Gun Nut Anonymous Coward. The government has drones, warthogs and TANKS. You really think the Colt 45 you keep under your pillow and caress every night before falling asleep is going to make a difference?
Now go away and watch your VHS copy of Red Dawn again and leave the rest of us in peace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have oversimplified things to the point of a comic book. Some governments have realised that there is no reason for everyone to get guns when they feel the desire, as the cost to society of a shit-tonne of dead people & trials is far greater than an imagined ability to restrain government through said guns. Seeing as the US army will either side with the populace (and negate their need for guns), or side with the government (and destroy anyone who raises a weapon at them, negating the need
Re: (Score:2)
In which case gun ownership has been made much less pointed, since modern military small arms are not legal for civilian ownership in the US.
Re:Isn't the answer more nukes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently, you do not understand the concept of asymmetrical warfare. You do not need overwhelming force to enforce your will; you just have to be willing to struggle harder than your opponent.
The state does not have overwhelming military force, when it is outnumbered 300:1 by the occupied. Of course, if you deny citizens the right to bear arms, Fascism has more of a fighting chance. Hence, the reason why Communists, Fascists, and Socialists are inimical to the right to bear firearms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's hard to believe that Obama and Kerry are dumb enough to actually trust the Iranians to stick to a "deal" but .... the facts speak for themselves.
So why DO they want a "deal" at all costs? Do they think it will win political capital? Is this to be another of Obama's great "accomplishments"?
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to believe that Obama and Kerry are dumb enough to actually trust the Iranians to stick to a "deal" but .... the facts speak for themselves.
So why DO they want a "deal" at all costs? Do they think it will win political capital? Is this to be another of Obama's great "accomplishments"?
What's your alternative suggestion?
Re: (Score:2)
What's your alternative suggestion?
Leave the sanctions in place, they are clearly working or Iran wouldn't be at the table talking.
Perhaps increase them, isolate Iran to the point that it becomes quite hard to do business anywhere in the world. Make their oil worthless by intercepting it on the high seas, forbid them to ship it anywhere.
Invading and attacking them may not be required, they might cry uncle when the pain becomes great enough.
Or not, North Korea is the other way it goes I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
What's your alternative suggestion?
Leave the sanctions in place, they are clearly working or Iran wouldn't be at the table talking.
But if they are at the table talking now why not make a deal? Maybe longer sanctions make a deal easier or maybe Rouhani is replaced by a hardliner and Obama by someone less palatable to the Muslim world. Instead of a deal both sides harden, Iran builds a bomb, and now you have a much more dangerous situation.
Perhaps increase them, isolate Iran to the point that it becomes quite hard to do business anywhere in the world. Make their oil worthless by intercepting it on the high seas, forbid them to ship it anywhere.
Invading and attacking them may not be required, they might cry uncle when the pain becomes great enough.
Or not, North Korea is the other way it goes I suppose.
Under what pretext? There's still the fact that you need international agreement to make stronger sanctions and that's very dubious. As for unilateral action that only works if the US starts making its
Re: (Score:2)
But if they are at the table talking now why not make a deal?
Sure, by all means, make a deal if you can.
But it takes two people (or nations) to make a deal, and it appears that Iran is not yet serious about this.
Under what pretext?
Nations like Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Your next question might be, what gives the US the right to say that... Simple... We're in charge, they aren't. You might not think that is "right", but it is the truth.
If they want to be in charge, they can have the largest GDP, the world's reserve currency, and the world's most powerful military
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, by all means, make a deal if you can.
But it takes two people (or nations) to make a deal, and it appears that Iran is not yet serious about this.
I disagree, for the most part it sounds like Iran is serious and they're willing to offer a pretty good deal. Widespread inspections and a massive downsizing of their Nuclear program when they haven't actually been shown to do anything that violates the NPT.
Nations like Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Your next question might be, what gives the US the right to say that... Simple... We're in charge, they aren't. You might not think that is "right", but it is the truth.
If they want to be in charge, they can have the largest GDP, the world's reserve currency, and the world's most powerful military. Until then, we're in charge and they aren't.
It isn't very diplomatic to say that, but when you cut the crust off the bread, that is what you'll find in the middle.
To be honest that attitude is why people tend to not like Americans, and that has consequences. The emergence of Russia as a rogue nation came in large part from perceived hostility and domination from the US. The belief you could simply impose your will
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree, for the most part it sounds like Iran is serious and they're willing to offer a pretty good deal.
You and I see the world very differently. :)
That's ok, there are many viewpoints in the world, we are each entitled to our own.
But in my opinion, if Iran were serious, they would understand their place in this deal, and it sounds like they don't.
A deal with Iran that stops their nuclear program and starts creating an friendly power strikes me as a very good idea.
Sure, if the deal would do that. You seem to assume that if we do a deal, then all is well in the world. What happens if they ignore it and go after a bomb anyway? You don't seem to consider that as a possibility, or you think the inspections will catch it. Iran
Re:Iran must go (Score:4, Informative)
I disagree, for the most part it sounds like Iran is serious and they're willing to offer a pretty good deal.
You and I see the world very differently. :)
That's ok, there are many viewpoints in the world, we are each entitled to our own.
But in my opinion, if Iran were serious, they would understand their place in this deal, and it sounds like they don't.
They're like any rational actor trying to get the best deal possible (and trying to get something that's fair).
On the topic of missiles they actually have a very understandable point. The US has talked about attacking Iran, Israel has repeatedly threatened to do so without warning, Iraq has done so with the active assistance of the US, and they're the lone Persian Shia power among a lot of Arab Sunni powers. Meanwhile Iran has never launched a war. It makes a lot of sense for the Iranians to want to maintain a strong conventional force, including long range missiles, that they can use to deter attackers. At the same time it doesn't make sense that they should give those up in a deal centred on Nuclear weapons, especially since the idea behind the Nuclear deal is restrictions get lifted in exchange for cancelling the program and allowing inspections.
What happens if they ignore it and go after a bomb anyway? You don't seem to consider that as a possibility, or you think the inspections will catch it. Iran is not a small nation, they are much larger and better positioned to cheat on the deal without getting caught than Iraq could have ever dreamed of.
It's possible, though risky, it's a lot easier for them to get a bomb without inspections.
So you might ask, what would I, as an American, have to see to start believing Iran? Some humble pie would be a nice start. An apology for the hostages in 1979 would be another.
Has the US apologized for overthrowing Iran's democratically elected government leading to the 1979 revolution? Or for entering Iranian waters and shooting down Iran Air Flight 655? The American commander even got a big medal for the campaign (not for shooting down the flight specifically but there was no real reprimand).
Announcing Israel's right to exist and promising to never attack them would be another.
Has Israel promised not to attack Iran? And insisting on recognition of Israel is a shaming tactic, a symbolic foreign policy capitulation, that's just a poison pill for an agreement.
Frankly it is a shame that the invasion of Iraq was so poorly handled by people who didn't know what they were doing. The first gulf war was run beautifully, the second, not so much. But that is a failure of leadership, not of our military.
The difference between the gulf wars wasn't leadership (which was poor), it was objectives.
The purpose of the first gulf war was to destroy the Iraqi army and drive Iraq out of Kuwait. They did that, and the only reason it started was a diplomatic screwup since Hussein thought he had US permission to invade.
The second gulf war was just as effective in destroying the Iraqi army, the problem was they didn't just leave after but instead tried to impose democracy on a nation which had no democratic tradition and a minority had been brutally repressing the majority for decades. Sure the torture and firing the Iraqi army were stupid screwups but there were a thousand ways that occupation could have gone sideways the way it did.
Re: (Score:2)
They're like any rational actor trying to get the best deal possible (and trying to get something that's fair).
Fair is in the eye of the beholder. :)
On the topic of missiles they actually have a very understandable point. The US has talked about attacking Iran
It is worth noting that in return for the removal of missiles from Cuba, the US promised to not attack or invade Cuba.
We kept that promise. If Iran were to commit to the total removal of offensive missiles and nuclear technology, a guarantee that the US would never attack them strikes me as fair. Of course part of that is they would have to stop supporting terrorists, which they don't want to stop doing.
Thus we come back to, "Iran can't be trusted".
It's possible, though risky, it's a lot easier for them to get a bomb without inspections.
Maybe, but I'd sugg
Re: (Score:2)
They're like any rational actor
This is where people get it wrong.
Iran's leadership is not rational.
They are "13th Imam" religious fanatics that wish to start Armageddon, as they believe that the 13th Imam will only return at that time, and that it is their duty to make sure that occurs as soon as possible.
MAD is meaningless to such fanatics. Treaties are simply a way to deceive and enfeeble their enemies while they keep doing what they are doing. Remember, these fanatics are the same ones, generations later, which Hitler allied with in W
Re: (Score:2)
It is worth noting that in return for the removal of missiles from Cuba, the US promised to not attack or invade Cuba.
We kept that promise. If Iran were to commit to the total removal of offensive missiles and nuclear technology, a guarantee that the US would never attack them strikes me as fair. Of course part of that is they would have to stop supporting terrorists, which they don't want to stop doing.
Thus we come back to, "Iran can't be trusted".
Will Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and any future Isis state make the same promise?
Either way Iran is already agreeing to not pursue a bomb and they're doing it without a "no attack" promise from the US, so by your example they're actually doing more than Cuba did.
Israel has been attacked 4 times by other nations during its brief existence. It is small and the nations around it are big.
The insistence isn't a shame thing, Iran would do well to stop supporting the terrorists who attack Israel on a daily basis. In short, Iran needs to grow up and join the world of civilized nations if they wish to be treated as such. South Africa gave up apartheid and joined the world of civil nations, Iran can too.
Who started the '67 war is ambiguous, Israel fired the first shot and it's plausible the Arab states were only bluffing.
As for the terrorist attacks keep in mind that Israel is actively annexing Palestinian territory, if you want to talk about joini
Re: (Score:2)
Either way Iran is already agreeing to not pursue a bomb
I could agree to give you a million dollars. Doesn't mean it is going to happen.
Who started the '67 war is ambiguous, Israel fired the first shot and it's plausible the Arab states were only bluffing.
Nonsense, it is quite clear. Given the size of Israel and the lack of ability to defend in depth, they had to take the troops on their borders as a serious threat.
It was a defensive war for them, they clearly didn't set out to take over other nations.
The US army doesn't even have 500k active troops.
Reserves, national guard, etc. You also have the ready reserve and can spool up forces given a year's notice. We went in unprepared and you see the results of that.
The problem with that is the moment you give the Iraqi Kurds their own nation the Kurds in Turkey and Iran start wondering why they shouldn't get the same. Instead of a Sunni revolt in Iraq you might get a Kurdish revolt in Turkey and Iran.
And why shoul
Re: (Score:2)
It was a defensive war for them, they clearly didn't set out to take over other nations.
Yet they shot first and took over parts of other nations.
I don't think there's a clear A started it or B started it answer to '67.
And why shouldn't they?
[...]
Nonsense, pure and utter nonsense. If people want to leave as a group and vote, that is their right. Look at Scotland, if they want to leave Great Britain, that is their right, and amazingly, it appears that England would respect the choice.
Great Britain is a lot different than the Middle East. If the Turkish Kurds tried to leave Turkey would try to force them to stay, both sides would become more extreme and tensions across the region would increase. The Sunni insurgency devolving into ISIS is an example of that. There's a reason that one of the basic principals in the UN is borders don't change by force, Afri
Re: (Score:2)
Yet they shot first and took over parts of other nations.
If your view of that war is so shallow as to being about "who shot first", then you really have no business discussing the subject.
It is far more complex than that.
I don't think there's a clear A started it or B started it answer to '67.
Don't be obtuse, Israel didn't move their forces to the border first, they didn't make threats first, they didn't make demands.
The other nations shouldn't have moved their forces in such a threatening manor, then Israel wouldn't have been forced to defend herself.
When you walk up to someone swinging a bat in a threatening manor, don't be shocked
Re: (Score:2)
Yet they shot first and took over parts of other nations.
If your view of that war is so shallow as to being about "who shot first", then you really have no business discussing the subject.
It is far more complex than that.
I don't think there's a clear A started it or B started it answer to '67.
Don't be obtuse, Israel didn't move their forces to the border first, they didn't make threats first, they didn't make demands.
The other nations shouldn't have moved their forces in such a threatening manor, then Israel wouldn't have been forced to defend herself.
When you walk up to someone swinging a bat in a threatening manor, don't be shocked when the other person punches you first, they can't afford to wait to be hit by the bat, they won't get a chance to fight back.
I'm not saying it was as simple as who shot first, I'm saying that it's more complex than a pure war of aggression by the Arab states.
And even if it were a war of aggression that doesn't justify Israeli land grabs.
You've also ignored the elephant in the room of ongoing Israeli settlements. It's like arguing whether Joe or Phil was responsible for starting the fight while ignoring that fact that Joe was robbing Phil's house.
If the Turkish Kurds tried to leave Turkey would try to force them to stay
Then that is a flaw of Turkey. It would be disrespecting the Kurds human rights of self-determination.
So it's a flaw of Turkey then. Either way the Kurds will end up paying for it if they
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree, for the most part it sounds like Iran is serious and they're willing to offer a pretty good deal. Widespread inspections and a massive downsizing of their Nuclear program when they haven't actually been shown to do anything that violates the NPT.
It's pretty much guaranteed that Iran has some secret nuclear research facility that we don't know about. They've had several [wikipedia.org] (check out the one in Qom, for example).
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree, for the most part it sounds like Iran is serious and they're willing to offer a pretty good deal. Widespread inspections and a massive downsizing of their Nuclear program when they haven't actually been shown to do anything that violates the NPT.
It's pretty much guaranteed that Iran has some secret nuclear research facility that we don't know about. They've had several [wikipedia.org] (check out the one in Qom, for example).
Alright, but what should that mean for a deal? Surely inspections would make finding such facilities easier and a deal would reduce the motivation to use them to build a bomb.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely inspections would make finding such facilities easier
No, how does that even make sense to you? There were inspections before that didn't find those facilities. It's not like inspectors are going to look at every square inch of Iran.
a deal would reduce the motivation to use them to build a bomb.
I don't know what deal you are thinking of, but it doesn't seem related to the one under discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Intercepting their ships would be an act of war. Iran has the capability to close the Strait of Hormuz and this would cripple the western world, you start attacking their assets and they may just push that button. Oh sure the US could use that as an excuse to launch an invasion of Iran but Russia would not sit idly by and allow that. At the very least they would begin supplying advanced weapons to Iran.
In addition Iran is currently what is holding ISIS in check. They are supporters of the Assad Governme
Re: (Score:2)
Intercepting their ships would be an act of war.
So was doing it during the Cuban missile crisis to Russian transports, that doesn't mean people start shooting.
Iran has the capability to close the Strait of Hormuz
Yes they do, for a little while. How long would it take us to open it back up, at great cost to them? I have no doubt they have given that a lot of through, as I imagine we have as well.
Oh sure the US could use that as an excuse to launch an invasion of Iran but Russia would not sit idly by and allow that.
And they would do what? Go to war with the US over Iran? Maybe, but they have their own problems in Ukraine at the moment, their economy is a mess due to their own sanctions.
Besides, a deal is easily done there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's hard to believe that Obama and Kerry are dumb enough to actually trust the Iranians to stick to a "deal" but .... the facts speak for themselves.
Kindly share the "facts" of which you speak.
And it's not just Obama and Kerry at the western side of the table. It's the P5+ (the five permanant members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany.)
I'm not saying we should implicitly trust the Iranians. However, we can at least trust them to act in their own best interests. Those interests (e.g., lifting sanctions) can be leveraged into a deal that contains their nuclear program, but only if you negotiate such a deal.
So why DO they want a "deal" at all costs?
I don't recall anyone saying they want a de
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying we should implicitly trust the Iranians. However, we can at least trust them to act in their own best interests. Those interests (e.g., lifting sanctions) can be leveraged into a deal that contains their nuclear program, but only if you negotiate such a deal.
The deal is worthless if Iran doesn't stick to it.
Re: (Score:2)
The deal is worthless if Iran doesn't stick to it.
Does that mean there's no point in trying to negotiate one?
Re: (Score:2)
Does that mean there's no point in trying to negotiate one?
Yes, it does... until both sides actually believe the other side will stick to a deal, it is pointless to engage in one.
In this case, the onus is on Iran to show they are serious. As of now, they clearly aren't. What they SHOULD do is follow South Africa's lead... Give up all their nukes and related technology on their own. The world will drop the sanctions in rather short order if they do that.
Thus the problem. If Iran was serious about not building a bomb, then they'd just give it up. We don't atta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You sure like to troll a lot, don't you? You have replied to a lot of my posts, mostly with nonsense answers like that one.
Carry on, it is a free country.
Re: (Score:2)
After Iraq and Ukraine, why would any nuclear power give up their nukes? Iran is threatened by a nearby regional power with nukes and advanced technology, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense, Israel is no threat to Iran.
Besides the fact that Israel has no border with Iran, Israel is far too small to be a real threat to anyone.
Re:Iran must go (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to believe that Obama and Kerry are dumb enough to actually trust the Iranians to stick to a "deal" but .... the facts speak for themselves.
I never understood all the Iran bashing. Yes Iran is screwed up but so are a great number of Countries the US does business with regularly. What's the difference? Iran certainly isn't the worst.
For example If I had to pick between living in Saudi Arabia our dearest friend and Iran our worst enemy I would choose Iran in a heartbeat no contest not even close.
Saudi Arabia has more than its fair share of lazy inbred entitled fuckwits who export terror and religious fundamentalism (Wahhabi schools) while treating their women like total shit. 80% of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens yet all the western media is full of nothing but Anti-Iran propaganda and Saudi ass-kissing because various geopolitical calculations disfavoring Persians (Oil and Mecca)
So why DO they want a "deal" at all costs? Do they think it will win political capital? Is this to be another of Obama's great "accomplishments"?
I don't know about "all costs" I think they really want a deal because it is better than any realistic alternative... Also I'm pretty sure making such deals with Iran costs them more political capitol than the Obama administration has left.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The Iraqi regime lost half of it's territory because of the usual sectarian nonsense that plagues the entire region. They treated the factions not in power like dirt and they made no effort to resist an invading army when it came.
When you act like that you have to be a mini-Hitler in order to keep things under control. A quasi democracy made up of 3 states, 2 of which are treated like an underclass simply isn't going to be durable.
The Iraqis did this to themselves all on their own, a result of not havin
Re: (Score:2)
Amajana-whatever himself pointed to Bush II and the whole Blue State vs. Red State thing to bolster the legitimacy of the last election that he probably stole. So nuking any Iranian city is probably counterproductive. You would probably wipe out most of the liberal opposition for them.