The Missile Impasse In the Iran Negotiations

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.

Comments

Basic Engineering!

[Irate Engineer]

Really, the engineering to make and guide a missile is not formidable these days. Iran is more than capable, though testing is probably hard for them being landlocked. A good machine shop and a knowledge of F=ma is all that is really needed. The rest is detail, easily accessible on Wikipedia.

The nuclear capability is a bit harder, but only a bit harder, than missile technology. Again, testing is probably the hard part. But Pakistan figured it out. Iran certainly has the capability.

Iran is (or soon will be) a state capable of nuclear weapons delivered by missiles. The genie is out of the bottle. Life sucks, deal.

Either Iran nukes Israel or Israel nukes Iran (or both) within the next 10 years. Place your bets.

Re:Basic Engineering!

[Anonymous Coward]

"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:Basic Engineering!

[DerekLyons]

Really, the engineering to make and guide a missile is not formidable these days.

Looks at SpaceX's record, looks at the original poster... *shrug* Yeah, whatever.
 

Iran is more than capable, though testing is probably hard for them being landlocked.

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.
 

A good machine shop and a knowledge of F=ma is all that is really needed.

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.
 

The rest is detail, easily accessible on Wikipedia.

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:Basic Engineering!

[quantaman]

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:Iran must go

[quantaman]

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.