Slashdot Mirror


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.

10 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Basic Engineering! by Shadow+of+Eternity · · 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.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  2. Isn't the answer more nukes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    American style - if everyone had a gun, everyone would be safe right? So if everyone has nukes, world peace!

    1. Re:Isn't the answer more nukes? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:Isn't the answer more nukes? by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  3. Re:Basic Engineering! by fred911 · · Score: 1, 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.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  4. Re:Iran must go by chipschap · · Score: 2, 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"?

  5. Re:Basic Engineering! by Crashmarik · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm not deluded enough to believe that any nation has the "right" to nuke another nation because they aren't as "progressive" they are

    Starts out so well

    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.

  6. Re:Basic Engineering! by cavreader · · Score: 3, 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.

  7. Re:Basic Engineering! by thesupraman · · 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.

  8. Re:Iran must go by WaffleMonster · · Score: 4, 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.