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.
IMHO, one of the remaining hurdles to us getting past the Great Filter is the proliferation of technology and doomsday weaponry to all corners of the globe.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
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."
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.
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 always looking for Israel to drop their guard. No matter how good Israels conventional forces are they could eventually be defeated by sheer numbers and there is certainly no shortage of raving lunatics from the surrounding Arab countries to feed into the meat grinder. The Iranians can chant "death to Israel" at their weekly prayer groups until they are blue in the face but the Iranian leadership knows exactly what would happen if they decided to play nuclear chicken with Israel. They are much safer playing nuclear chicken with the US.
mindless cynical passivity is not an actual replacement for intelligence
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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"?
"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?
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"?
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
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 deal "at all costs."
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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.
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.
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
Wherever You Go, There You Are
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.
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.
I stole this Sig
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 on Iraq has likely killed over 100,000 people and created threats such as ISIS.
When you announce that you're in charge because of "X" people don't just roll over and agree, they just change the rules so they can compete. You pursue that policy with Iran and they'll trade with Russia instead, maybe they'll buy a few bombs from them so they don't have to worry about an Israeli attack. They'll then increase support for groups hostile to Israel and cause a world wide recession by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. Russia is happy because oil has skyrocketed but you and all your allies in the Middle East and Europe are starved for oil.
Your power has some very significant limits. A deal with Iran that stops their nuclear program and starts creating an friendly power strikes me as a very good idea.
I stole this Sig
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.
There's a big difference between lacking self-determination and being forcibly displaced by another group.
I stole this Sig
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.
I stole this Sig
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 was occurring seems pretty incontrovertible.
You're also overlooking the current settlement driven displacements which are undoubtedly forced.
I stole this Sig
+5 to that.
So many seem to ignore or are ignorant of this history. Or worse, think it's somehow ok.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
What I thought was hilarious (sorry I can't find a link ATM, it was several years ago I read this and my Google-Foo sucks) was when they did DNA testing to show their claim to the land.....and found more than 90% of the Israelis were 100% of European origin. That makes them no different than the Brits in India or the Dutch in Africa, a colonial conqueror.
And AIPAC can label anybody that says anything against their policies an anti-semite all they want, 5 minutes of watching the behavior of their "security forces" and their policies wrt settlements and its pretty easy to see that Israel 2015 is South Africa 1970,same methods of intimidation and brutality, same disregard for the lives and property of the natives, etc. Its ironic that 70 years after the liberation of the camps and they have gone from being the oppressed to being the oppressors, guess some just never learn from the mistakes of history.
As for Iran? Considering that a former POTUS labeled them an "Axis of Evil" and several prominent neo-cons have stated repeatedly their destruction is part of their plans for the ME, along with a history of the USA actively destroying governments including installing the Shah after murdering their democratically elected president? I'd want a nuke too, pretty much the only way you can insure the USA won't try to pull a "regime change" on your country. Look at the history of CIA involvement in the region post WWII and there isn't a single country there besides Israel that hasn't had repeated attacks by the US government, and Saddam proved that kissing Uncle Sam's booty doesn't gain you any loyalty.
Israel will always have the USA as its attack dog thanks to "When the Jews return to Zion" causing every ultra right winger to fear their deity won't have a place to park his fluffy cloud and without the USSR to balance things out all the other countries in the ME are truly alone. This is why I really don't blame countries like India, Pakistan, and Iran getting or trying to get nukes, all one has to do is look at the history of false flags, CIA coups and outright lies from the US government to realize that the only guarantee of not getting your country bombed into the stone age by the world's largest carrier fleet is to have a nuke.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.