Post by elalacran on Jan 24, 2012 11:35:43 GMT -5
So far, how many Iranian scientists have been kidnapped or assassinated? Then there were at least two mysterious explosions at plants involved in rocketry projects, that could have been sabotage -- one alsmost certainly was. Then there was the internet warfare, implanting a virus into the control systems of Iranian R&D plants.
No one can say that we and the Israelis have not been busy little bees. But what's next?
George Friedman over at Stratfor thinks productive negotiation is possible, especially with the uncertainty concerning Syria.
Friedman writes:
"...As we have said for several years, we do not see Iran as close to having a nuclear weapon. They may be close to being able to test a crude nuclear device under controlled circumstances (and we don't know this either), but the development of a deliverable nuclear weapon poses major challenges for Iran.
"Moreover, while the Iranians may aspire to a deterrent via a viable nuclear weapons capability, we do not believe the Iranians see nuclear weapons as militarily useful. A few such weapons could devastate Israel, but Iran would be annihilated in retaliation. While the Iranians talk aggressively, historically they have acted cautiously. For Iran, nuclear weapons are far more valuable as a notional threat and bargaining chip than as something to be deployed. Indeed, the ideal situation is not quite having a weapon, and therefore not forcing anyone to act against them, but seeming close enough to be taken seriously. They certainly have achieved that.
"The important question, therefore, is this: What would the United States offer if Iran made meaningful concessions on its nuclear program, and what would Iran want in return? ...."
Read more at www.stratfor.com/weekly/considering-us-iranian-deal?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20120124&utm_term=gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=6cfb164396664b0f8a1189eec1ce28cf
No one can say that we and the Israelis have not been busy little bees. But what's next?
George Friedman over at Stratfor thinks productive negotiation is possible, especially with the uncertainty concerning Syria.
Friedman writes:
"...As we have said for several years, we do not see Iran as close to having a nuclear weapon. They may be close to being able to test a crude nuclear device under controlled circumstances (and we don't know this either), but the development of a deliverable nuclear weapon poses major challenges for Iran.
"Moreover, while the Iranians may aspire to a deterrent via a viable nuclear weapons capability, we do not believe the Iranians see nuclear weapons as militarily useful. A few such weapons could devastate Israel, but Iran would be annihilated in retaliation. While the Iranians talk aggressively, historically they have acted cautiously. For Iran, nuclear weapons are far more valuable as a notional threat and bargaining chip than as something to be deployed. Indeed, the ideal situation is not quite having a weapon, and therefore not forcing anyone to act against them, but seeming close enough to be taken seriously. They certainly have achieved that.
"The important question, therefore, is this: What would the United States offer if Iran made meaningful concessions on its nuclear program, and what would Iran want in return? ...."
Read more at www.stratfor.com/weekly/considering-us-iranian-deal?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20120124&utm_term=gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=6cfb164396664b0f8a1189eec1ce28cf