I think we are debating semantics here regarding the tone of the article. My take is Scott presented this as “here are some facts you make up your mind” followed by “it could be this.” Scott like many of us is simply trying to figure this out. His article is meant to solicit comments and get us thinking!

As we move forward I would encourage all to read up on Mark Hibbs and nuclear proliferation. Just google his name and a number of articles will pop up on the subject. Many are not aware but he is the person who largely uncovered the whole MA Khan affair with the Pakistani nukes. If you have followed him you will see a clear trail from Pakistan to Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea. Mark was quoted as saying about the Pakistani nukes and other states:

“The Pakistan government said Aug. 29 that its interrogation of [A. Q.] Khan, former head of Khan Research Laboratories (KRL), about his involvement in proliferating Pakistan’s nuclear technology abroad has been completed. “As far as we are concerned, I understand that whatever information that was there has been obtained and has been shared with the relevant countries, and [that] the relevant countries are satisfied with the information,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Naeem Khan told a weekly press briefing.”(http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200601/aq-khan/7)

It is no mystery that Iran is using the old UNRENCO centrifuge designs Khan stole so one can assume Iran was “satisfied” as mark put it. Pakistan got its results and was not in the least bit remorseful they took this path nor that they shared it. Compare Pakistan’s path and you will find it eerily similiar to the course Iran is taking. Pakistan told everyone they weren’t pursuing nukes but peacful technology and we all know the ending of that story. This begs the following questions regarding Iran’s intentions:

1) Why has Iran never allowed direct access to its chief scientists to be interviewed
2) Why have they been procuring so much dual use technology
3) What use do they have for the 3.5% U235 when they are over a decade from having a working plant
4) Why won’t they allow the bulk of their stock to be sent out knowing they have no use for it
5) Why is it that any dialogue with Iran is only dialogue with no action
6) Why the open deception and concealment if they have nothing to hide

Frankly, I don’t have an answer but the evidence does point in a certain direction if you follow the precedence of Pakistan. Personally, I believe they have aspirations to aquire nuclear weapons but are limited in their ability to deliver. If Iran had the technology to pursue a bomb they would have done it already. The dialogue seems to indicate they are “bluffing” in an attempt to gain as much political capital as possible. Capital? Well, now we are back to square one again. Why? Is the capital meant to garner more time to pursue weapons or eliminate sanctions? Are you confused yet? I am and whatever Iran wants they are using this confusion to their gain. For some detailed background read this PDF at : http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/060412_iran_uncertainty.pdf . It’s a long read but worth it for the details provided.

Thx
Bill

“Which internal struggles [Scott] was referring to” — my grandfather used to have a great saying, “You pay your money and you take your pick.”

S.

I understand the chess metaphor; maybe I just didn’t read the post carefully enough or I’m just not used to its flow in context of previous posts.

Regardless, what wasn’t clear to me was which internal struggles it was referring to. IRI has created such many messes that we have to be more specific (read with sarcastic tone)!!!

Now I know.

I would like to give Scott just a little bit of support here. Sometimes it is difficult to put some things completely into words. That is why, also sometimes, a small piece of poetry encapsulates something far better than a piece of prose. Personally, I do understand the above “verbal image” – it is not poetry, but it does paint a picture.

However, sometimes analysis of why something is the way that it is can be overdone – eg, why does the Iranian SL put his left shoe on before the right one. Is there some hidden meaning in this?? Etc.

I guess that analysis is just another way of saying ” What the hell is going on??”. If somebody can tell me just who runs Iran – and whether the things that come out of Iran (like statements by certain people) are co-ordinated or random, I would appreciate it. As a supposedly organized State, it sure looks anarchic to me!

Barry

I’m not a Muslim but we can sure learn a lot from Montazeri!!!

I take your point and will be more direct in future analyses….

S.

Thanks for the analysis but it seems to me that having spent so much time analyzing what politicians’s twisted language may actually mean, you are in danger of adopting that same style in your writings.

If you have a hypothesis, come out and say it instead of wrapping it up a half a dozen references and ending with a vague statement about “a pawn in a much bigger chess match inside Iran.”

BTW, based on your last reply to Megan, I agree with you that IRI’s first and foremost priority is suppressing the internal dissent by the opposition.

Further I believe that those Iranians who bravely participate in street demonstrations are clearly demanding the ouster of not only Ahmadinejad but also khamenei. But the vast majority of Iranians, especially outside of Tehran, are still sitting on the sidelines.

Setting aside the loyal regime supporters (I think 30% is a reasonable estimate of their proportion of the population), my belief is that those who are sitting on the sidelines are waiting to hear what the opposition’s PLAN is for Iran’s future.

They are “snake bitten”, highly suspicious of any political leader, and based on the events of the last 30 years have come to believe that the Green Leaders are just out to take back the power & status that they have have lost during the past few years.

These Iranains don’t want to risk their lives and properties only to replace this group with another group that for all they know can turn out to be another group of self-centered individuals only interetsed their own power and financial stakes.

Although this segment is not necessarily highly religious, the traditional Shia belief which views political power as inherently corrupt (until the 12th Imam returns and establishes the first “just” power in the world) very much reinforces the views of these Iranians.

So it is critical for the opposition to clarify their goals for Iran in succinct terms and have leaders who can symbolize them.

Speaking personally, my priority is not to assign blame or to offer excuses for anyone. It is to recognise how the Ahmadinejad Government is probably devoted to continued talks primarily because they offer a bolstered “legitimacy” against internal opposition (rather than, for example, using the talks to cover a drive for a nuclear-weapons capability in the near-future). If that premise is true, then the issue becomes how Iran Government will keep putting revised proposals on the table without — at least imminently — reaching a final agreement (which differs in approach but not outcome from “stalemate”).

My concern is that Obama Administration officials, missing the internal dimension behind Ahmadinejad Gov’t strategy, are also missing the wider and more significant political picture.

S.

But, for sure, the French administration will not ;-)

There is not a single Iranian expert, whether currently in Iran or outside, who believes this regime, will not lie, cheat, and drag its feet until they get weaponries uranium. What is it that EA knows that others do not?

EA even has watered down Alaeddin Boroujerdi proposal. In Boroujerdi’s proposed deal, IR should get the 20 % EU before it surrenders its own 3.5% EU. In other word give them the ransom first before they release the hostage. This regime sees everybody and every nation in its own image, liars and cheaters.

IR will play this game until world run out of time or out of patience. And even if they get the deal with everything they want they will back down a few months after they have signed it. Mark my words.