The Fallacy of "Arrow"

I started watching the TV series "Arrow" on the web.   It is a version of the Green Arrow character from the comics.  Basically the son of a billionaire dons a hood and uses a bow to fight crime.  Think Batman minus the Batmobile.

"Arrow" relies on a plot device of the hero having to go to places in person to interrogate a suspect or confront the bad guy.  The hero always ends up in peril and has to shoot someone with an arrow.  Good stuff but not quite the way it would work in the real 21st Century.

I give you Exhibit A:

That's Parrot AR.Drone 2.0 available for around $300 dollars from the Apple Store.  Our billionaire hero could afford a much more sophisticated and stealthy version but the point is surveillance drones are readily available, cheap and would not require a hero to expose himself (or herself) to danger for the mere sake of collecting information.

The same technology could easily track suspects and bad guys to and from their "secret" hideout without our hero having to drive around recklessly attracting the attention of local law enforcement.

Ah but what about the revenge/justice aspect that makes us watch the Green Arrow or Batman?  Don't they have to be present to face-punch the bad guy for committing crimes?

For that I give you Exhibit B:

That's the world smallest drone capable of deliver a dose of poison to any soft-skinned target.  Our hero would never have to risk being shot or caught by the police again.  He would merely have to launch a miniature drone in the vicinity of his target and let the drone do the work.  Perhaps not as satisfying as a face-punch or arrow through the heat but easily more effective and less risky.

The two drones above are the ones that are being talked about in the open.  The drones being made under classified programs are likely even deadlier and smaller.  Imagine nano-robots that could be placed in a drink or even inhaled by the target.  The nano-robots could then kill the target without leaving a trace or perhaps make a target violently ill until they confess their secrets.

The drones demonstrate why large standing militaries will become a thing of the past.  Drones can sit on the shelf for months without their skills becoming degraded and then immediately used when needed.  Drones don't present the risk of a troop being caught and tortured.  Small drones like the ones above can operate below the tree-line making detection by radar or satellite almost impossible.

The anonymity of drones presents one of the biggest dangers.  If a soldier or spy is caught, it is rather obvious what country employed them.  However, with drones it is not so obvious and may actually create the opportunity for third parties to create conflict.  

Reducing the size of the military is attractive from a budget-cutting perspective.  Relying more on drones to do tasks such as deliver supplies and operate vehicles makes sense from a safety perspective and in the long run will save money and lives.  The risk though is to become too reliant on drones and robots which allows their use with little regard to consequence.  The more we use drones, the more our enemies will develop and deploy drones against us.

"More agile and equipped with the latest weapons"

That's the goal of a smaller military under Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel.  Inevitable discussions turn to downsizing after a war (on in this case two).  Military forces have to grow to meet the increased OPSTEMPO but once they forces are withdrawn, there is little reason to maintain large numbers of troops and equipment.

According to USATODAY,  the Secretary said "To that end, the Pentagon is liquidating much of its $40 billion fleet of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, the signature truck of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're heavy and lumbering and associated with wars of occupation. Definitely passé."  Interesting, a similar mindset in the late 1950s said missiles meant that fighter jets would no longer need to be armed with canons.  Then in the Vietnam war it was determined that the F-4s were are a tremendous disadvantage because they lacked canons.  Or the mindset that said large maneuvering units fighting in the desert were a thing of the past…until Desert Storm.  Or what about the mindset that wanted to ignore the guerrilla type warfare of Vietnam…only to see it again in Afghanistan.

Let's be honest.  The Department of Defense is looking to cut its budget and is using these arguments to support that end.  If you want a truly expeditionary, quick reaction force you already have it in the US Marine Corps.  The doctrine of the USMC (MCDP 1-1, dated 1997) it states, "The United States Marine Corps is a key instrument in the execution of American national strategy.  Marine expeditionary forces possess extraordinary strategic reach.  As an expeditionary force-in-readines, the Marine Corps has been consistently called upon to implement key elements of our national security strategy and its supporting national military strategy."--FAS.ORG

The Marine Corps is designed to be light and lethal.  For long term engagements, the Army follows with heavy forces.  Making the Army lighter doesn't make much sense as that's not what they do or how units are doctrinally created.

The Army is already on a path to shrink from 540,000 soldiers to about 490,000 by the end of 2015, and will likely slide further to 420,000 by 2019, according to reports. (Defense News)

Why then do we need to look elsewhere for a nimble, small force able to rapidly respond?  According to Paul McLeary in Defense News, "Instead, look for an Army with fewer soldiers and more robots".

Robots don't require pay, medical benefits or pensions.  They also very good for OPSEC as they don't tell their friends or sweethearts were they are going or what they've done.  Robots don't need promotions or incentive pay.  Robots don't talk to the press.

Future wars (and the future is very soon) will see more robots (both air as well as ground) waging combat as well as performing logistics functions.  The move towards more robots brings up a very ugly eventuality that without risking American lives Washington will become more willing to send drones into harm's way.  If there is no risk to us, what incentive do future Presidents and members of Congress have to not send in a force of robot soldiers to quell hostilities in some country?  How will we even know?

Update:  Gen McChrystal was quoted in RT.com  talking about drones, "“There's a danger that something feels easy to do and without the risk to yourself, almost antiseptic to the person shooting, doesn't feel that way at the point of impact. And so it lowers the threshold for taking operations because it feels easy, there's a danger in that"

Winter Olympics

Forty-two years ago, 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team were taken hostage were taken hostage by the Palestinian terrorist group Black September.  Elite counter-terrorism units did not exist (even though the Special Air Service (SAS) has existed since 1950 it would not be until the 1980 Iranian Embassy siege in London that they would make their mark as a counter-terrrorist unit).  After the German police negotiations failed, they attempted to rescue the Israeli hostages via air assault and snipers….something the German police were not trained to do in 1972.  The results were all hostages, one German police officer and 5 of the 8 terrorists were killed.  The failure resulted in the formation of the famed GSG9 (Grenz Schutz Gruppe 9).

Forty-two years later, US officials "believe there would be major obstacles to mounting a large-scale rescue effort as Russia has historically been reluctant to allow foreign military forces – especially those of the US – on Russian territory, according to a source familiar with Obama administration discussions."--The Guardian

The 2014 Winter Olympics will be held in Sochi, Russia located on the Black Sea coast near the border between Georgia/Abkhazia and Russia. Sochi is the largest Russian resort city and one of the very few places in Russia with a subtropical climate, with warm to hot summers and mild winters.  The irony of hosting the Winter Olympics in the one place in Russia where it DOESN'T snow has not been lost on the world.

What seems to have been minimized is what a particularly dangerous region this tends to be.  Let's begin with Abkhazia.

Abkhazia is a disputed territory on the eastern coast of the Black Sea and southwestern flank of the Caucaus.  Abkhazia considers itself independent, a status recognized by Russia but disputed by Georgia (and a majority of the world governments) consider is part of their republic (albeit autonomous).  On Jan 17, 2014 the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) published the following from the Abkhazia board meeting, "The main directions of foreign policy of Abkhazia as it was said by the President of the Republic of Abkhazia is strengthening of strategic partnership with the Russian Federation and progress of wide international recognition of independence of the Republic of Abkhazia."--Ministry of Affairs Board Meeting

The potential for a clash between Georgia and Abkhazia could occur during the Winter Olympics as could the uprising in the Ukraine that has been waging since nov 21st.  "The events (on Sunday) come in the wake of weeks of public protests after Yanukovych's decision in November to spurn a planned trade deal with the European Union and turn toward Russia instead."--CNN

The Ukraine forms the northern shore of the Black Sea.  According CNN, Caitlin Hayden (spokeswoman for the National Security Council) said, "The increasing tension in Ukraine is a direct consequence of the government failing to acknowledge the legitimate grievances of its people. Instead, it has moved to weaken the foundations of Ukraine's democracy by criminalizing peaceful protest and stripping civil society and political opponents of key democratic protections under the law"

Two areas in the region have reasons to make trouble at the Winter Olympics but there is a third region that many have forgotten about. About 400 miles to the east of Sochi is Chechnya.  There is a long a violent history between Russia and Chechnya.

During Czarist times, the Nakh and Malkh tribes of the region wanted to be free from Russian (which was Christian at the time) and turned to Islam as its liberating ideology.  The Ottomans ended-up betraying the rebellion which was led by Mansur Ushurma, a Chechen Naqshbandi (Sufi) sheikh to the Russians who excited him in 1794. The resistance of the Nakh tribes never ended and was a fertile ground for a new Muslim-Avar commander Imam Shamil, who fought against the Russians from 1834 until 1859. The leader who took over for Shamil was Chechen Boysangur Benoiski who broke through the siege and continued to fight Russia in full scale warfare for another 2 years until he was captured and killed by Russians.

By 1860s, Russia switched to a policy of deporting the Nakh which did weaken but not completely end the resistance.  Under the Soviet Union, Chechnya did not fare much better.  Some Chechens rose up against Soviet rule during the 1940s, resulting in the deportation of the entire ethnic Chechen and Ingush populations to what is now Kazakhstan and Siberia in 1944 near the end of World War II where over 60% of Chechen and Ingush populations perished. The Chechens were allowed to return after 1956 but found many Russian immigrants on their lands. Struggles between Chechnya and Russia up until today.

The First Chechen War took place over a two-year period that lasted from 1994 to 1996, when Russian forces attempted to regain control over Chechnya, which had declared independence in November 1991. Despite overwhelming numerical superiority in men, weaponry, and air support, the Russian forces were unable to establish effective permanent control over the mountainous area due to numerous successful Chechen guerrilla raids.--Wikipedia

The War of Dagestan began on 7 August 1999, during which the Islamic International Brigade (IIPB) began an unsuccessful incursion into the neighbouring Russian republic of Dagestan in favor of the Shura of Dagestan which sought independence from Russia. In September, a series of apartment bombs that killed around 300 people in several Russian cities, including Moscow, were blamed on the Chechen separatists. 

In response to the bombings, a prolonged air campaign of retaliatory strikes against the Ichkerian regime and a ground offensive that began in October 1999 marked the beginning of the Second Chechen War. Much better organized and planned than the first Chechen War, the Russian military took control over most regions. 

In October 2002, 40–50 Chechen rebels seized a Moscow theater and took about 900 civilians hostage. The crisis ended with a large death toll mostly due to an unknown aerosol pumped throughout the building by Russian special forces to incapacitate the people inside. In September 2004, separatist rebels occupied a school in the town of Beslan, North Ossetia, demanding recognition of the independence of Chechnya and a Russian withdrawal. 1,100 people (including 777 children) were taken hostage. The attack lasted three days, resulting in the deaths of over 331 people, including 186 children. 

Russia installed a pro-Moscow government in 2003 which reintegrated  Chechnya with Russia.  In April 2009, Russia ended its counter-terrorism operation and pulled out the bulk of its army.

Sorry for the long history lesson but it was necessary to set-up the emergence of this guy.

That's Doku Umarov the Chechen jihadist leader blamed for the two suicide bombings in Volgograd in Russia over Christmas.  Canadian counter-terrorism agencies have dubbed him the "Russian Osama bin Laden" and said he poses the greatest terrorism threat for the Sochi games.  According the the Daily Mail, "The report warns: ‘Doku Khamaiovich Umarov is a fervent Islamist who espouses AQ’s [Al Qaeda’s] ideology of global jihad...His view that Israeli, US and UK interests are legitimate targets raises concerns that any Westerners could be targeted."

Checnhya, Abkhazia, and Ukraine all have a long history of violence and the Winter Games will provide over 15,000 visitors from around the world as potential targets for terrorists.  Recognizing this threat, Vladmir Putin has ordered over 40,000 troops into Sochi and surrounding areas to provide security.  From all accounts, the Russians are not playing around and security is quite intense.

Yet despite these precautions, this video of the two suicide bombers from Volgograd is up on CNN.  It is easy to over-estimate the ability for a potential terrorist attack but in this part of the world, it seems almost too likely.

The Magician's Assistant

In stage magic, the pretty assistant often serves to misdirects the audience's attention away from what the magician is really doing during the illusion.

When the story about Mark Snowden first broke, it felt like we were being made to look at one thing instead of what was really going on.  The documents he revealed showed the NSA spied on Americans.  Perhaps unnerving but hardly surprising.  J. Edgar Hoover was notorious for keeping secret files on anyone and everyone he perceived as a threat.

The fact that the NSA had spied on German Chancellor Angel Merkel is not as surprising as it it disappointing.  Keeping tabs on your allies has always been part of the foreign affairs games.  According to CBS News,  the NSA also spied on Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and Brazilian President Dilam Rousseff.  They are naturally pissed off but with the Mexican drug cartels and the 2016 summer Olympics in Brazil, intercepting information from those countries isn't shocking just politically awkward.

The trouble with spying is you never know what you are going to find out.  Especially in the post 9-11 world of hunting the next Osama bin Laden, the NSA and CIA have a remarkably unrewarding task for figuring out which nobody is the next somebody.  They are looking for a needle in a haystack by treating every piece of hay as though it were a needle.  Hence the need to collect this huge volume of data on allies as well as enemies a like.

But something about Snowden still bugs me.  In 1985, a former Navy communications specialist John Walker made the news for having been a Soviet spy.  Unlike Snowden, Walker did not divulge lists of information but rather the cryptological keys for encrypting US military communications.  According to former Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, "the information Walker gave Moscow allowed the Soviets "access to weapons and sensor data and naval tactics, terrorist threats, and surface, submarine, and airborne training, readiness and tactics." U.S. Naval Institute

John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan administration, stated in an interview that Walker's activities enabled the Soviets to know where U.S. submarines were at all times. Lehman said the Walker espionage would have resulted in huge loss of American lives in the event of war.

Walker's treachery gave the Soviets that same advantage the US had as a result of cracking the Enigma cypher…the Soviets knew how to decrypt our secure communications.  Further by having the actual cryptological keys meant they could break future codes that were based on similar algorithms.  The US intelligence system would have to create a completely different set of cryptological keys that were not based on anything Walker had shared.

Thus far, it appears that Snowden did not leak any cryptological information.  He did divulge some third parties and methodologies but this is part of the spy game.  Eventually the other side figures out how you are finding out about their information.  The President's call yesterday for tighter restrictions on NSA activities almost seems like closing the barn door after the horses are out.

I was pondering all of this when I came across an interesting post from Jon Rappaport.  He posts the 36 day timeline of Snowden's arrival in Hong Kong to his arrival in Moscow.  Why was the NSA unable to neutralize his laptops via radio signals (which we now hear the NSA can do to any computer even if not connected to the Internet)?

I tend to agree with Rappaport, what if the information Snowden released was a plant?  Perhaps either to create false trails or cause a target to respond differently.  It would explain a lot that just doesn't seem right.

"Disrespectful and Simply Not True"

Retired Maj. Gen. Gus Hargett’s (President of the National Guard Association) statement came in response to Odierno’s Jan. 5 remarks at the National Press Club in Washington, where he said the National Guard would not be capable of taking on more of the active-duty force’s responsibilities if the active force structure falls much below the 490,000 floor that the chief set for 2015.--Defense News

I'd been on a rant about the state of the USAF but things are not going very well for my friends on the green side of the house either.  Specfically MG Hargett is reacting to the following statement from GEN Odiernon, Army Chief of Staff:

“The capabilities are not interchangeable,” Odierno said, “there’s a reason why the active component is more expensive. It brings you a higher level of readiness, because they’re full time. “They are trained and ready to do things at a higher level because they spend every day focused on that,” Odierno said. “Our National Guard, [which has] done an incredible job in the last 10 years, trains 39 days a year.”--Defense News

"Yare, yard" as the Japanese would say.  The Army National Guard earned the moniker of "weekend warriors" probably at the end of the Vietnam war.  "One day a month, two weeks a year" was the catch phrase for Guard recruiters.  During the 1970s through the 1990s, the National Guard became the place to mothball legacy systems and have a decent manpower pool to augment contingency operations by the active duty.  This model though is exactly opposite what the nation's founders had in mind.

The American Revolution was fought by the Continental Army and Minuteman (citizen soldiers).  This model provided the founders with a way to fight wars without maintaining large standing armies.  The desire to avoid large standing military was based on two reasons.

Up until colonial times, monarchs maintained large standing armies by letting them take over farms.  The armies would live off of the larder of the farms, eating crops, killing livestock, hunting game and raping the women and children.  In return the farmers got nothing but the monarchs saved their wealth. Avoiding the tyranny of monarchs is one of the framing principles of the Constitution.

The other reason was by having a part-time military concept, it decentralized war-making power to the various governors instead of just the President.  The founding fathers had seen how a monarch could wage war on a whim and destroy his country in the process.  They wanted to avoid that potentiality and kept the standing Army small.  It also was a safeguard to insure the US government did not overly interfere with the states.

The latter reason is the one most 21st Century citizens fail to understand.  The Army and Air National Guard exist to insure state sovereignty and to make it difficult for Washington to wage war unilaterally. World War II caused this to be largely ignore since the manpower and equipment needed far exceeded the ability of the active forces.  National Guard units were mobilized across the United States to fight in Europe and the Pacific.

Let me make a point here that really bothers active military planners.  The Army and Air National Guard have TWO commanders-in-chief.  During federal activation, the National Guard falls under the President of the United States just like every other armed service.  However, when not under federal activation they report to the governor.

The duality provides a check and balance between the interests of the federal government and the interests of the citizens (represented by the governor).  Therefore, the active military planners know they have to go through those pesky governors who may not agree with their war plans.

The National Guard became, after World War II and certainly Vietnam, a reserve contingency force.  Its equipment was not current and its soldiers and airmen were considered less capable then their active duty counterparts.

Things began to change after Desert Storm and fall of the Soviet Union.  Many forget that President George H. Bush was the first to start reducing the active force structure closing many overseas installations that were considered holdovers from the Cold War.

The troop drawdowns sent many Desert Storm veterans into the Guard and Reserves.  At the same time, the Guard started to receive the same versions of weapon systems as were being used on active duty.  The two seemingly unrelated factors changed the face of the National Guard.

When the active Air Force struggled to maintain enough aircraft and personnel for Operations Northern Watch and Southern Watch (the no-fly zones of post Desert Storm), they looked to the Air National Guard which was now flying the same F-16s that they were.  Thus was born the air expeditionary force.

It took the Army and Army National Guard much longer to embrace this concept mainly because of the incredible logistics it takes to move ground units into theater.  When Operation Enduring Freedom first began, it took Army Guard units months of mobilization stateside before they could be sent in theater.  Primarily to insure Guard units skills were up to those of their active counterparts.

So there resides the first inaccuracy of General Odierno's criticism.  Since at least 2002, the National Guard has been training more than 39 days a year.

The second inaccuracy is the Army National Guard is there not for the active duty as much as the governor.  During catastrophes, emergencies and riots, the National Guard responds.  The active duty cannot due to federal regulations as well as it would take them away from supporting overseas contingencies.  Reducing the National Guard means adversely impacting the ability of governors to deal with state emergencies.

The National Guard was also picked to receive specialized units to deal with homeland security events because these units would NOT be deployed for contingencies.  Each state has specialized units for dealing with a WMD (weapons of mass destruction) event.  These units form the nucleus of larger response packages for events such as pandemic infections.

National Guard soldiers often perform the same tasks at the civilian jobs as they do in their unit.  Maintenance personnel, IT professionals, medical personnel, vehicle operators, etc often hold jobs that are very similar to their military jobs.  Hence the general's comment that active duty practice their jobs every day, and they National Guard does not, is grossly inaccurate.

I was in Qatar in 2004 as the Air Reserve Component Liaison for CENTAF.  I remember meeting an active duty USAF physician who was struggling because he thought he did not have any ER nurses (based on his manning document).  I pointed out three ANG nurses who all worked in civilian ER hospitals and he was shocked.  The nurses also had more experience than anyone else in the hospital (including the doc).  General Odierno's comments show the same bias.

What is most depressing though is the lack of outrage by governors over the general's comments.  The National Guard Association can testify all it wants but nothing will check the active duty Army short of 50 governors raising hell.

I tend to disagree with Congressman Rangel on most but on one thing he and I both agree.  He has been a strong proponent of reinstating the draft.  He believes that only by having everyone subject to be sent to war will we get more Americans involved in understanding the true cost of war.  At first I found his recommendation insulting to the professionalism of the all-volunteer military.  But as time went on and I heard more and more people forgetting that we were still sending troops into harm's way, I started to agree with the merits of his proposal.

Similarly, having the active duty military making all of the decisions without challenge from the state governors takes us away from the intent of the Constitution.  It makes it easier for Washington to take military action without regard to the rest of America.

Air Force officers cheat on proficiency exam

According to an article in the Daily Mail,  34 officers at Malstrom, AFB texted each others the answers to a proficiency exam.  Malstrom is one of three bases for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

The story does not go into detail but since these were officers taking a proficiency exam, we can assume they were most likely missile launch officers.  The one difference between the USAF and other branches are officers are the war-fighters (i.e. pilots, navs, weapon systems officers, missile launch officers, etc) with the enlists troops being the technical experts.  In the other branches, the enlisted troops or warrant officers are the war-fighters and the officers are the commanders.

The scandal is more pathetic than one realizes.  Proficiency exams are all part of any operational AFSC (air force specialty skill).  In order to maintain mission-readiness (MR) on a given weapon system, an officer is tested constantly via written every month and practical exams every 60-90 days (depending on the command and weapon system).

The officers above were most likely were taking a standard proficiency test to maintain their MR-status.  What makes the incident especially shameful is that all proficiency tests questions are pulled from what used to be called a Master Question File (MQF).  There term may have been replaced but the MQF is a bank of questions on a particular weapon systems.  You drill and drill the answers into your head because those questions (or very similar) are the ones you will be tested on either on the proficiency exam or your practical evaluation (think check ride).

When I was in mobile radar, we helped quiz each other before we had to take a proficiency test or go through a practical evaluation. It kept your skills sharp, helped identify areas you needed to work on and built a sense of unit cohesion.  There is sense of prestige of being able to claim you are "MR".

The utter lack of respect for what they are doing just seethes through every article I've read on this incident.  Thirty-four officers were so damn lazy they couldn't study for material on the very skills they are required to perform.  Thirty-four college educated, technically bright, psychological stable (based on testing they had to undergo to go into nuclear weapons) were still so unimpressed with their jobs they took the easy way out to passing a proficiency exam.

It is beginning to look like Maj Gen Michael Carey was the norm instead of the exception.

What really is most disgusting about this scandal is how it makes the readiness of our nuclear forces appear to the Russians and Chinese.  Not only have the Russians and Chinese been working on increasing their nuclear forces (along with their conventional forces), both Russia and China have leaders that will not back down from the United States.

Nuclear weapons have primarily been about deterrent.  What deterrence is left if the officers responsible for launching those weapons are seen as indifferent to their mission?

Putin is a trained KGB officers from the days of the Cold War.  He cannot be missing the implications of this and the Carey scandal for his own objectives.  Factor in the NSA scandals and Putin must see the United States as more vulnerable than ever.  The vulnerability does not mean an attack (at least not in a military sense) but certainly Putin can take a much stronger stance in the future with the United States.

China may already be planning ways to further exploit these lapses in judgement.  During the height of the Cold War, we were always cautioned about getting into excessive debt for fear this could be exploited by Soviet agents.  China is a much bigger economic power that ever was the Soviet Union so it is even easier for them to find a young troop that has over extended their credit line.

The obvious failure on the parts of the officers in the this scandal to realize their importance of their jobs is amazing.  Somehow, over the last 10 plus years of being at war we've become in many ways less combat-ready.  I've speculated before that the lack of involvement by nuclear forces have made them feel their mission is unappreciated.  But I'm not certain this is the complete answer.

Our culture is going through many changes, often glommed into the term "entitled".  The behaviors I've written about in my past few entries are seem to be related to that mindset.  The military in general and the USAF in particular needs to recognize this sense of entitlement and adjust internal procedures accordingly.  Be aware that it doesn't matter if the recruit is from an Ivy League school or from the inner cities, their is a sense of entitlement there that is subtle and different from anything we've dealt with in the past.

Iranian Sanctions

Two headline views of the same story:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — President Hassan Rouhani has praised a landmark nuclear deal struck in Geneva as his country's victory, telling a home crowd it effectively means the "surrender" of Western powers to Iranian demands.  U-T San Diego

Biden appeases Netanyahu over 'sanctions architecture' against Iran -- US Vice President Joe Biden says Washington is committed to enforcing its "sanctions architecture" against Iran in an attempt to appease Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  PressTV

So is the new deal a win for Iran or an appeasement of Israel?  Perhaps the real answer is somewhere in-between.  The United States has had a very long history with Iran.  Starting with the placement of the Shah Pahlavi into power (and subsequent Iranian Revolution leading to the take-over of the US Embassy in Tehran), the United States has struggled with Iran.  On one hand, the US had sold Iran then state-of-the-art F-14 Tomcats.  On the other hand, the US supported Iraq's War against Iran (including the use of chemical weapons).

The latest deal perhaps really represents the inability of the US to bring Iran in line.  Nuclear weapons continue to be the ticket to being considered a world power (or at least a nation that other world powers need to acknowledge).  The US lacks the ability to manifest real change in Iran.  It also lacks the impetus to begin yet another overseas conflict.

Israel has no conflict of conscience when it comes to Iran; they see Tehran and its nuclear weapons represents and imminent threat to Israel.  Netanyahu has no problem stating that if Iran's program advances too far they will take action.  Most likely this is the reason Vice President Biden is trying to appease Netanyahu.

And for Iran is does certainly make it look like they have stared down the US.