Iran, Nukes, War Casualties and Assorted Accusations

[Double Edge]

"Why ?"

Sanctions are in effect now. They will gain greater effect later this spring/early summer. The U.S. won't require permission of the UNSC to act militarily if need be. Israel surely won't seek nor require such authorization.

Agree though i see Israel having a stronger case at the moment.

Timing matters, this year or the year after I see Israel acting without the US.

Two years and after I see the US maybe getting involved. That will be a completely different ball game.

Should Israel wait until then in the hopes that whatever attack that follows will be much stronger. That would be relying on the US to defend Israel and isn't a given.

"...It would make it quite clear to everybody concerned. The first bit of clarity in this whole saga. It would pave the way for a more uniform levy of sanctions as well..."

Double Edge, it would already be quite clear to everybody beside those blind or willfully determined to perpetuate a deception.

There are no prizes to be had for pulling the wool over your eyes or anybody else for that matter.

The prize is in seeing how defendable a position is or not. That is what i'm trying to do. Construct models to see how well they can hold up. This method is quite good at arriving closer to the truth and a forum is the ideal place in which to do it in.

The beauty is once such positions are identified, it doesn't matter how many disagree, only thing that matters is whether they can counter :)

UNSC 1737 Dec. 23, 2006

UNSC 1803 March 3, 2008

UNSC 1929 June 3, 2010

You're a bright guy and google is your friend. Please don't require this from me again.

I'll reply to this point later when i've had time to read them, there's more resolutions in addition to just these.

Using google is easy, its the reading, comprehending, coherently articulating and when queried, substantiating/defending that is challenging.

"...Is it because Russia & China aren't on board yet..."

Excuse me? Do Russia and China have to bomb Iran to convince you they're "on board"? You do know the members of the P5+1?

They're not on board for the latest round of sanctions. Those sanctions remain unilateral, though admittedly this could change in the future.

If you mean wrt to resolutions then there isn't an issue here as they've not vetoed any.

"Or is it something much more basic, cannot condemn what is yet to happen."

Is condemnation required? I'd agree to condemn with honest vigor would require irrefutable proof. Shall we wait for a weapon to issue a pointless after-the-fact condemnation? I rather expect Iran would factor such into their calculation. Don't you? If so, would they care?

I've seen it mentioned in numerous articles posted that should Iran decide to weaponise that it would be unmistakable and that there would be a long lead time to doing so. Isn't this a valid counter to 'shall we wait for a weapon' or a test ?

Why should Iran care ? If the global opposition unites against them then they are in a weaker position. So long as Iran can divide the opposition they can maintain their current stance.

They don't want to be reduced into a NoK, where they have to negotiate for food. Could this be a strong incentive for Iran not to ever test, weaponise or leave the NPT.

"...That [action taken by threatened parties] is entirely up to them..."

Correct. Afterall, there's la-la land and practical reality. There's also disingenuous obfuscation designed to impede a forthright investigation of Iran's peculiar intransigence. Not just Iran's government, many of its friends and/or enemies of the west appear seeking to muddy those waters with, among other tactics, webs of legalistic entanglements.

My agenda is to get an objective take on BOTH sides of this dispute. In the process of going about it, invariably i'm going to be accused, by both sides, of being disingenious or a shill for the other party. Its an occupational hazard. There's two fronts to defend against. I tend to ignore hardliners of both parties as they have a very fixed view that isn't amenable to change.

To locate defendable positions, arguments from both sides, have to be played off the other party. You've given me two solid points to throw at the pro-iran crowd, but i've only got half a semi-defendable point to throw at you for the moment

In addition to spin & dissembling there is also those legal entanglements you mention. You say its one sided but i think both parties are engaging in it. I see lots of exaggeration in the vocabulary used amongst western advocates. For instance

- they talk about violations instead of compliance or cooperation. Bolton was talking this way back in 2004.
- they talk about weapons as if Iran is going to get them tomorrow and is actively engaged in doing so.
- they push the supposed irrationality of the IRI regime to the point i wonder whether its them thats being more irrational instead. Gaddafi & Saddam were both rational, perhaps less so when it came to their own people but certainly with respect to other countries. The main distinction between the former two & the IRI regime is that they were reckless as well. This is why they're no longer around. They were unpredictable and best gotten rid off.

So the distinct pattern i can discern is the narrative is one step ahead of reality. The motive is to increase urgency, pressure and build consensus.

Do you just ignore them or examine whether they hold any substance. From your stance it would seem a good knowledge of UN sanctions along with the IAEA reports is all that is necessary to make your case. But IAEA reports aren't invulnerable to spin.

This is a hellishly difficult topic to get to grips with. If it ever enters into your presidential debates then it will become even more politicised than presently. Forget being objective at that point, unless you have a good command of the basics you are blind and open to manipulation.

On to the root issue of enrichment and whether Iran can do so or not. The argument offered is Iran has given up any rights because they have been non-cooperative. This carries the implicit conclusion that Iran never had a right to enrich in the first place. A lot is made about this point from the Iranian side. Is there any substance or not.

This isn't a lawsuit. There will be combat, maybe war, should Iran not submit to adequate verification. The issue reaches beyond the NPT, IAEA and even the U.N. Iran possessing a nuclear weapon or the means to rapidly attain such is unacceptable to, independantly, America's nat'l security and Israel. One, the other or both will certainly act should sanctions fail and Iran refuses to submit.

That, too, will not be put before any court.

I'm not the one that portrayed this dispute as a court case.

if no progress is made then what you say is likely.

[S2]

Double Edge Reply

"...it would seem a good knowledge of UN sanctions along with the IAEA reports is all that is necessary to make your case. But IAEA reports aren't invulnerable to spin..."

The only case I'd make with certainty is that reasonable suspicion to Iran's intent exists now and has for some time. To a great extent this stems from Iran's admitted pursuit of nuclear weapons prior to 2003.

"We've been bad. Now we're good. Nothing to see here." is the mantra, oft-repeated, that we've been given.

That's not adequate. Trust and credibility on this issue has been damaged. Continued intransigence shall make that damaged trust irrevocable.

Iran has not acted in good faith and the stakes are such on this issue that duplicity can't be tolerated.

[RoccoR]

S2, et al,

Yes, this is understood.

Everyone is generally afraid of what Iran might do. The "Rule of Law" doesn't matter. Fear rules, based on incomplete information, of a 'unknown and uncertain" reliability, pertaining to unconfirmed "intentions."

"We've been bad. Now we're good. Nothing to see here." is the mantra, oft-repeated, that we've been given.

That's not adequate. Trust and credibility on this issue has been damaged. Continued intransigence shall make that damaged trust irrevocable.

Iran has not acted in good faith and the stakes are such on this issue that duplicity can't be tolerated.

(COMMENT)

The stakes (as commonly stated):

• Undefined interests of a National Security nature to the US.
• And a fear that at some date in the future (not further defined), under a Regime of undetermined nature and character, Iran will (unquestionably) launch a Nuclear Strike against Israel.

The Mitigation to the Stakes:

• An unannounced attack (Act of War) Iran against a target set to be determined; as a preemptive strike against a possible threat to peace (Iran).

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The outcomes and consequences are undetermined and acceptable; regardless of the scope and intensity.

Most Respectfully,
R

[S2]

RoccoR Reply

"The stakes (as commonly stated):
"...Undefined interests of a National Security nature to the US..."

If "...undefined...", as you posit, then you've not paid careful attention or don't care to acknowledge their relevance.

"...And a fear that at some date in the future (not further defined), under a Regime of undetermined nature and character, Iran will (unquestionably) launch a Nuclear Strike against Israel."

The regime is before you now. Do you have a date in the future that might be satisfactory?

Rocco, two questions for you-Iran admitted to a nuclear weapons program in 2003. What was their intent then and what's changed internally in their world view to alter it?

[Officer of Engineers]

Rocco, two questions for you-Iran admitted to a nuclear weapons program in 2003. What was their intent then and what's changed internally in their world view to alter it?

Actually, they never did admit anything and to this day, still deny that they had such a program. They even deny that they had warhead blueprints or had fashioned the parts for a zero-yield test device despite the evidence to the contrary.

[Double Edge]

Actually, they never did admit anything and to this day, still deny that they had such a program.

Right, wonder where S2 got that from.

They even deny that they had warhead blueprints or had fashioned the parts for a zero-yield test device despite the evidence to the contrary.

What do you think of the idea that NoK may have tested a device for Iran in 2010 :)

Did Iran Test a Nuclear Bomb in North Korea in 2010? | PJ Media | Mar 04 2012

[Officer of Engineers]

Did Iran Test a Nuclear Bomb in North Korea in 2010? | PJ Media | Mar 04 2012

Seoul doesn't think so.

YONHAP NEWS

[RoccoR]

S2, et al,

As far as a Nuclear Capable Iran and its relation to a US National Security Threat, that is all debatable. Even Israel's security is becoming an object of debate. But as I've stated in a previous posting, Israeli security is, "politically speaking," a sacred cow. One cannot challenge that premise without expecting to be challenged. The song of Israeli security has been sung for so long, that it has become axiomatic and self evident; requiring no further explanation, yet difficult to explain the scope and nature.

Actually, they never did admit anything and to this day, still deny that they had such a program. They even deny that they had warhead blueprints or had fashioned the parts for a zero-yield test device despite the evidence to the contrary.

Rocco, two questions for you-Iran admitted to a nuclear weapons program in 2003. What was their intent then and what's changed internally in their world view to alter it?

(COMMENT)

Iran has never really suggested that Nuclear Weapons have a place in their National Defense strategy or future policy. In fact, they have consistently made statements to the contrary; despite being militarily threatened by two Nuclear Powers. I am not defending Iran, but I must say, the scope and nature of the threats and being in the shadow of an possible attack at any time, is justification enough for a sovereign nation to seek an equal defense and response against Acts of War and Sneak Attacks.

Relative to the "blueprints," there are actually a couple of events that are not often explained.

The accusation of the discovery of Iranian Nuclear Weapons Blueprints (Critical Nuclear WEapons Design Information - CNWDI) actually originates from the Israelis (counted as Western Intelligence).

In 2004, the Israelis handed the CIA a laptop that they said came from an Iranian Engineer. The CIA, in turn, gave it to the IAEA. It contained:

• Test data on High Explosive experiments.
• A concept model and rudimentary design concept for a missile (delivery system)
• Videos of a SECRET Iranian lab and test facility.

The explosive device, should not be confused with the recent controversy over the computer simulations of the hemispherical aluminium shell (AKA: R265). These are separate and distinct accusations, with one a single point of evidence associated with each.

Nor should we confuse the "blueprint" issue. The "blueprints" off the laptop and the "blueprints" in contention today, are of two different things. One is a very crude exploded view of what might be a very old fusion device; not considered design worthy. The other, is a design for centrifuges. The centrifuge design is really old, but over taken by events. The Iranians have since installed in more sophisticated centrifuges that are capable of enrichment into the HEU range.

The importance here is that issues ---- of 6, 8 and 10 years ago, while sounding and suspicious then, are of no significance now, as they are over taken by events. Again that is the same kind of mistake we made in the Iraq WMD debacle; using old intelligence and accepting it as meaningful and accurate.

This is not to say that there is no reason for suspicion.

Most Respectfully,
R

[S2]

OoE & Double Edge Reply

"Right, wonder where S2 got that from."

Out of the thin blue air. Iran has not, to my knowledge, admitted such. I stand corrected.

[S2]

RoccoR Reply

"As far as a Nuclear Capable Iran and its relation to a US National Security Threat, that is all debatable..."

Of course. That's what we do here. That's not, however, what you said. You said those nat'l security interests are undefined. That's not so. They've been defined in the 2010 U.S. National Security Strategy. You likely object to the positions promulgated by the U.S. government.

Those positions, however, would not be "...undefined...".

"...Israeli security is, "politically speaking," a sacred cow. One cannot challenge that premise without expecting to be challenged...."

So you object to a rhetorical defense of the rationales for Israeli security? Perhaps you object to the security of the Israeli state altogether and would prefer to see it insecure amidst enemies? Both? Please elaborate.

"...Iran has never really suggested that Nuclear Weapons have a place in their National Defense strategy or future policy..."

Evidently, this is true and I've stood corrected on that measure. Nonetheless, our 2007 NIE Iran: Nuclear Intentions And Capabilities strongly suggests otherwise-

"We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons."

"...In fact, they have consistently made statements to the contrary; despite being militarily threatened by two Nuclear Powers..."

They've also threatened to close the Gulf Of Hormuz, attacked our soldiers in neighboring countries and sponsored terrorist entities around the world. Their government representatives have also made inflammatory comments suggesting violent intent upon neighboring states.

"... I am not defending Iran..."

Without question, I'd assess you are doing exactly that.

"...but I must say, the scope and nature of the threats and being in the shadow of an possible attack at any time, is justification enough for a sovereign nation to seek an equal defense and response against Acts of War and Sneak Attacks."

There have been no acts of war nor sneak attacks initiated against Iran by America. None. Iran is entirely justified in withdrawing from the NPT at any time and seeking nuclear weapons at its own risk. Until they do so, choosing to "...seek an equal defense and response..." contravenes their voluntarily-agreed obligations under the NPT.

Of course, you know this.

"...The Iranians have since installed in more sophisticated centrifuges that are capable of enrichment into the HEU range.

The importance here is that issues ---- of 6, 8 and 10 years ago, while sounding and suspicious then, are of no significance now, as they are over taken by events..."

So the Iranians have pursued a more sophisticated means of enrichment since 2006?

"...Again that is the same kind of mistake we made in the Iraq WMD debacle; using old intelligence and accepting it as meaningful and accurate..."

Do you allow for the same deceptions and obfuscation from Iran that were engaged by the Iraqis? More of the same also? All that can be easily resolved by Iran permitting full and unfettered inspections. To date they've chosen otherwise.

Of course, you make no allowance that U.S. and other nat'l intelligence entities might be using the most currently available information and collection assets to update their assessments. Why?

"...This is not to say that there is no reason for suspicion."

Your suspicions and reasons would be...?

[Aryajet]

It's already too late. Iran got all the parts that she needs to build a weapon. She even got all the research she needed to get to the assembly stage. Now, all she needs is to start producing the materials and start testing. Confidence is very low that she can make a weaponized warhead but she can start trying anytime now.

We were supposed to prevent this stage where she can even try to make one. Now, we shifted the goal post to when she will try to make one.

Colonel Sir,

While back in one of your posts you mentioned that the blue prints package for CICH-4 warhead which IRI had acquired through Abdul Qadir Khan did not include the research data necessary for assembling a test device. Now you are saying they've already got all the research they need to get to assembly stage.

Where do you think they might have gotten the data? Home grown may be?

Thanks.

[rj1]

Agree though i see Israel having a stronger case at the moment.

Timing matters, this year or the year after I see Israel acting without the US.

I personally think Israel is too weak to act on their own. Sure they can open things up and get in a shot or two but in any prolonged conflict their population is too small and everyone else in the region can say "they started it" and then hop on in a case of 10 countries vs. 1, which unfortunately would be popular globally. And unlike the recent past, they could have an open southern flank due to the recent changeover in power in Egypt.

S2: There will be combat, maybe war, should Iran not submit to adequate verification.

From who?

[RoccoR]

S2, et al,

We, I believe, are actually not that far apart.

"As far as a Nuclear Capable Iran and its relation to a US National Security Threat, that is all debatable..."

Of course. That's what we do here. That's not, however, what you said. You said those nat'l security interests are undefined. That's not so. They've been defined in the 2010 U.S. National Security Strategy. You likely object to the positions promulgated by the U.S. government.

Those positions, however, would not be "...undefined...".

(COMMENT)

The 2010 NSS mentions Israel 21 times, and talks about interests relative to a number of ongoing Middle East Issues, it doesn't really define what America gains in the US-Israeli relationship; or, what the US would lose in the event that Israel would disappear. The 2010 NSS makes broad brush stokes like:

• The United States, Israel, the Palestinians, and the Arab States have an interest in a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
• We will be unwavering in our pursuit of a comprehensive peace between
  Israel and its neighbors, including a two-state solution that ensures Israel’s security, while fulfilling the Palestinian peoples’ legitimate aspirations for a viable state of their own.
• We will continue to work to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, which has long been a source of tension.
• The United States has important interests in the greater Middle East. They include broad cooperation on a wide range of issues with our close friend, Israel, and an unshakable commitment to its security; the achievement of the Palestinian people’s legitimate aspirations for statehood, opportunity, and the realization of their extraordinary potential; the unity and security of Iraq and the fostering of its democracy and reintegration into the region; the transformation of Iranian policy away from its pursuit of nuclear weapons, support for terrorism, and threats against its neighbors; nonproliferation; and counterterrorism cooperation, access to energy, and integration of the region into global markets.
• Furthermore, our relationship with our Israeli and Arab friends and partners in the region extends beyond our commitment to its security and includes the continued ties we share in areas such as trade, exchanges, and cooperation
  on a broad range of issues.
• We have an array of enduring interests, longstanding commitments and new opportunities for broadening and deepening relationships in the greater Middle East. This includes maintaining a strong partnership with Israel while supporting Israel’s lasting integration into the region. The U.S. also will continue to develop our key security relationships in the region with such Arab states as with Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries—partnerships that enable our militaries and defense systems to work together more effectively.

In fact, based on the 2010 NSS, Israel is the key controversy around which many of the US interests revolve. Extracting Israel from the equation results in an entirely different Middle East, than what we deal with today. If the US were to extricate itself from the Peace efforts altogether, a paradigm shift might occur that could result in a more stable Middle East/Persian Gulf Region.

But whatever the case may be, left to the GCC to resolve its fate on its own, the true National Security Interests of the United States are not really defined here in this document.

"...Israeli security is, "politically speaking," a sacred cow. One cannot challenge that premise without expecting to be challenged...."

So you object to a rhetorical defense of the rationales for Israeli security? Perhaps you object to the security of the Israeli state altogether and would prefer to see it insecure amidst enemies? Both? Please elaborate.

(COMMENT)

In the US-Israeli relationship, it is heavily weighted in one direction. The US Commitment to Israel’s Security Is Essential --- not the other way around.

A set of valid arguments can be made, as to the positive points the US derives from the relationship.

• Military-Industrial economics: 70% of the $3B military aid must be be spent on American military equipment.
• The joint ventures like the "David's Sling and Arrow 3 systems" add to the US R&D resulting in a positive multiplier effect for the US.
• Israel is an importan Port of Call for our troops, ships, aircraft and intelligence operations. Israel permits the stockpile of arms, fuel, munitions and other supplies the US requires in the region.
• And of course, it is often said that Israeli intelligence is critical to gathering information throughout the Middle East/Persian Gulf and invaluable HUMINT about on terrorist organizations and regimes (al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, & Iran).

Nonetheless, our 2007 NIE Iran: Nuclear Intentions And Capabilities strongly suggests otherwise-

"We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons."

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is a glass half-full and half-empty. It is saying that, Iran had some sort of Nuclear Program; but, NOW it has been discontinued for nearly a decade.

Well, I am not so sure that the information we have today, comports with the 2003 NIE, which was compiled under an Intelligence Analysis Environment which was weak. It may also have been contaminated by Israeli Analysis and evidence that was corrupted. Today, the picture has to be completely re-evaluated; with a fresh eye and an unbiased approach. Look at the most current information against the most current allegations.

"...In fact, they have consistently made statements to the contrary; despite being militarily threatened by two Nuclear Powers..."

They've also threatened to close the Gulf Of Hormuz, attacked our soldiers in neighboring countries and sponsored terrorist entities around the world. Their government representatives have also made inflammatory comments suggesting violent intent upon neighboring states.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this they have done. The Regime has been provocative. It has taken steps much like a Super Power. But let's blame them for what they have done; not make-up charges as we go along.

"... I am not defending Iran..."

Without question, I'd assess you are doing exactly that.

(COMMENT)

I prefer to challenge Iran on firm ground, with logic and evidence on my side. I advocate that others follow my lead.

Let's not start a war over an issue that is designed to stop wars. We cannot approach this like a patient with cancer. In order to stop the cancer, you have to kill the patient. Yes that stops the cancer; but to what end?

"...but I must say, the scope and nature of the threats and being in the shadow of an possible attack at any time, is justification enough for a sovereign nation to seek an equal defense and response against Acts of War and Sneak Attacks."

There have been no acts of war nor sneak attacks initiated against Iran by America. None. Iran is entirely justified in withdrawing from the NPT at any time and seeking nuclear weapons at its own risk. Until they do so, choosing to "...seek an equal defense and response..." contravenes their voluntarily-agreed obligations under the NPT.

Of course, you know this.

(COMMENT)

I am glad you agree with the concept of sovereignty.

But, you have to admit, that Israel is suggesting that it consider an attack and publicly transmit that threat to Iran. In fact, so convincing was this threat, that the US had to ask the rhetoric be toned-down.

And what is the risk ("at its own risk") "any" sovereign nation pursuing a nuclear weapon?

In the nominal world - we call this the "veiled threat."

"...The Iranians have since installed in more sophisticated centrifuges that are capable of enrichment into the HEU range.

The importance here is that issues ---- of 6, 8 and 10 years ago, while sounding and suspicious then, are of no significance now, as they are over taken by events..."

So the Iranians have pursued a more sophisticated means of enrichment since 2006?

(COMMENT)

Yes, fully declared IAW the NPT. While they are capable, at the moment, of enriching slightly beyond the HEU threshold; they are not yet capable of producing weapons grade material (nowhere even close).

"...Again that is the same kind of mistake we made in the Iraq WMD debacle; using old intelligence and accepting it as meaningful and accurate..."

Do you allow for the same deceptions and obfuscation from Iran that were engaged by the Iraqis? More of the same also? All that can be easily resolved by Iran permitting full and unfettered inspections. To date they've chosen otherwise.

Of course, you make no allowance that U.S. and other nat'l intelligence entities might be using the most currently available information and collection assets to update their assessments. Why?

(COMMENT)

What deception. There were no post-1991 WMD activity in Iraq. So there was no real deception.

Iran is a sovereign nation. The US doesn't allow unfettered inspection, it must be inside the interests of national security.

US Intelligence of recent times has consistently said that there is no information that would suggest that Iran has a Nuclear Weapons Program.

New York Times report quotes senior American officials who believe there is little disagreement between Israeli and U.S. intelligence over Iran’s nuclear program, despite calls for a strike by Israeli officials.

Published 08:53 18.03.12
Example Source: 'Mossad, CIA agree Iran has yet to decide to build nuclear weapon' - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

"...This is not to say that there is no reason for suspicion."

Your suspicions and reasons would be...?

(COMMENT)

Except for the diplomacy at the Director General's level, I have confidence and trust in the IAEA Inspection Teams. They are never satisfied that the were granted enough access, but that is to be expected. They really want the "Additional Protocols to be ratified by the Iranian Central Government. But the West has been so very pushy and discount Iranian sovereignty out of hand. So I don't expect that to come anytime soon.

Ref: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) :: IAEA and Iran

My suspicions are based on the principle unresolved issues.

From 29 to 31 January 2012, an Agency team held a first round of talks in Tehran with Iranian officials aimed at resolving all outstanding issues. During the talks:

 The Agency explained its concerns and identified the clarification of possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme as the top priority.
 The Agency requested access to the Parchin site, but Iran did not grant access to the site at that time.
 The Agency and Iran had an initial discussion on the approach to clarifying all outstanding issues in connection with Iran’s nuclear programme, including issues to be addressed, initial actions and modalities.
 A draft discussion paper on a structured approach to the clarification of all outstanding issues in connection with Iran’s nuclear programme was prepared for further consideration.

This should be held for another discussion..

Most Respectfully,
R

[Double Edge]

I personally think Israel is too weak to act on their own.

yeah, if after five years of the PR circus, OOE thinks it amounts to no more than fanyboyism

[Doktor]

The 2010 NSS mentions Israel 21 times, and talks about interests relative to a number of ongoing Middle East Issues, it doesn't really define what America gains in the US-Israeli relationship; or, what the US would lose in the event that Israel would disappear.

USA has signed multiple documents with the state of Israel, besides many things they are one of the original Major Non NATO Allies to USA.
IDK what is to be gained or loosed in high politics, but in my world when one of your allies is not on the map any more, your word is worth nothing.