Iran tests missiles again, candidates react
posted at 10:10 am on July 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Iran tested its missile technology again, firing nine missiles in a transparent message to both Israel and the US. Saying that their missiles “will always be ready to launch”, the Iranian commander of the Revolutionary Guard Air Force warned that “empty psychological operations” would not intimidate Tehran. The White House told them to calm down:
Revolutionary Guards air force commander Hossein Salami said in televised comments that thousands of missiles were ready to be fired at “pre-determined targets.” Missiles were shown soaring from desert launchpads, leaving long vapor trails.
“We warn the enemies who intend to threaten us with military exercises and empty psychological operations that our hand will always be on the trigger and our missiles will always be ready to launch,” he said, according to ISNA news agency.
The White House told Iran to “refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek to gain the trust of the world.”
Both presidential candidates weighed in on the test. Barack Obama spoke to Matt Lauer on Today:
John McCain, meanwhile, responded with this statement:
Iran’s most recent missile tests demonstrate again the dangers it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel. Ballistic missile testing coupled with Iran’s continued refusal to cease its nuclear activities should unite the international community in efforts to counter Iran’s dangerous ambitions. Iran’s missile tests also demonstrate the need for effective missile defense now and in the future, and this includes missile defense in Europe as is planned with the Czech Republic and Poland. Working with our European and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy.
Obama’s response is a muddle. He wants “much tougher” economic sanctions, which the Bush administration would also like, but can’t get because of Russia and China. Obama then says we should “avoid provocation”, which contradicts his own statement about “much tougher” economic sanctions. Sanctions are provocations; otherwise, they wouldn’t work at all.
And let’s not forget how Obama acted when given the opportunity to impose tougher sanctions on Iran. He voted against the Kyl-Lieberman bill that named the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, placing those tougher sanctions on the Iranian military and everyone associated with them. His website still brags about that vote, and Obama attacked Hillary Clinton for supporting it. Why? Maybe because he didn’t consider Iran a threat, until, you know, he did.
Also, listen to the first part of his response. Obama says he would first need to “gather intelligence” before responding. That’s very similar to what Obama said in a debate, in response to a Tim Russert question about his response to an attack on American cities conducted by al-Qaeda, identified by irrefutable evidence. How much intel does one need to gather on a missile test using well-known systems? It’s pretty clear they went up in the air, and it’s pretty clear that the Iranians openly challenged us with it.
He then walks through the tired “outsourcing” argument on diplomacy with Iran. The US has pursued a multilateral approach with Iran, leveraging the trading relationships with Iran’s partners in Europe. We do not have diplomatic relations with Iran for good reason — they sponsor terrorism around the world, targeting American assets and those of our allies. Democrats used to complain that Bush was a unilateralist, and now they complain that he’s not. It’s absurd, especially since the supposed partner with whom Obama would speak, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is the worst provocateur in the region.
McCain has this right. The best response to Iran’s missile testing is the rapid deployment of anti-missile technology within the range of the Shahab-2 and -3 missiles, as well as increased diplomatic and economic isolation.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air


Bobby Jindal: Paternalistic, big-government liberalism is the biggest loser here

Super Nannies: EU bans olive oils, Germany ponders Autobahn speed limit






Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.
hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?
mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?
parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM
They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.
They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.
A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM
MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.
rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM
I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.
fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM
Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!
And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM
They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM
Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!
KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM
I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.
Do they even know or care that they are morons.
marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM
His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.
DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:
You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM
That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM
Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.
myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2