Gates: Bombing Iran won’t stop them from getting nukes

posted at 6:17 pm on April 30, 2009 by Allahpundit

It’s too late. And probably has been for a long time.

Gates told a Senate panel that a military option would only delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions and drive the program further underground, making it more difficult to monitor, he said.

He said the better option would be for the United States and its allies to convince Iran that building a nuclear program would start an arms race that would leave the country less secure.

“Their security interests are actually badly served by trying to have nuclear weapons,” Gates said. “They will start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and they will be less secure at the end than they are now.”…

Clinton and Gates told the panel the United States and its allies should pressure Iran with tougher sanctions.

Reminds me of that DA in California announcing publicly that he won’t prosecute people for misdemeanors anymore. I’m sitting here trying to figure out how it’s a good idea for Gates to admit this, but I’m stumped: Even if it’s a bluff and the Pentagon does think it can stop the program, what do we gain by telling Iran we can’t? It doesn’t give us any extra leverage during negotiations. And is he kidding about convincing them that nukes aren’t in their best interest? The risk of a Middle East arms race was long ago priced into their decision to go nuclear, as was the endless sanctions dance in the UN. Short of Obama threatening to actually give nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia and Iraq to check the Iranian threat, what’s left to discuss except buying them off somehow? It’s all carrot, no stick.

Speaking of negotiating with enemies, see for yourself how much the big photo op with Chavez did to change his disposition towards us.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3

Seems an appropriate place to put this.

Very interesting, yet see the following from Drudge:


by Norman Podhoretz.

What is apparent from the absence in each of these is the mention of our Good Friend:

Ill Kim Jong and the re-start of the N. Korean nuclear proliferation program.
Israel set the time table back, once already, now the Persians are trying to buy more time to play ketchup.

My little Bambi is gonna give them enough time to do all they want to accomplish, Israel be d**ned (Not my sentiments, to be sure).

Please Bibi, castrate these Ghouls (and that is the apt description of them).

OkieDoc on May 1, 2009 at 10:18 PM

This is not a rational leader seeking to gain weapons that would ensure his country’s security.

Disturb the Universe on April 30, 2009 at 7:06 PM

I think you do your argument a disservice by suggesting that the Iranian president is irrational.

He is completely rational but his goals are not our goals, his world view is not our world view. The problem is not his rationality but his desires, intentions and motivations. Acquiring and using nuclear weapons is a perfectly rational way to bring about chaos, if that is what he wants to achieve.

I think it is important to be clear about this for two reasons:

First, because calling him a madman (which he clearly isn’t) will only make you seem unreasonable and distract attention away from the real issue.

Second, because a lot of people in Europe and America need to learn that the whole world does not share their liberal, pseudo-Christian aspirations, values, morals or goals. They need to understand that the liberal ‘western’ view of government and society is not the only game in town and it is not what everybody in the world wants or is working towards.

YiZhangZhe on May 1, 2009 at 10:37 PM

YiZhangZhe

In his 2006 speech before the U. N. Ahmadinejad spoke of his longing for the return of the 12th Imam – which will mark the end of the world. This is madness. You are either uninformed or in denial.

Basilsbest on May 2, 2009 at 8:42 AM

This is madness. You are either uninformed or in denial.

Basilsbest on May 2, 2009 at 8:42 AM

If I refuse to call him irrational it is not because of ignorance or denial but because I am using words precisely, not carelessly.

These people working towards our collective suicide are perfectly sane people who have believed lies and who are now acting on their false beliefs in a perfectly rational manner.

Calling them all “mad” or “irrational” is technically incorrect and sounds merely like a petty insult which is not, I think, a good way to get anybody to take the problem seriously.

YiZhangZhe on May 2, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Even if it’s a bluff and the Pentagon does think it can stop the program, what do we gain by telling Iran we can’t? It doesn’t give us any extra leverage during negotiations.

It’s a warning to Israel.

aengus on May 2, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Gates told a Senate panel that a military option would only delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions …

.
So with this logic, lets just give the technology away to everyone!
.
If they get bombed back to the stoneage then it will take awhile for them to get back up to speed!

JeffVader on May 2, 2009 at 4:41 PM

We delayed the Nazis’ and Imperial Japanese’s nuke programs permanently.

Or has Gates forgotten that much history?

He should resign if he can’t do the job.

And take the lickspittle-in-chief with him

profitsbeard on May 3, 2009 at 1:07 AM

It might make them reconsider.

Star20 on May 3, 2009 at 1:39 AM

It’s all carrot, no stick.

A wimpy little plastic carrot.

petunia on May 3, 2009 at 9:32 AM

HEY GATES IF THERE DEAD THEY CAN’T BUILD SQUAT

wade underhile on May 3, 2009 at 11:10 AM

This doesn’t seem to be a don’t strike/don’t expect help message to Israel. That could easily be sent through back channels. It may be to throw fertilizer on the U.S. public about the inevitability of Iran’s nukes to absolve Obama’s admin. of responsibility for allowing them to succeed.

Iran could be stopped depending on how “p.c.” of a war one wants to fight. Were we to abandon the idea of creating a democracy, occupying or rebuilding Iran, she could easily be crippled, as the country’s gas refinement is a huge weakness. Their offshore oil rigs could be captured/Straits of Hormuz secured/”Navy” obliterated quickly. The communication and electrical grid (like ours) is extremely vulnerable, and underground nuke development bunkers are not a problem, even for conventional munitions. Their fanatics in charge could be atomized at will. Cry havoc.

trl on May 3, 2009 at 11:38 AM

If bombing the country won’t stop it from getting nukes, then you aren’t using a big enough bomb.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on May 4, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3