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

Gates should be waterboarded pronto.

promachus on April 30, 2009 at 6:19 PM

Checkmate.

portlandon on April 30, 2009 at 6:19 PM

Bunkers anyone?

upinak on April 30, 2009 at 6:19 PM

So now Iran has finally gotten the Green light to build nukes ?

Israel still has a veto however.

William Amos on April 30, 2009 at 6:19 PM

Guess we’ll need that European-based missile defense after all…

Cuffy Meigs on April 30, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Well, I’m sure a strong dose of talky-talk will make Iran think twice before nuking Israel.

myrenovations on April 30, 2009 at 6:21 PM

And what about missile defense? What is Obama doing about that?

Loxodonta on April 30, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Gates makes me vomit. Downsizing military in the middle of two wars, giving up on Iran, carrying a torch for a far radical president, helping make America weaker. He’s a client of China. He should be tried for treason imo.

promachus on April 30, 2009 at 6:22 PM

And what about missile defense? What is Obama doing about that?

Loxodonta on April 30, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Lox.. remember he is cutting it!

Alaska and Hawaii are most affected by this.

upinak on April 30, 2009 at 6:22 PM

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.

We have a government of morons. Absolute, complete morons.

peacenprosperity on April 30, 2009 at 6:23 PM

Has Gates always been this stupid?

mimi1220 on April 30, 2009 at 6:23 PM

We are in such deep do-do! NATO countries – No action talk only.

Christian Conservative on April 30, 2009 at 6:23 PM

“It’s all carrot, no stick.”

Let me guess…….

…………. Barack Hussein Obama is President of the United States?

Seven Percent Solution on April 30, 2009 at 6:24 PM

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.

That assumes Iran has the same concerns we do. What if they don’t care about their security?

redshirt on April 30, 2009 at 6:24 PM

Gates IS Bush’s fault!

TruthToBeTold on April 30, 2009 at 6:25 PM

“it’s the end of the Word, as we know it and Obama Feels Fine!”

Dude… if you can’t see it coming.

upinak on April 30, 2009 at 6:25 PM

The circumstances surrounding the opposition’s interests are of key importance in negotiations. They present the easy starting point. Identify where the opponents considerations and conclusions can be made more in line with yours.

Gates is suggesting that the key here is reminding Iran that a regional arms race makes them less safe, which is true. If that conclusion can be negotiated, more fruitful negotiations are sure to follow.

Dr. Kissinger told us last night at the Manhattan Institute’s function that they went to China and began with this: The 42 Russian divisions on China’s northern border. We knew this was the primary Chinese security concern, and their interests happened to align with ours on that matter. From there, more fruitful negotiations did follow.

Regardless of the endgame, the Iranian issue has not been resolved. The final moves are not yet being forced.

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:25 PM

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.

What a load of crap. We could wipe the entire country off the face of the earth if we wanted to. What the hell are they talking about?

Joe Caps on April 30, 2009 at 6:25 PM

don’t worry, all Obama has to do is wave his holy hands, and everything will be alright!!

the Ezekiel option has to play itself out…its gonna be a wild ride…

glad I don’t live in NYC or DC…but I think the libs should be the ones to get the benefits of the new president…

right4life on April 30, 2009 at 6:26 PM

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.

Depends on what your definition of military option is.

elgeneralisimo’s thinking is that a 65% depopulation event would pretty much stop their nuclear ambitions cold…

elgeneralisimo on April 30, 2009 at 6:27 PM

That assumes Iran has the same concerns we do. What if they don’t care about their security?

redshirt on April 30, 2009 at 6:24 PM

they don’t…all they care about is the MAHDI…and helping him appear…and they’ll get their wish.

right4life on April 30, 2009 at 6:28 PM

WTF over, no more F22′s, no missile defense, unilateral nuclear disarmament, negotiate with the “good” Taliban, question Israel for its conduct and now let’s admit the Iranians are untouchable….all this in 100 days. Smart power indeed. Good night America, it was fun while it lasted.

dmann on April 30, 2009 at 6:29 PM

Looks like Barry is calling Bibi’s bluff.

Time to make some glass from sand…..

omnipotent on April 30, 2009 at 6:29 PM

They will start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and they will be less secure at the end than they are now.”…

The Mullahs don’t expect there to be a race. They don’t intend on doing parade laps with their bomb, they intend on using it, ergo no race.

thomasaur on April 30, 2009 at 6:29 PM

A nuclear arms race in the Middle East fueled by whom, Mr. Secretary?

Who will counter the Iranian program? Will we help the Saudis develop their own bomb? The Egyptians?

Where will they get the materials?

SteveMG on April 30, 2009 at 6:29 PM

What a load of crap. We could wipe the entire country off the face of the earth if we wanted to. What the hell are they talking about?

Joe Caps on April 30, 2009 at 6:25 PM

Gates was talking about the Obama Military Option, not the actual military options.

myrenovations on April 30, 2009 at 6:29 PM

Gates is suggesting that the key here is reminding Iran that a regional arms race makes them less safe, which is true. If that conclusion can be negotiated, more fruitful negotiations are sure to follow.

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:25 PM

They don’t care. It’s not about safety.
If it were , we wouldn’t have a problem.

the_nile on April 30, 2009 at 6:30 PM

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.

Only if you don’t bomb them enough.

Gates is such a moronic tool.

progressoverpeace on April 30, 2009 at 6:30 PM

Lox.. remember he is cutting it!

Alaska and Hawaii are most affected by this.

upinak on April 30, 2009 at 6:22 PM

But, Iran and North Korea are developing nuclear capability, and Pakistan is so unstable. So, why would anyone who wants to defend our country choose to reduce defense spending and cut missile defense?

It’s almost as if keeping us safe is not Obama’s top priority.

I wonder what is his top priority?

Loxodonta on April 30, 2009 at 6:30 PM

Maybe we should try anyway.

Firebird on April 30, 2009 at 6:30 PM

Israel needs to take out Gates and Obama and then take care of Iran.

suzyk on April 30, 2009 at 6:31 PM

Gates is suggesting that the key here is reminding Iran that a regional arms race makes them less safe, which is true.

But who will provide the nuclear material for these other countries?

Us? The NORKs? Putin?

We’re not going to allow the Saudis or the Egyptians to get their own bomb.

The Iranians will call our bluff.

SteveMG on April 30, 2009 at 6:31 PM

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

Oh ya, that’ll work, like it’s working so well for North Korea/

Knucklehead on April 30, 2009 at 6:32 PM

The final moves are not yet being forced.

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:25 PM

Correct, nObama us waiting to see the Iranian terms for our surrender.

dmann on April 30, 2009 at 6:32 PM

If that is the case then at some point Israel will just move everyone out of Israel and obilerate the middle east stating with Mecca because then nothing will matter.

izoneguy on April 30, 2009 at 6:32 PM

The only 2 examples of a country backing down from its nuclear ambitions was 1)Libya… through the shock and awe campaign of 2)Iraq, which ceased its efforts after Isreal blew up their reactor.

2 military solutions, yet we have a military leader looking away from these facts.

Unbelievable

Odie1941 on April 30, 2009 at 6:33 PM

They don’t care. It’s not about safety.
If it were , we wouldn’t have a problem.

the_nile on April 30, 2009 at 6:30 PM

One can be made to care. Im not saying negotiations will necessarily be fruitful, but they are a phase of this crisis that must run its course. China was later made to care about its economic future, and that future’s connection to the western liberal economic order. Again, no promises, but its not like we can at this point justify full scale war.

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:33 PM

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?

Does anyone think that Obama would have given the order? Iran isn’t hearing anything that it already hasn’t assumed to be the case. The only question is whether he would be an active or passive obstacle to Israel taking care of the job.

rw on April 30, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Loxodonta on April 30, 2009 at 6:30 PM

Why is he taking funding away from Strategic places like Alaska and Hawaii for missle defenses? Why is he stopping the production of the F-22′s?

Why the HELL did everyone elect someone who has NO knowledge of Foriegn relations, Military understandings, and can’t figure out what languange people in Austria speak?

Need I say more?

upinak on April 30, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Maybe we should try anyway.

Firebird on April 30, 2009 at 6:30 PM

Yeah, we all know how reasonable these guys are.

thomasaur on April 30, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Correct, nObama us waiting to see the Iranian terms for our surrender.

dmann on April 30, 2009 at 6:32 PM

Im sure he is dmann. Im sure he is…

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Can’t wait for Netanyahu’s response to this idiot.

redshirt on April 30, 2009 at 6:34 PM

A country without electrical power in the 21st century is not a threat.
You need electricity to run centrifuges. And to run a nuke program.
The US military can put the hammer down anytime they are tasked. Our AF and Navy are not as engaged as the Army and Marines. The US has the technology to stop Iran cold.

But as Coldwarrior noted: “Do we have the leadership? ” My thoughts — no.

NaCly dog on April 30, 2009 at 6:34 PM

stopped Iraq, didn’t it?

mjk on April 30, 2009 at 6:34 PM

That’s bullshit and Gates knows it. We know where most if not all of their sites are. Destroy those facilities and the mullahs are back to square one in the grand “hidden Imam” apocalyptic plan. Let them rebuild to a certain point then do it again. We could do that for eons.

Guardian on April 30, 2009 at 6:35 PM

another victory in the war on terrorism overseas contingency operation against man-made disasters

corona on April 30, 2009 at 6:35 PM

Odie1941 on April 30, 2009 at 6:33 PM

And South Africa.

NaCly dog on April 30, 2009 at 6:35 PM

Does this mean its a GO for Israel to take Irans nukes out then?

canditaylor68 on April 30, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Gates exhibits exactly the sort of stupidity and cowardice that leads to world wars. It’s all up to Israel, now, after which the West will try to destroy the state. That’s the sort of world we live in.

progressoverpeace on April 30, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Lox… remember how Russia was going to take the top of the Arctic pole… read this which came out yesterday.

The read this! Which came out 3-27-09 and check out the first paragraph.

According to the newspaper The Kommersant, Russia is planning on making its Arctic region the country’s main strategic base by 2016. And how does it plan on doing this? By creating Arctic troops whose sole purpose will be maintaining the security of Russia’s section of the Arctic Ocean.

upinak on April 30, 2009 at 6:36 PM

One can be made to care.

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:33 PM

True , WW2 made Germans and Japanese caring.

the_nile on April 30, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Israel is going to have to be the problem solver again.

Obama will then scold them like a school marm instead of thanking them.

myrenovations on April 30, 2009 at 6:37 PM

wasn’t it obama that gave the word to take out those nasty pirates. i feel safe and scure enough to put my feet up and eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Ghoul aid on April 30, 2009 at 6:37 PM

True , WW2 made Germans and Japanese caring.

the_nile on April 30, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Yep. You may yet get your chance for middle eastern regional conflagration MXVII, but not yet :-)

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:38 PM

I have a question for our military and intel friends of HOT AIR, should we begin the preparations for girding?

thomasaur on April 30, 2009 at 6:39 PM

I have a question for our military and intel friends of HOT AIR, should we begin the preparations for girding?

thomasaur on April 30, 2009 at 6:39 PM

Do you really need to ask that question?

upinak on April 30, 2009 at 6:40 PM

Yep. You may yet get your chance for middle eastern regional conflagration MXVII, but not yet :-)

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:38 PM

If Obama chose to drill for oil in US , the strategic risks would be almost minimal.

the_nile on April 30, 2009 at 6:41 PM

If Obama chose to drill for oil in US , the strategic risks would be almost minimal.

the_nile on April 30, 2009 at 6:41 PM

That is never going to happen.

upinak on April 30, 2009 at 6:41 PM

Gates is suggesting that the key here is reminding Iran that a regional arms race makes them less safe, which is true. If that conclusion can be negotiated, more fruitful negotiations are sure to follow.

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:25 PM

Clearly Iran cares about regional stability. That’s why it’s funded terrorism in Iraq, talked about wiping a neighbor off the map, and continues to pursue a nuclear program that other nations in the region have strongly condemned. Oh, and it’s so concerned that regional stability could affect its security that it’s taunted Israel to attack it through heated rhetoric and expanding the threat to Tel Aviv’s interests.

amerpundit on April 30, 2009 at 6:41 PM

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

A totally vacuous “sound bite” statement as it would depend on how much they were bombed with and what they were bombed with and how often they were bombed.

MB4 on April 30, 2009 at 6:41 PM

One can be made to care. Im not saying negotiations will necessarily be fruitful, but they are a phase of this crisis that must run its course. China was later made to care about its economic future, and that future’s connection to the western liberal economic order. Again, no promises, but its not like we can at this point justify full scale war.

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Made to care?? You have got to be kidding me! The only thing they care about is seeing us dead.

Knucklehead on April 30, 2009 at 6:42 PM

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?

God grief, Gates has gone stupid on us.

petefrt on April 30, 2009 at 6:42 PM

I have a good friend who’s son is currently in Iraq. I have a son who is 19 and finishing up his first year in college.

Yeah, I’m a little concerned that Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State.

Now remind me again how Muslims view women in power? Oh there are no Muslim women in power? Gee, what could go wrong.

PappaMac on April 30, 2009 at 6:42 PM

Gates IS Bush’s fault! He was appointed by Bush and stayed on. I wrote my congressman when he was nominated and asked him to vote against his confirmation. I didn’t follow up to see if he actually voted against the confirmation, but I doubt it. Everyone said that Gates was so smart and knew what he was doing and I didn’t buy that load of BS in the first place. I just had a bad feeling about Gates from the beginning and now my feeling has proven to be right. I had the same feeling about the “peanut brain” in the 70′s and look at what happened when he became president and gave away the Panama Canal and couldn’t rescue our people from the Iranians.

TruthToBeTold on April 30, 2009 at 6:43 PM

I guess now we know why The Precedent was so eager to retain Gates.

Heart ache.

ladyingray on April 30, 2009 at 6:43 PM

One can be made to care. Im not saying negotiations will necessarily be fruitful, but they are a phase of this crisis that must run its course. China was later made to care about its economic future, and that future’s connection to the western liberal economic order. Again, no promises, but its not like we can at this point justify full scale war.

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:33 PM

China, even years ago, was quite a different place than Iran is today.

amerpundit on April 30, 2009 at 6:43 PM

amerpundit on April 30, 2009 at 6:41 PM

Well once they tell us for sure themselves, then we can begin discussing contingencies in earnest. But as far as approaching negotiations, this is a reasonable start point. If it goes nowhere it goes nowhere, but if negotiations are to go anywhere they’ve gotta start there. Thats all he’s saying. Robert Gates isn’t some patsy fool.

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:43 PM

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.

All we have to rely on is the force of the Obamessiah’s winning personality.

This is an unbelievably stupid move to make before entering into ‘negotiations’ with Iran. And a terrific f*ck you to Israel.

ProfessorMiao on April 30, 2009 at 6:44 PM

A totally vacuous “sound bite” statement as it would depend on how much they were bombed with and what they were bombed with and how often they were bombed.

MB4 on April 30, 2009 at 6:41 PM

It’s just a version of “killing terrorists just creates more terrorists”. But worked with the Nazis and Japan, learn from history.

the_nile on April 30, 2009 at 6:44 PM

China, even years ago, was quite a different place than Iran is today.

amerpundit on April 30, 2009 at 6:43 PM

That’s certainly the case, but remember Gates is commenting on strategies withing the framework of initial negotiations. There’s a time and a place for considering the drastic military alternatives, but that time’s not now.

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:44 PM

upinak on April 30, 2009 at 6:25 PM

+1000

btw…hubby managed to buy 2000 primers today…limit was two boxes…

ladyingray on April 30, 2009 at 6:44 PM

Made to care?? You have got to be kidding me! The only thing they care about is seeing us dead.

Knucklehead on April 30, 2009 at 6:42 PM

Ok.

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:45 PM

ladyingray on April 30, 2009 at 6:44 PM

We got some ammo in last week. Gone in seconds… I was pissed!

upinak on April 30, 2009 at 6:45 PM

NaCly dog on April 30, 2009 at 6:35 PM

Correct. What I find interesting is they are the only country to both build, then dismantle their efforts, which happened to coincide with anti-aparthied, i.e. blacks would take back power and couldn’t be trusted.

Interesting indeed.

Odie1941 on April 30, 2009 at 6:46 PM

“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.”…

Sure. Fine. To bad for them. How does that help us, again?

Count to 10 on April 30, 2009 at 6:46 PM

Think about it everyone. This is on the same lines of the “Do you feel safer” thread.

Well Do you “feel” safer???

upinak on April 30, 2009 at 6:47 PM

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

I guess that depends on the scope of the bombing campaign.

innominatus on April 30, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Bombing them will only delay them from getting a nuke, and the only solution is diplomacy? The same sort of diplomacy that’s been going on for countless years now with not even the slightest hint of success?

At this point, I’m OK with bombing even if it only delays them for a while. Even if Gates is correct, better they get the bomb later than sooner.

Hollowpoint on April 30, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Absolutely the most insane handling of national security and foreign policy I’ve ever witnessed.

Iran sees itself as the protector of the new Caliphate. This sort of thing has popped up now and then in their press over the past several years.

If you look at history, in the former various caliphates and empires, there was diversity among adherents to Islam, so the constant talk of Iran being pariah among the Sunni states is pretty much for show. Imagine from Amritsar in India westward to Casablanca, from Mombasa north to Samarkand…all eyes and hearts pointed in common toward the Qaba’.

Now wrap your minds around this could happen within our lifetimes.

No major wars, no major campaigns of subjugation, just starting with a rough federation of consenting states, building more solid links and agreements among them.

Can’t imagine the Saudis putting their wealth at risk by trying to stop Iran, nor the Gulf States, either.

As the larger states come to agreements and a loose federation, the smaller states will have to go along. It’s a bread and butter issue.

The impetus for all of this?

Iran has the heavy metal…and if things go south in Islamabad, Pakistan as well.

So long as nothing overtly hostile is done by Iran…and this SecDef announcement seems to indicate that from our side nothing overtly hositle will be done, either, then it can be an easy slow slide toward that caliphate.

Other than Israel, I can’t see any other state in the region doing anything physical to stop it, and under this Administration, if Israel did do anything, you can bet the farm that this Administration would let the neighbors take care of the noisy one, keeping our hands clean.

Absolutely the most insane handling of national security and foreign policy I’ve ever witnessed.

coldwarrior on April 30, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Well once they tell us for sure themselves, then we can begin discussing contingencies in earnest. But as far as approaching negotiations, this is a reasonable start point. If it goes nowhere it goes nowhere, but if negotiations are to go anywhere they’ve gotta start there. Thats all he’s saying. Robert Gates isn’t some patsy fool.

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:43 PM

He’s basically said that we’ve removed military options from the table. You don’t go into negotiations with your adversary knowing that you have absolutely no intention to do anything other than talk and condemn them if they completely ignore you. You don’t need to threaten them off the bat with air strikes, but you don’t need to remove the presumed back up option.

And from what I’ve seen recently, Gates is a fool. He’s going along with cuts in military programs that field commanders and other military officials believe necessary. He’s setting up the military to be able to fight unconventional forces at the expense of weakening our ability to stave off conventional military threats.

amerpundit on April 30, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Jesus.

therightwinger on April 30, 2009 at 6:48 PM

This pretty much guarantees that Iran will get the bomb. How weak we have become.

msipes on April 30, 2009 at 6:48 PM

I guess that depends on the scope of the bombing campaign.

innominatus on April 30, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Gates is right , they’ll getting nukes .. from orbit.

the_nile on April 30, 2009 at 6:48 PM

The video in that link to the Mark Steyn Youtube clip doesn’t work. Maybe they took it down?

blue13326 on April 30, 2009 at 6:48 PM

Not even if we use a neutron bomb?

tgibson1962 on April 30, 2009 at 6:49 PM

Tomorrow when asked about it, Andy Gibbs will tell us, “What Gates was actually saying was….”.

PappaMac on April 30, 2009 at 6:49 PM

Gates: We can’t stop your program. We won’t even try. Will you negotiate with us to stop your program?

Iran: Yeah. I don’t think so.

Gates: Please?

lorien1973 on April 30, 2009 at 6:49 PM

upinak on April 30, 2009 at 6:45 PM

I feel your pain. Hubby called to tell me about and was apologetic…I said, “Buy it”. (price was outrageous based on past purchases!)

ladyingray on April 30, 2009 at 6:49 PM

Yet another foreign policy miscue for the One.

It’s like he’s an empty suit who has no foreign policy experience or something.

WisCon on April 30, 2009 at 6:50 PM

We have the leadership in place and we’re on the move.

The problem is our leader is taking us in the wrong direction down a dark alley where an ambush awaits.

econavenger on April 30, 2009 at 6:50 PM

EMP burst about 30 miles up would end the program.

lorien1973 on April 30, 2009 at 6:51 PM

Only if you don’t bomb them enough.

Gates is such a moronic tool.

progressoverpeace on April 30, 2009 at 6:30 PM

“If overwhelming firepower isn’t getting results, consider that you might not be using enough.”
-some collectible gaming card.

Count to 10 on April 30, 2009 at 6:51 PM

Bombing won’t stop Iran from getting Nukes?

I guess that depends on which kind are dropped.
Let me suggest B-83s http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/B83.html

Kuffar on April 30, 2009 at 6:52 PM

lorien1973 on April 30, 2009 at 6:49 PM

Exactly. You don’t go into negotiations telling your adversary that you don’t have the capability to stop them even if talks break down.

amerpundit on April 30, 2009 at 6:52 PM

amerpundit on April 30, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Well then theres our point of disagreement I suppose. There’s no need to telegraph one’s eagerness to go to war. The world knows that should talks break down and a more serious confrontation emerge, that the United States will defend itself.

This was the premise behind most of our nuclear talks with Russia throughout the modern presidencies. Theres a time for the more aggressive posture you favor, but some would argue that the time for that is only clear once other more palatable options have been tried and found unsuccessful.

ernesto on April 30, 2009 at 6:52 PM

The problem is our leader is taking us in the wrong direction down a dark alley where an ambush awaits.

econavenger on April 30, 2009 at 6:50 PM

Don’t forget the glow in the dark hats.
: )

thomasaur on April 30, 2009 at 6:52 PM

Gates, you disappoint me…and you are letting down my Airman son…

ladyingray on April 30, 2009 at 6:52 PM

Saying there will be an arms race in the Middle East would be no deterent for Iran. From their perspective, having nuclear weapons would ensure that their country is safe from conventional warfare and that Israel could not use nuclear blackmail to impose its will on Iran. Nuclear deterent worked for the US and the Soviet Union and would likely work for Iran, too. Personally, I can’t see Iran using nuclear weapons in an offensive capacity, even against Israel, without risking retaliation by the United States. From a security perspective, however, it does somewhat free up Iran’s conventional forces to use as they see fit. In that respect, it might provoke a conventional arms race, but then, that’s nothing new in the Middle East.

NNtrancer on April 30, 2009 at 6:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3