NYT: Secret Gates memo warns that U.S. has no strategy for dealing with a nuclear Iran

posted at 9:13 pm on April 17, 2010 by Allahpundit

A Saturday night bombshell to scramble the scheduled Sunday morning chat show salutes to Obama’s dopey nuclear summit. Read it now so that you’ll have the proper frame of mind when Paul Krugman or whoever starts prattling on about what a big accomplishment it was to get Ukraine to give up their uranium.

Several officials said the highly classified analysis, written in January to President Obama’s national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, touched off an intense effort inside the Pentagon, the White House and the intelligence agencies to develop new options for Mr. Obama. They include a revised set of military alternatives, still under development, to be considered should diplomacy and sanctions fail to force Iran to change course…

Pressed on the administration’s ambiguous phrases until now about how close the United States was willing to allow Iran’s program to proceed, a senior administration official described last week in somewhat clearer terms that there was a line Iran would not be permitted to cross.

The official said that the United States would ensure that Iran would not “acquire a nuclear capability,” a step Tehran could get to well before it developed a sophisticated weapon. “That includes the ability to have a breakout,” he said, using the term nuclear specialists apply to a country that suddenly renounces the nonproliferation treaty and uses its technology to build a small arsenal…

Mr. Gates’s memo appears to reflect concerns in the upper echelons of the Pentagon and the military that the White House did not have a well-prepared series of alternatives in place in case all the diplomatic steps finally failed.

Of course they didn’t prepare alternatives. How could they possibly fathom that diplomacy might fail? The core plank of “smart power,” such as it is, has always been the Obama charm offensive. Simply by being the anti-Bush and offering an open hand to Iran, he would convince Tehran to unclench its fist and open a dialogue. Bush was the problem (he always is!) and once the problem was removed, solutions would inevitably follow. So why bother developing a Plan B? The result: Iran’s now enriching uranium to 20 percent purity and rolling out advanced centrifuges, which means nuclear “breakout” capacity, i.e. the ability to build a bomb quickly even if they haven’t yet done so, won’t be long in coming. I can’t believe The One would ever order a strike on Iran — see this Aussie op-ed citing security sources who claim the U.S. has all but given up on stopping them from building a bomb — so Israel’s going to do what it has to do sooner rather than later. In fact, in my darker Machiavellian moments, I wonder if one of the reasons The One has picked a fight with Netanyahu lately is because he knows they’re planning to act and wants to put maximum distance between America and Israel before they do. Iran will blame Washington for ordering the attack anyway, but plausible deniability may limit the extent of the reprisals.

No need to put all the blame on Obama here, though. Bush knew what it would mean to hand this issue off to a Democratic president and he went ahead and did it anyway. Invading Iraq necessarily left him with fewer military options against other threats; now the bill is coming due. As for Europe, Russia, and China, here’s the Times’s almost poignant description of the White House’s naivete: “Administration officials had hoped that the revelation by Mr. Obama in September that Iran was building a new uranium enrichment plant inside a mountain near Qum would galvanize other nations against Iran, but the reaction was muted.” The fact that western powers had been waltzing with Iran over its nuke program for fully seven years at that point might have given them a clue that no action would be taken, but that’s “smart power” for you.

Exit question: Why was this leaked now? The memo was written in January but only today are “government officials” finally whispering about it to the Times. Normally I’d assume that it was leaked by the White House itself in yet another naive attempt to pressure allied powers about the severity of the threat, but the story’s simply too embarrassing to Obama. Presumably the leakers are insiders who are worried that, three months later, we’re still not taking the prospect of an Iranian bomb seriously enough. We will be tomorrow.

Update: One further thought. From time to time, to illustrate how thoroughly U.S. military strategists prepare for all possible contingencies, you’ll hear pundits remark offhandedly that the Pentagon even has war plans against Great Britain or Canada stashed in a drawer somewhere. I used to believe that was basically (if not literally) true, but good luck reconciling it with this story. Again: Iran’s nuclear program was publicly revealed seven years ago. Obama was still years away from running for Senate when the idea of Iranian nuclear weapons popped onto the world’s radar screen. And yet here we are in 2010 racing to come up with options in case Iran … develops nuclear weapons. Simply unbelievable.

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

So what does the leaking of this info actually do in terms of updating the plan(s)? Who’s this supposed to prod?

Weight of Glory on April 17, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Good question, Weight of Glory. I don’t think we know for sure anyone has a pragmatic plan for what this leak is supposed to do.

If the NYT had an idea of how it wanted this to shape our thinking, though, that would be obvious. I suspect what we’re seeing, rather than a plan, is the wheels coming off the bus.

Gates’ memo is one he should never have had to write. It comes off as what sailors would call a request for “orders to the helm” — something the helmsman asks for when the ship’s immediate navigational situation is worsening and the OOD or the captain hasn’t given him an order that makes sense. You can’t just plan to blow stuff up, you have to have guidance from the Boss (i.e., POTUS) as to what objective he wants to achieve. Gates’ memo, assuming the NYT information is good, indicates that that guidance hasn’t been updated by Obama’s NSC team to suit the changing circumstances of Iran’s nuclear program.

J.E. Dyer on April 17, 2010 at 10:23 PM

you know, you would think the Saudis cared about a nuclear Iran. What do yall think they think?

kelley in virginia on April 17, 2010 at 10:21 PM

This might prompt the Saudis to become a nuclear power themselves. They have the money and the scientists to make it happen. They might even be able to do it faster than Iran is going.

Liam on April 17, 2010 at 10:23 PM

I am in agreement that the DOD does have many strategies. Obama won’t make up his mind. Therefore he does nothing. This is his strategy. Iran will get the bomb. They figured it out last year when they discovered how weak Obama is. They understood that he wouldn’t do anything.
Obama’s foreign policy was evident during the election. Our enemies had nothing to fear from him. If State leaked this info I would be surprised. Hillary wouldn’t have done anything either. I don’t know how in the world we are going to survive this man for another 2 years.

BetseyRoss on April 17, 2010 at 10:25 PM

you know, you would think the Saudis cared about a nuclear Iran. What do yall think they think?

kelley in virginia on April 17, 2010 at 10:21 PM

those ambivalent effers–any enemy of Israel is a proxy friend of Saudi Arabia, at least until they can see the turdpile that their noses are in. They had to be cajoled, bribed and continuously brought along again and again during Desert Storm to protect their own homeland.

If there is anyone pooping bricks it’s probably Turkey.

ted c on April 17, 2010 at 10:26 PM

kelley in virginia on April 17, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Apologies

thomasaur on April 17, 2010 at 10:26 PM

ted c on April 17, 2010 at 10:19 PM

The only good Islamist is a (insert comment usually forwarded by grunts directed at Marines)

dmann on April 17, 2010 at 10:27 PM

No need to put all the blame on Obama here, though. Bush knew what it would mean to hand this issue off to a Democratic president and he went ahead and did it anyway. Invading Iraq necessarily left him with fewer military options against other threats; now the bill is coming due.

Weak and stupid analysis. If Bush had not invaded Iraq it too would be developing nuclear weapons. Bush had little choice but to hand the issue off to his successor. He had no support from 2006 to the end of his presidency.

Basilsbest on April 17, 2010 at 10:27 PM

If State leaked this info I would be surprised. Hillary wouldn’t have done anything either. I don’t know how in the world we are going to survive this man for another 2 years.

BetseyRoss on April 17, 2010 at 10:25 PM

it’s doubtful that a state leak would lead to a DoD memo like this, IMO.

ted c on April 17, 2010 at 10:29 PM

He had no support from 2006 to the end of his presidency.

Basilsbest on April 17, 2010 at 10:27 PM

or even after his presidency…

ted c on April 17, 2010 at 10:30 PM

nite folks.

ted c on April 17, 2010 at 10:31 PM

hey kelley====> mcpadden?

consider him…

ted c on April 17, 2010 at 10:32 PM

So what was Bush supposed to do before turning this over to a Dem POTUS?

d1carter on April 17, 2010 at 10:33 PM

Again: Iran’s nuclear program was publicly revealed seven years ago.

This has been an issue for a long long time

In January 1995, Russian Minister of Atomic Energy Viktor Mikhailov and the head of the Atomic Energy Agency of Iran, Reza Amrollahi, signed a $800 million contract calling for Russia to complete the first unit of the unfinished nuclear power station at Bushehr by installing a 1,000MW VVER-1000 light-water reactor at the site within four and a half years.[1] Construction of a nuclear power station at Bushehr had been started in 1974 by the German firm Siemens as part of the Shah’s nuclear program. However, work stopped after the Iranian revolution of 1979, and the site was heavily damaged by bombing during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. Iran tried to find a contractor to finish the plant during the 1980s, but failed owing to US pressure on potential suppliers.

I would be shocked if this were actually true. I suspect that the Pentagon has many plans that this Administration doesn’t like because they are to “warlike”.

Dawnsblood on April 17, 2010 at 10:34 PM

Completely, utterly, breathtakingly incompetent. Total failure at everything but kowtowing to dictators. Unable to distinguish “real-life” situations from “academic exercises.”
And still, they find a way to spiral downward…

n0doz on April 17, 2010 at 10:36 PM

So what was Bush supposed to do before turning this over to a Dem POTUS?

d1carter on April 17, 2010 at 10:33 PM

He was supposed to make sure that the affirmative action presidency of Barack Obama ran smoothly and without bumps in the road.

thomasaur on April 17, 2010 at 10:36 PM

I think this leak is designed to stop Israel from acting….since it makes it seem as though Obama does not want Iran to go nuclear. It looks like we are developing a plan, not to worry little Israel, we will take care of this problem…and then BAM! No action from the US and Iran is past the point of no return.

cab8505 on April 17, 2010 at 10:39 PM

I suspect what we’re seeing, rather than a plan, is the wheels coming off the bus.
J.E. Dyer on April 17, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Well that’s a pleasant thought. If that is indeed the case, then how long until we start seeing more vocal, direct, and public votes of no confidence within the DOD or CIA towards the WH and visa versa?

Weight of Glory on April 17, 2010 at 10:41 PM

We have no plan because we want no plan. “We” are above all that. “We” are the negotiating intellectuals, the superiors of the world. Liberals will have us all killed. GWB was no conservative either.

Israel must do what she needs to do to survive.

This bunch will not help her.

Schadenfreude on April 17, 2010 at 10:48 PM

…how long until we start seeing more vocal, direct, and public votes of no confidence within the DOD or CIA towards the WH and visa versa?

Weight of Glory on April 17, 2010 at 10:41 PM

Wish I knew. The fact that NYT simply reported this, without finding a way to spin it in Obama’s favor, is the most telling detail to me. It doesn’t fit “the narrative,” which NYT has been pretty slavish about adhering to. The absence of a tendentious spin is kind of like the dog not barking in the night. Something other than senior-level leakers and lefty reporters using each other to manufacture a persuasive narrative is going on.

J.E. Dyer on April 17, 2010 at 10:50 PM

In the meanwhile Geraldo focuses on the ‘dangerous’ tea partiers and how right Bill Clinton is.

Our country elected a bunch of idealistic teenagers, full of themselves.

We’re going under with their noses in the air.

Narcissism rejoice!

Schadenfreude on April 17, 2010 at 10:52 PM

He’s an amateur – good work America! /

CWforFreedom on April 17, 2010 at 10:52 PM

d1carter on April 17, 2010 at 10:33 PM

Ask the all knowing AP……he threw the 1st punch!

dmann on April 17, 2010 at 10:53 PM

J.E. Dyer, the NYTs, aside from relishing to dwell in Obama’s pants, fear for their own lives too. That’s all they know. Fear overcomes all, even heat.

Schadenfreude on April 17, 2010 at 10:54 PM

Trolls are conspicuously missing.

CWforFreedom on April 17, 2010 at 10:54 PM

No need to put all the blame on Obama here, though. Bush knew what it would mean to hand this issue off to a Democratic president and he went ahead and did it anyway. Invading Iraq necessarily left him with fewer military options against other threats; now the bill is coming due.

What an amazingly stupid paragraph. What was Bush supposed to do? Not hand off power to Obama?

Point #2: “Invading Iraq left him with fewer options”
And you believe he would have had MORE options if Saddam was still in power??

Don’t be such a putz AP.

PackerBronco on April 17, 2010 at 10:56 PM

So what was Bush supposed to do before turning this over to a Dem POTUS? d1carter on April 17, 2010 at 10:33 PM

Well according to AP he was supposed to bomb Iran. With no support. Or perhaps just do something. There was a woman in my community who would yell her head off at hockey games. When she had run out of things to say she would yell: do something. AP reminds me of her. He wants something done but he won’t call for the only thing which will stop Iran.

America recently had a president who did something, which turned out to be very unpopular but which made the world a whole lot safer. He left office with an approval rating in the 20′s.

We are moving inexorably to a nuclear war in the middle east. We have a naive charmer in the White House who is adept at reading fatuous speeches and has the mentality of a college sophomore. Anyone who feels safe with this guy in charge is nuts.

Basilsbest on April 17, 2010 at 10:57 PM

J.E. Dyer on April 17, 2010 at 10:50 PM

Thanks for your insight.

Weight of Glory on April 17, 2010 at 10:57 PM

Forget Iran. Fight the real enemy….
The Teabaggers.

RobCon on April 17, 2010 at 11:00 PM

What an amazingly stupid paragraph. What was Bush supposed to do? Not hand off power to Obama?

NO. You drew a “stupid” conclusion. AP didn’t meant not to hand the presidency to O, but rather to have addressed the issues before it came to that point…and you know this and are just looking for a nonsensical fight.

Point #2: “Invading Iraq left him with fewer options”
And you believe he would have had MORE options if Saddam was still in power??

Don’t be such a putz AP.

PackerBronco on April 17, 2010 at 10:56 PM

AP was for the Iraq war, so you’re fighting with yourself on this one too. You can spar with AP, but not on these two topics.

He has the analysis of this topic absolutely right, from quite a few angles.

Schadenfreude on April 17, 2010 at 11:00 PM

J.E. Dyer on April 17, 2010 at 10:50 PM

You don’t find it unusual for a “senior administration official” to be stating categorically that Iran will be pre-empted (by whatever means) prior to breakout capacity? That goes way beyond any public statement I’ve seen from this administration, and in specificity beyond anything I recall from Bush days. In fact, if a “senior administration official” had said something like that during Bush days, it would have launched interstellar WAR!!!! alerts.

CK MacLeod on April 17, 2010 at 11:01 PM

Most importantly, the Buffoon on Chief, the foolish peacock, and his teenager guard, missed the HUGE opportunity to help the protesters in Iran. All this might not even be a topic for discussion if we wouldn’t have such idiots in charge.

How many people have been freed since Obama has been elected? How many?

Schadenfreude on April 17, 2010 at 11:03 PM

He has the analysis of this topic absolutely right, from quite a few angles.Schadenfreude on April 17, 2010 at 11:00 PM

PackerBronco is right. You and AP overlook the fact that after Iraq turned difficult in 2005 Bush had no support to do anything with Iran.

Basilsbest on April 17, 2010 at 11:06 PM

We are moving inexorably to a nuclear war in the middle east. We have a naive charmer in the White House who is adept at reading fatuous speeches and has the mentality of a college sophomore. Anyone who feels safe with this guy in charge is nuts.

Basilsbest on April 17, 2010 at 10:57 PM

You’re mostly right, but use of the word “war” assumes Obow-mao would fight back when the snit hit the fan.

If Nero had a Waffle House, would he have spent so much time practicing the violin?

Laura in Maryland on April 17, 2010 at 11:08 PM

He has the analysis of this topic absolutely right, from quite a few angles.

Schadenfreude on April 17, 2010 at 11:00 PM

I’ll give you the first point and truth be told, I wrote that with tongue in cheek. I knew what he meant.

But as for the second point: do you really believe that he would have had more options with Saddam in power in Iraq?

PackerBronco on April 17, 2010 at 11:08 PM

Does anyone remember madelinehalfbright saying, during the clinton administration, that she didn’t think we should be the only super power?

Bambi on April 17, 2010 at 11:08 PM

We are moving inexorably to a nuclear war in the middle east. We have a naive charmer in the White House who is adept at reading fatuous speeches and has the mentality of a college sophomore. Anyone who feels safe with this guy in charge is nuts.

Basilsbest on April 17, 2010 at 10:57 PM

I LOVE the way you summed this up. How true, how true, how sad!

On the other hand, what Bush could have done is to support the opposition in Iran. There was much focus on Iraq and Afghanistan, and on internal battles, reelection and etc…

No one, not even AP, claimed that Bush should have bombed Iran. There were other means. Again, this primadonna could have changed Iran not so long ago, and missed a HUGE opportunity there. He was fighting to keep the communist in charge in Honduras instead, while being too much in love with himself. Fool in Chief! Fear for what’s next. Ah, he also focused for a year and a half on….Obamacare…not Iran, and not jobs…may these two make his tail fall off.

Schadenfreude on April 17, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Easy exoplanation for this leak. Obama is going to fire Gates. Now he has a reason.

rockmom on April 17, 2010 at 11:10 PM

You don’t find it unusual for a “senior administration official” to be stating categorically that Iran will be pre-empted (by whatever means) prior to breakout capacity? That goes way beyond any public statement I’ve seen from this administration, and in specificity beyond anything I recall from Bush days. In fact, if a “senior administration official” had said something like that during Bush days, it would have launched interstellar WAR!!!! alerts.

Sure they will. Not by this bunch. This reminds me of Obama’s promises. All of them. An empty boast.

Basilsbest on April 17, 2010 at 11:10 PM

We have a naive charmer in the White House who is adept at reading fatuous speeches and has the mentality of a college sophomore. Anyone who feels safe with this guy in charge is nuts.

Basilsbest on April 17, 2010 at 10:57 PM

Correction – much as I loved the summation, I disagree with the “charming” part. He is not a charmer. He is naive, though…and full of himself, like no one else in history, ever before, and hopefully never after…

Schadenfreude on April 17, 2010 at 11:13 PM

CK MacLeod on April 17, 2010 at 11:01 PM

CKM — I agree that couching the matter in those specific terms is unusual for communication coming from a “senior administration official.”

But the use of the terms is easily explained by the passage of time and the situation we are in now. “Breakout capacity” is what we are on the threshold of now, as we were not in the period 2003 to early 2009. I’m sure that the buzzphrase in the halls of national security policy is, today, interdicting “breakout capacity.” That’s a natural development given the progress of events in Iran.

What I find of more interest is the NYT acceptance of the terms in which the leaker(s) spoke, with no apparent reflection on the impression they would leave or what could be read into them. Besides a breakdown of the “narrative” itself, there’s a hint, perhaps, of loss of access — of the journos not having enough inside scoop to spin with confidence.

None of that means I think Obama has a secret master plan. It’s more likely that there isn’t anything coherent to know.

J.E. Dyer on April 17, 2010 at 11:15 PM

Smell the Change ™

Mason on April 17, 2010 at 11:16 PM

And yet here we are in 2010 racing to come up with options in case Iran … develops nuclear weapons. Simply unbelievable.

I’m sure there are plenty of plans filed away in the Pentagon. What doesn’t exist is one that has been passed forward to be run before the civilian authorities.

Let’s face it, this really is Bush’s fault. He should have taken them out in 2004 or 5. Certainly he should have acted, as so many of us thought he would, to defuse this danger before the Democrats took power. He shirked his responsibility and has placed America at great risk.

rcl on April 17, 2010 at 11:18 PM

And it is a bad call to suggest that Bush kicked this can to Obama. By invading Iraq and Afghanistan and allowing democratic rule in both nations that border Iran, Bush created the circumstances for democracy and a peaceful government to develop in Iran. And this was very close to happening. Ahmadinejad had to rig an election and then brutally suppress a popular uprising to remain in power. It very nearly unfolded in a way that would have made Bush look like a genius, changing the most dangerous government in the world without firing a shot.

rockmom on April 17, 2010 at 11:20 PM

Maybe the Times assumes its readership is so anti-war that it doesn’t care if we have a plan for dealing with Iran or not. Remember that the majority of Jews in this country still view Obama favorably even though he’s been giving the diplomatic finger to Israel for pretty much the last year now. Also, the editorial staff of this paper is now so far removed from reality that, to them, this might be more an attempt at embarrassing Gates than Obama. Questioning the boss is only patriotic when there is an R in the White House, you know.

NoLeftTurn on April 17, 2010 at 11:25 PM

Color me unsurprised on this. Do you remember that suspicious and what has turned out to be highly partisan 2007 NIE report on Iran? That was a partisan effort to intercept Bush from taking action on Iran which is all the democrats cared about at the time. The democrats only know how to play politics. They are clueless on geo-politics. They just don’t know how to “finish” as they say in futbol.

KickandSwimMom on April 17, 2010 at 11:25 PM

None of that means I think Obama has a secret master plan. It’s more likely that there isn’t anything coherent to know.

J.E. Dyer on April 17, 2010 at 11:15 PM

It’s just that stating categorically that Iran won’t be allowed to go nuclear – figuratively drawing a line in the sand, and stating that there IS a line that Iran won’t be allowed to cross – is so different from all of the other messaging we’ve gotten, which has tended to suggest just the opposite. The “breakout” language in that context was narrowing the freedom of movement even further – as in, just in case you think we’re going to let them go much further…

Really very peculiar – heartening in a way if the info can be trusted. The fact that it’s embedded in the piece and not the headline makes it stranger. It’s as though we’ve always been at war with Eastasia everyone is supposed to assume that standing Obama policy was to pre-empt, all options on the table, if it came to that… tho who knows what else might be going on…

CK MacLeod on April 17, 2010 at 11:26 PM

I’m inclined to interpret this as:

1. There were contingency plans for dealing with scenario A, B and C regarding Iran and nukes that BHO inherited from President Bush.

2. BHO tossed them into the trash because he had better ideas.

3. BHO’s better ideas are laughable and not working.

4. BHO is ignorant of reality with respect to middle east politics and power play tug of wars.

5. BHO’s ignorance combined with his narcisism means that there is a paralysis in formulating alternatives to President Bush’s contingencies.

Hootowl on April 17, 2010 at 11:26 PM

As I recall Obama all but said that if he got elected his super personality would be enough to umm disarm Iran.

I sure do recall Leftist friends feeding me that line under the banner of “being respected in the world”. A notion not high on my list of keeping us safe domestically or otherwise.

Sharr on April 17, 2010 at 11:26 PM

Let’s face it, this really is Bush’s fault. He should have taken them out in 2004 or 5. Certainly he should have acted, as so many of us thought he would, to defuse this danger before the Democrats took power. He shirked his responsibility and has placed America at great risk.rcl on April 17, 2010 at 11:18 PM

Bush should have taken them out while fighting three other wars: Iraq, Afghanistan and opposition from the Democrats, the media, academia and Hollywood at home. Good grief. What an ignorant comment. Surely your comment is sarcasm.

Bush put his Presidency on the line for an ungrateful country. The blame for what lies ahead is squarely on the shoulders of his successor. He took office with such support that he could have done what was necessary. Those who supported Obama and slanged Bush for 8 years also deserve their share of blame for the nuclear holocaust which is coming.

Basilsbest on April 17, 2010 at 11:31 PM

Bush put his Presidency on the line for an ungrateful country. The blame for what lies ahead is squarely on the shoulders of his successor. He took office with such support that he could have done what was necessary. Those who supported Obama and slanged Bush for 8 years also deserve their share of blame for the nuclear holocaust which is coming.

Basilsbest on April 17, 2010 at 11:31 PM

100% agree with this. In fact, Bush came damn close to finishing the job until the bogus 2007 NIE came out on Iran – which was a partisan effort to kill his plans.

KickandSwimMom on April 17, 2010 at 11:33 PM

PackerBronco is right. You and AP overlook the fact that after Iraq turned difficult in 2005 Bush had no support to do anything with Iran.

Basilsbest

Not only that, there was the issue of that little NIE that came out in 2006-2007 that said Iran gave up their nuke program 4-5 years earlier, and were not interested in nuclear weapons after all, leading the usual suspects to claim Bush-Cheney were trying to lie us into war with Iran the way he lied us into war with Iraq.

Funny how not long after Obummer was elected that a new NIE came out saying “oops, Iran really is pursuing nukes”.

xblade on April 17, 2010 at 11:33 PM

But as for the second point: do you really believe that he would have had more options with Saddam in power in Iraq?

PackerBronco on April 17, 2010 at 11:08 PM

NO, nor did or would I ever claim such, nor did AP, nor would he.

I’m glad Saddam is with the…virgins, er, the ants/worms.

Schadenfreude on April 17, 2010 at 11:37 PM

Do you remember that suspicious and what has turned out to be highly partisan 2007 NIE report on Iran? That was a partisan effort to intercept Bush from taking action on Iran which is all the democrats cared about at the time

Yes, it is nonsense to suggest that after 4 years of Bush lied/people died he could done anything in the face of that conspiratorial report and being attacked from every quarter.

Basilsbest on April 17, 2010 at 11:37 PM

Ap you failed to read that Obama did not even get briefed on the nuclear weapons program until months into his term. He has no options or didn’t figure he needed any because he is so persuasive with intelligent people. And to say that Bush handed it off the Obama is absurd from the perspective that you infer. Bush had no public support for what he had already accomplished and yet you think he should have attacked Iran? You are getting awfully close to the nonviolent principles of John Paul Stevens. How do your write this crap without going back to what was happening at the time?

inspectorudy on April 17, 2010 at 11:39 PM

CK MacLeod on April 17, 2010 at 11:26 PM

I actually disagree with your thesis, CKM. Both Bush and Obama have said repeatedly that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable and they wouldn’t allow it to happen. There is nothing new about being categorical in that regard.

The newness lies in referring specifically to interdicting breakout capacity. Maybe you have to have experience with this stuff, but that formulation reeks of Pentagon talk to me. It means precisely as much as the moral will behind it; no more or less.

Again, we didn’t have the imminent prospect of breakout capacity to talk about before about March of 2009. Now we do, so that’s what anyone who’s talking about it in the halls of government is saying. “Breakout capacity.” “Breakout capacity.”

It sounds specific because the closer we get to an Iranian bomb, the more specific will be the junctures at which the game changes. It’s inherent with where we are on the timeline, and not necessarily a function of trends in policy.

Another note: all along we could have been talking about interdicting breakout capacity, in those exact words, because that’s the big, watershed event and was always going to be. But talking about it earlier than now would have been tipping our policy hand unnecessarily. It’s too specific a signal for Bush to have had a reason to send while he was in office.

J.E. Dyer on April 17, 2010 at 11:43 PM

But as for the second point: do you really believe that he would have had more options with Saddam in power in Iraq?

PackerBronco on April 17, 2010 at 11:08 PM

NO, nor did or would I ever claim such, nor did AP, nor would he.

I’m glad Saddam is with the…virgins, er, the ants/worms.

Schadenfreude on April 17, 2010 at 11:37 PM

Sf

AP suggested Bush could have dealt with Iran if he hadn’t invaded Iraq. This overlooks the fact that Iraq would now be developing nuclear weapons if Saddam had not been removed.

We are in this pickle because the Democrats and the media politicized defense. And the public is more interested in Paris Hilton than Paris.

Basilsbest on April 17, 2010 at 11:44 PM

How do your write this crap without going back to what was happening at the time? inspectorudy on April 17, 2010 at 11:39 PM

Bravo. How indeed.

Basilsbest on April 17, 2010 at 11:45 PM

DOD has all sorts of Defense Planning Scenarios, but I’m told the new administration wants them re-written. In any case, my guess is that the existing plans for contingencies involving Iran are several years old and do not include detailed plans for dealing with Iran’s nuclear capability, thus the memo.

jazz_piano on April 17, 2010 at 11:46 PM

And it is a bad call to suggest that Bush kicked this can to Obama. By invading Iraq and Afghanistan and allowing democratic rule in both nations that border Iran, Bush created the circumstances for democracy and a peaceful government to develop in Iran. And this was very close to happening. Ahmadinejad had to rig an election and then brutally suppress a popular uprising to remain in power. It very nearly unfolded in a way that would have made Bush look like a genius, changing the most dangerous government in the world without firing a shot.

rockmom on April 17, 2010 at 11:20 PM

Our operating in bordering countries with Iran also placed us in position militarily should the need arise to move against Tehran. Thing is, now we have leadership that would rather move against the Tea Party.

jimmy2shoes on April 17, 2010 at 11:49 PM

Bush created the circumstances for democracy and a peaceful government to develop in Iran. And this was very close to happening. Ahmadinejad had to rig an election and then brutally suppress a popular uprising to remain in power.It very nearly unfolded in a way that would have made Bush look like a genius, changing the most dangerous government in the world without firing a shot.

rockmom

Well….not quite. Those protesting in the street weren’t doing so because they wanted Iran to become a peace loving, pro-America, Democratic society, and the guy they supported wasn’t for these things either. The only change would have been going from one anti-American Islamic radical interested in nukes to another anti-American Islamic radical interested in nukes. And not only that, but the presidents don’t run the country anyway….the clerics do.

xblade on April 17, 2010 at 11:49 PM

Here is something I dont think anyone has yet to contemplate: If Iran gets breakout ability before Israel strikes, what kind of military strike do you think it will be? A conventional strike at that time would be rather futile, because Iran will have enriched enough uranium that they will build their bombs under ground, and the conventional strike will give Iran the jutification they seek to retaliate against Israel. No, there is only one military response Israel can perform after breakout that will stop Iran, it will be strategic, it will not be done with convetional bombs and munitions, it will be overwhelming, and there won’t be an Iran as we know it today when it occurs.
In essence the lack of progress and committment to prevent Iran from getting the bomb will push the world into it’s first nuclear strike since the end of the second world war.
Should we thank out president for this as well?

paulsur on April 17, 2010 at 11:50 PM

I wonder how Obama is going to explain a nuclear Iran during the next election.
I suspect that the turd and his minions are wondering that also.

justltl on April 17, 2010 at 11:50 PM

Basilsbest on April 17, 2010 at 11:44 PM

Right arguments against the wrong targets. We were both for the Iraq war. He just meant that it made it more difficult.

Fight the good fight. We are not in your way, trust me.

Schadenfreude on April 17, 2010 at 11:50 PM

Presumably the leakers are insiders who are worried that, three months later, we’re still not taking the prospect of an Iranian bomb seriously enough.
Are they justified in their fears?

ernesto on April 17, 2010 at 9:17 PM

You AnninCa betcha!

katy the mean old lady on April 17, 2010 at 11:51 PM

We are in this pickle because the Democrats and the media politicized defense.
Basilsbest on April 17, 2010 at 11:44 PM

Too unambiguous for AP ever to consider postworthy.

AP – Simply unbelievable.

Your prez is an unbeliever.

Stephen M on April 17, 2010 at 11:54 PM

We are in this pickle because the Democrats and the media politicized defense. And the public is more interested in Paris Hilton than Paris.

Basilsbest on April 17, 2010 at 11:44 PM

+1

Laura in Maryland on April 17, 2010 at 11:54 PM

The silver lining is that if Obama’s popularity falls into the mid 30′s he might take action on Iran to try to save his presidency.

Basilsbest on April 17, 2010 at 11:55 PM

paulsur on April 17, 2010 at 11:50 PM

My question: Will Obama allow Israel to fly through Iraq to get to Iran? Going around the Arabian peninsula isn’t a great option.

jazz_piano on April 17, 2010 at 11:56 PM

Iran getting the Bomb is now inevitable. I don’t see any course by which that can averted.

Inkblots on April 17, 2010 at 11:56 PM

Iran getting the Bomb is now inevitable. I don’t see any course by which that can averted.

Inkblots on April 17, 2010 at 11:56 PM

I don’t believe Israel will ever allow that to happen.

jazz_piano on April 17, 2010 at 11:57 PM

And yet here we are in 2010 racing to come up with options in case Iran … develops nuclear weapons. Simply unbelievable.

Unfortunately, it’s totally believable with this Admin.

Yakko77 on April 18, 2010 at 12:00 AM

Basilsbest on April 17, 2010 at 11:44 PM
Right arguments against the wrong targets. We were both for the Iraq war. He just meant that it made it more difficult.
Fight the good fight. We are not in your way, trust me.
Schadenfreude on April 17, 2010 at 11:50 PM

AP leaves the impression Bush could have dealt with Iran if he had not invaded Iraq. If that’s not what he meant he shouldn’t have said it. He’s a professional writer and shouldn’t need you to explain away his ill chosen words.

Basilsbest on April 18, 2010 at 12:01 AM

Look, the only real man in the Obama regime is Gates. He’s more than that, really. Maybe our last man standing.

One can only imagine his sleepless nights…

TXUS on April 17, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Honey, get real. Gates is one of the best paid hookers in D.C.

katy the mean old lady on April 18, 2010 at 12:01 AM

Yes, Iran is going to get the bomb. There will be some very hard decisions to make in the future. At this point in time, I believe that Israel is the only country that has a leader qualified and able to to make the hard choices.

KickandSwimMom on April 18, 2010 at 12:02 AM

So what does the leaking of this info actually do in terms of updating the plan(s)? Who’s this supposed to prod?

Weight of Glory on April 17, 2010 at 10:10 PM

President Palin.

katy the mean old lady on April 18, 2010 at 12:03 AM

I don’t believe Israel will ever allow that to happen.

jazz_piano on April 17, 2010 at 11:57 PM

It’s a nice thought, jazz_piano, but I am skeptical that anything Israel can do at this point would even significantly slow the Iranian nuclear program, let alone halt it.

They were able to flatten Saddam’s and the Syrian nuclear programs because their R&D sites were unitary and poorly defended against bombing. Iran has two production facilities, and likely more we don’t even know of; and those facilities are in hardened bunkers and under a darn mountain, receptively. Unless Israel’s ready to use bunker-busting tactical NUKES against the facilities, they won’t be able to permanently cripple them. And I don’t think even in the extremity of need the Isreali public will support going nuclear first.

Inkblots on April 18, 2010 at 12:04 AM

you know, you would think the Saudis cared about a nuclear Iran. What do yall think they think?

kelley in virginia on April 17, 2010 at 10:21 PM

You would think that they would care. Nukes+sand= glass. Invest in Windex.

katy the mean old lady on April 18, 2010 at 12:09 AM

Either Israel goes first or it will become a desert parking facility.

dragondrop on April 18, 2010 at 12:11 AM

I actually disagree with your thesis, CKM. Both Bush and Obama have said repeatedly that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable and they wouldn’t allow it to happen. There is nothing new about being categorical in that regard.

J.E. Dyer on April 17, 2010 at 11:43 PM

But no one was believing it. I get the impression that you still don’t believe it. Didn’t Krauthammer or someone have an op-ed a few weeks ago saying that “unacceptable” now meant “yes we’re going to accept it”? It was/is “unacceptable” but not “UNACCEPTABLE” – the former implying that no we wouldn’t “accept it,” instead we’d get real upset about it, fire off x angry letters and ask for sanctions etc. etc., but the latter implying we’ll do WHATEVER IT TAKES to prevent it from occurring.

The senior admin official SEEMS to be saying, no, it’s the latter, not the former.

CK MacLeod on April 18, 2010 at 12:12 AM

It seems that Obama would rather see Israel use nukes than conventional weapons. He has frozen the shipment of bunker buster MOAB bombs purchased by Israel from the US earlier this year. The arrangement had been made under Bush, but Obama, with his brilliant insight, unhooked the agreement and left the Israelis hanging.

This so-called President is going to be the cause of more nuclear proliferation rather than less. What ally would trust the US after watching Obama’a shameful treatment of Israel, not to mention India, UK, et el. Better cowboy up, ’cause the US cannot be depended upon.

skeeter on April 18, 2010 at 12:14 AM

In the meanwhile is Obama ruining the U.S./India relationship too?

Schadenfreude on April 18, 2010 at 12:14 AM

Update: One further thought. From time to time, to illustrate how thoroughly U.S. military strategists prepare for all possible contingencies, you’ll hear pundits remark offhandedly that the Pentagon even has war plans against Great Britain or Canada stashed in a drawer somewhere.

They probably have war plans for the Dry Tortugas. For God’s sake, that’s the part of our government we should be paying for. In the real world we call it “planning”.

katy the mean old lady on April 18, 2010 at 12:16 AM

It’s Bush’s fault.

29Victor on April 18, 2010 at 12:20 AM

Well….not quite. Those protesting in the street weren’t doing so because they wanted Iran to become a peace loving, pro-America, Democratic society, and the guy they supported wasn’t for these things either. The only change would have been going from one anti-American Islamic radical interested in nukes to another anti-American Islamic radical interested in nukes. And not only that, but the presidents don’t run the country anyway….the clerics do.xblade on April 17, 2010 at 11:49 PM

The opposition in Iran was in fact very pro American. After our hero Obama told them they were on their own they are not likely as pro American now.

The United States gave blood and treasure to free 28 million Iraqi Muslims from a genocidal mass murdering, terrorist-supporting ceasefire-resolution-defying madman. It then gave more blood and treasure as it helped Iraqis form a democratic government. Objectively these unprecedented gifts from the best of the American people to strangers ought to have significantly improved America’s standing in the world.

Instead America allowed the political opposition to portray these gifts as the opposite of what they were. America is now reaping the benefits of this ignorant selfish partisanship.

Basilsbest on April 18, 2010 at 12:24 AM

This is what happens when you spend decades without a smart, coherent energy strategy; such as, exploit every energy source we have as a country, incentivize companies to quickly develop new energy sources (perhaps, with big tax breaks, or something) and lessen our dependency on foreign sources.

As long as we are dependent on this region for our life blood we will continue these half-assed, horrible policies.

kagai on April 18, 2010 at 12:29 AM

A nuclear Iran is grounds for impeachment.

either orr on April 18, 2010 at 12:31 AM

true–but even if Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan, or Bush had any “effective strategy” on Iran, they sure as hell kept it effective on paper only.

ted c on April 17, 2010 at 10:11 PM

How can you be sure one or more of them didn’t? Maybe because they didn’t tell you?

unclesmrgol on April 18, 2010 at 1:07 AM

A nuclear Iran is grounds for impeachment.

either orr on April 18, 2010 at 12:31 AM

Unfortunately,no.

katy the mean old lady on April 18, 2010 at 1:10 AM

My question: Will Obama allow Israel to fly through Iraq to get to Iran? Going around the Arabian peninsula isn’t a great option.

jazz_piano on April 17, 2010 at 11:56 PM

Going around the Arabian peninsula is definitely an option.

unclesmrgol on April 18, 2010 at 1:17 AM

The eye opener for me is that Iran will likely not build an actual device but perfect, as far as is possible, all of the components for one and simply not assemble it.

How do you respond to that scenario? They have the bomb but they don’t have a bomb.

They may be fanatics but they’re not stupid.

SteveMG on April 17, 2010 at 9:32 PM

WRONG! The mullahs are religious zealots bent on the ushering in of chaos to bring about the 12th Imam, the bomb will be built and detonated in Israel.

royzer on April 18, 2010 at 1:26 AM

We have Iran surrounded by our military in Iraq and Afghanistan and we also have numerous guided missle cruisers and destroyers in the area that also have the ability to shut down all enemy airspace and sea power, just waiting for the word. We also have aircraft carriers in the region at all times along with all the air power stationed at Diego Garcia.
Our troops could leave Iraq and Afghanistan (and it wouldn’t matter to either country in the short term) and attack Iran in a two front squeeze by land, and simultaneously pound them from the air and sea. Throw in the Israeli Air Force and Iran doesn’t stand a f’n chance.
We owe those Mullah bastards, and hopefully they’re gonna get what’s coming to them.
If they get nukes, those nukes are going to get used against us either directly or most likely through proxy. We can’t let them have nukes. It’s time for regime change in Iran. The moderates have already shown that they are ready to take over for the religeous fanatics who think they’re going to bring about the 12th Iman.

OxyCon on April 18, 2010 at 1:29 AM

We have Iran surrounded by our military in Iraq and Afghanistan

OxyCon on April 18, 2010 at 1:29 AM

Surrounded? By Afghanistan and Iraq? Buy a Anninca map!

katy the mean old lady on April 18, 2010 at 1:33 AM

Rainbow 5

AshleyTKing on April 18, 2010 at 1:44 AM

katy the mean old lady on April 18, 2010 at 1:33 AM

Spelling not withstanding……Oxyscrip has it covered. The only move the Iranians have is against fellow Muslims…which leaves us punch drunk w/o bail…..fly’s in the vaseline we are…………………..and the price of oil is….??????

dmann on April 18, 2010 at 1:44 AM

How many people have been freed since Obama has been elected? How many?

Schadenfreude on April 17, 2010 at 11:03 PM

Well, there was that one turd who was responsible for the Lockerbie Pan AM Flight 103 downing. You know, the terminally ill one who’s still kickin’ and all smiles and nice and comfy back in Libya? I’m not saying that it’s Jug-ears’ fault, but his disdain for G. Brown and his shabby treatment of the U.K. in general probably didn’t win him any influence in the matter.

If Ojesus is the brilliant diplomatic genius that the media would have us believe will save the world, he would get Saudi Arabia and Israel on board for a joint venture to cripple Iran’s nuclear development, decapitate the government, and castrate the Revolutionary Guard for good measure. That would be some change I could believe in.

And I believe in the tooth fairy, too.

hillbillyjim on April 18, 2010 at 1:45 AM

We have Iran surrounded by our military in Iraq and Afghanistan

OxyCon on April 18, 2010 at 1:29 AM
Surrounded? By Afghanistan and Iraq? Buy a Anninca map!

katy the mean old lady

Uh…here’s a map for you katy. See if you can locate the thre countries mention and figure out their proximity to each.
And, the blue stuff is water in case you didn’t know.

OxyCon on April 18, 2010 at 1:47 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3