Posted on 06/20/2010 9:50:39 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday refused to address the notion of having to contain a nuclear armed Iran, saying US efforts were aimed at preventing it from acquiring atomic weapons.
"I don't think we're prepared to even talk about containing a nuclear Iran. I think... our view still is we do not accept the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons," he said in an interview with Fox News Sunday.
"And our policies and our efforts are all aimed at preventing that from happening," he said.
Asked whether a military strike against Iran was preferable to it acquiring nuclear weapons, Gates said all options remained on the table but added: "I think we have some time to continue working this problem."
Stepped up economic and diplomatic pressure had "a reasonable chance of getting the Iranian regime finally to come to their senses and realize their security is probably more endangered by going forward," he said.
Gates observed that over the past 18 months support for the regime in Tehran has narrowed, as it has turned toward a military dictatorship in the wake of a disputed presidential election.
"So I think adding economic pressures on top of that, and particularly targeted economic pressures, has real potential," he said.
The UN Security Council slapped a fourth set of sanctions June 10 in an effort to rein in its nuclear program, which the United States and other countries believe is aimed at developing a nuclear weapons capability.
Iran says the program is for peaceful purposes only
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Ping
Worthless talk. 'Sanctions' as leaky as a seive. Hillary and barack are going to keep Iran from gaining nuclear arms. Right.
Total and complete lack of leadership.
I agree.
Allegedly peaceful diplomacy will solve the problems with Iran. However, resurrecting Cold War policies for terrorists and rogue states ignores their author’s, George Kennan’s, prerequisites. For him the Marxist/Leninist worldview mirrored traditional Russian ruling class neurotic insecurities about retaining power despite archaic, fragile political systems. Kennan believed the Soviets would not pursue the “hazardous, systematic plans of a Hitlerite Germany”, but always seek to undermine Western nations through various strategies short of war. Soviet leadership would not risk national resources and their dominance against adversaries possessing sufficient power, and demonstrating a clear readiness to use it.
Such parallels do not exist for the war on terror in general, or for the current Iranian regime. The massive deaths sought through jihad provide these Islamic fundamentalists both the means and objectives to usher in the Twelfth Imam, while destroying Israel. Their acceptance of violent death dominates allegiances to family, tribe, or country. They see no imperative for retaining a viable economic remnant. Therefore, the deterrent quality of force (mutually assured destruction) becomes useless.
The sanctions are pathetic. After voting in favor, Russia announced there was no problem supplying Iran with an air defense missile system, and additional nuclear power plants.
Victory, and even survival, instead requires vigorous, costly engagement along a full spectrum of diplomacy, including application of espionage and military force. But engagement requires continuous attacks against Iranian leadership, not population. A few willing adversaries must force meaningful forfeitures from this regime, before Israel must again enforce the nuclear non-proliferation protocols.
IMHO, Gates comes off very poorly when compared with someone like Don Rumsfeld. SecDef is supposed to be a strong and decisive cabinet position with strong leadership; I don’t see much of that from Gates.
“And our policies and our efforts are all aimed at preventing that from happening,” he said.
Really Robert?
Really?
I mean...really?
I think that it might helpfull if you spent a little more time on the rest of the post.
I don’t know where devious Hillary actually stands, but Barack’s aim is clearly to help Iran become a nuclear power. He’ll then have to help Saudi Arabia to do the same, and he’ll probably side with SA when they face off with Iran, but it looks as if BHO’s “prime directive” is simply, “Allah uber alles!”
Tough; but easy talk on an 'idea'. . .and 'idea' used, specifically and definitively, as a barrier to what we know is a greater and ominous truth:
We WILL accept Iran, HAVING nuclear weapons; because we are absolutely not willing to do what would prevent Iran; from having them.
Gates said all options remained on the table but added: “I think we have some time to continue working this problem.”
They are hoping to “work” it, till it’s someone elses
problem.
The foreign policy of this administration is insane.
“They are hoping to “work” it, till it’s someone elses
problem.”
Gates probably knows Obama won’t be around after 2012, so he’s crossing his fingers Iran won’t deploy nukes before that time. Unfortunately, by the time adults resume control of the levers of power in Washington, it is likely to be too late. Our only hope is that Israel stops Iran’s nuclear development in its tracks.
Gates is a joke and the sooner he is gone, the better off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.