1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

The Party of D'Oh!: Gates Says U.S. Lacks a Policy to Thwart Iran

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by basso, Apr 19, 2010.

  1. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,382
    Likes Received:
    9,301
    the times, via hotair, which has additional background and darker musings on how this came to be, and the likely outcome.



    [rquoter]Gates Says U.S. Lacks a Policy to Thwart Iran
    By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER
    WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has warned in a secret three-page memorandum to top White House officials that the United States does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear capability, according to government officials familiar with the document.

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

    Officials familiar with the memo’s contents would describe only portions dealing with strategy and policy, and not sections that apparently dealt with secret operations against Iran, or how to deal with Persian Gulf allies.

    One senior official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the memo, described the document as “a wake-up call.” But White House officials dispute that view, insisting that for 15 months they had been conducting detailed planning for many possible outcomes regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

    In an interview on Friday, General Jones declined to speak about the memorandum. But he said: “On Iran, we are doing what we said we were going to do. The fact that we don’t announce publicly our entire strategy for the world to see doesn’t mean we don’t have a strategy that anticipates the full range of contingencies — we do.”

    But in his memo, Mr. Gates wrote of a variety of concerns, including the absence of an effective strategy should Iran choose the course that many government and outside analysts consider likely: Iran could assemble all the major parts it needs for a nuclear weapon — fuel, designs and detonators — but stop just short of assembling a fully operational weapon.

    In that case, Iran could remain a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty while becoming what strategists call a “virtual” nuclear weapons state.

    According to several officials, the memorandum also calls for new thinking about how the United States might contain Iran’s power if it decided to produce a weapon, and how to deal with the possibility that fuel or weapons could be obtained by one of the terrorist groups Iran has supported, which officials said they considered to be a less-likely possibility.

    Mr. Gates has never mentioned the memo in public. His spokesman, Geoff Morrell, declined to comment on specifics in the document, but issued a statement on Saturday saying, “The secretary believes the president and his national security team have spent an extraordinary amount of time and effort considering and preparing for the full range of contingencies with respect to Iran.”

    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.


    Nearly two weeks ago, Mr. Obama, in an interview with The New York Times, was asked about whether he saw a difference between a nuclear-capable Iran and one that had a fully developed weapon. “I’m not going to parse that right now,” he said. But he noted that North Korea was considered a nuclear-capable state until it threw out inspectors and, as he said, “became a self-professed nuclear state.”

    Mr. Gates has alluded to his concern that intelligence agencies might miss signals that Iran was taking the final steps toward producing a weapon. Last Sunday on the NBC News program “Meet the Press,” he said: “If their policy is to go to the threshold but not assemble a nuclear weapon, how do you tell that they have not assembled? I don’t actually know how you would verify that.” But he cautioned that Iran had run into production difficulties, and he said, “It’s going slow — slower than they anticipated, but they are moving in that direction.”

    Mr. Gates has taken a crucial role in formulating the administration’s strategy, and he has been known over his career to issue stark warnings against the possibility of strategic surprise.

    Some officials said his memo should be viewed in that light: as a warning to a relatively new president that the United States was not adequately prepared.

    He wrote the memo after Iran had let pass a 2009 deadline set by Mr. Obama to respond to his offers of diplomatic engagement.

    Both that process and efforts to bring new sanctions against Iran have struggled. 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 next three months were spent in what proved to be fruitless diplomatic talks with Iran over a plan to swap much of its low-enriched uranium for fuel for a medical reactor in Tehran. By the time Mr. Gates wrote his memo, those negotiations had collapsed.

    Mr. Gates’s memo appears to reflect concerns in 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. Separately, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote a “chairman’s guidance” to his staff in December conveying a sense of urgency about contingency planning. He cautioned that a military attack would have “limited results,” but he did not convey any warnings about policy shortcomings.

    “Should the president call for military options, we must have them ready,” the admiral wrote.

    Administration officials testifying before a Senate committee last week made it clear that those preparations were under way. So did General Jones. “The president has made it clear from the beginning of this administration that we need to be prepared for every possible contingency,” he said in the interview. “That is what we have done from day one, while successfully building a coalition of nations to isolate Iran and pressure it to live up to its obligations.”

    At the same hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess Jr., director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Gen. James E. Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and one of the military’s most experienced officers on nuclear matters, said that Iran could produce bomb-grade fuel for at least one nuclear weapon within a year, but that it would probably need two to five years to manufacture a workable atomic bomb.

    The administration has been stepping up efforts to contain the influence of Iran and counter its missiles, including placing Patriot anti-missile batteries, mostly operated by Americans, in several states around the Persian Gulf. The Pentagon also is moving ahead with a plan for regional missile defense that reconfigures architecture inherited from the Bush administration to more rapidly field interceptors on land and at sea.[/rquoter]
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
  3. Rashmon

    Rashmon Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2000
    Messages:
    21,228
    Likes Received:
    18,241
    Since Obama has been in office about 1 year, wouldn't any long range policy need to have been put in place by a not-to-be-named prior administration?

    So, I'm guessing that Gates is indicting the not-to-be-named prior administration?

    doh, is right
     
  4. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,807
    Likes Received:
    20,465
    The Party of D'OH? Gates is a Republican. Nice thread title basso.
     
  5. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    43,787
    Likes Received:
    3,705
    its a good thing the previous administration focused on Iran and prevented their progress in developing nuclear weapons.
     
  6. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,116
    Likes Received:
    10,150
    Well, the premise is wrong. There's no "policy" that can prevent Iran from getting the bomb. We can try to persuade them to do the right thing (and you can argue about how that might be done), but it is ultimately their choice. That, or we try to prevent them militarily... but because we're still in Iraq, we don't have the capacity it would take. All the accounts I've seen suggests it not as simple as dropping bombs... you'd have to take over some places and hold them, which even at full strength would be tough to do, not to mention the societal reactions.

    It's essentially Republican orthodoxy to look at Iran as an irrational state, but that's shortsighted. What they are doing is extremely rational... a nuke or two is tremendous security for them against the perceived Western threat and enhances their prestige. Diplomacy is still the way to go and if it fails, the world will have to deal with the new diplomatic calculus of an Iranian bomb... which means it's a new calculus for them as well because if they ever used it they have to realize the West would then have no qualms about retaliation. We'd arrive at a small scale MAD, except for us it would be partial while for them it would be total... which is where we are with North Korea.
     
  7. Depressio

    Depressio Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Messages:
    6,416
    Likes Received:
    366
  8. Dubious

    Dubious Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,318
    Likes Received:
    5,090
    Did he happened to offer an alternative strategy?

    Because there isn't one. If an oil rich nation wants to defy trade embargoes to develop a nuclear capacity you cannot stop them short of bombing and/or invasion. Which by the way are acts of war and against any reasonable ethical tenants not to mention demonstrably difficult in producing any positive long term results.

    Welcome to MAD Iran.
     
  9. Depressio

    Depressio Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Messages:
    6,416
    Likes Received:
    366
    Err, mc mark I meant. Fail.
     
  10. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,382
    Likes Received:
    9,301
    i think there are military options short of invasion, or bombing (potential) nuclear sites. look at a map- a blockade of iranian ports should effectively cut off their ability to import gasoline (iran, despite being an oil producing nation, lacks refining capacity, and so imports most of it's refined petroleum products), crippling their economy, and in time, seriously degrading military capacity.

    one could also seize Kharg island, to much the same effect. yes, either would be an act of war. so what?
     
  11. bnb

    bnb Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    6,992
    Likes Received:
    316
    I'm guessing I'm the only one who read the article. (basso included).

    Gates' official statement:

    A confidential memo from the Defence Secretary to the President outlining the threats, emphasizing the importance of the situation, and urging certain actions/contingencies? Seems kind of like what a Defence Secretary should do.

    So...there's a 'line Iran will not be permitted to cross... but certain unnamed government officials presumably think "the memo appears to reflect concerns in 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" -- contrary to Gate's own statement? A lot of insinuation from unnamed sources.

    Am I missing something?
     
  12. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    You and John I’m insane McCain will not get to have your little Iran war hard-on.

    Sucks to be you!
     
  13. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,382
    Likes Received:
    9,301
    i don't see the conflict- there's a line the can't cross, but we have no idea what we'll do to prevent them from crossing it, nor any idea how we'll respond when they (inevitably) do.
     
  14. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    43,787
    Likes Received:
    3,705

    because the last admin didn't leave a contingency plan.
     
  15. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    43,787
    Likes Received:
    3,705
    nothing's more ridiculous (and that is saying a helluva lot) than bush nut huggers criticizing obama's handling of iran. as if these guys developed nuke capabilities in just the last year.

    do you guys really not understand this a result of neglect of the previous administration?

    edit: while bush's admin was making up lies about saddam's nuke capabilities no less
     
    #15 pgabriel, Apr 19, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2010
  16. durvasa

    durvasa Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    38,893
    Likes Received:
    16,449
    So now we're criticizing the administration because it is try to improve its defense strategy. Swell.
     
  17. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,842
    Likes Received:
    41,326
    Actually if you can read the article, what Gates is (allegedly) saying is that the US doesn't have "no policy" in the sense that if, you look up the folder marked "Iran" in State or DoD, it's empty; rather he's saying the US doesn't really have a whole lot of viable options at present due to the way the situation has been allowed to develop.

    I wonder whose fault that was, over the last decade. I guess we were too busy succeeding in other places!
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. bnb

    bnb Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    6,992
    Likes Received:
    316
    basso:

    could you reconcile your statement that they have no idea how they'll respond, with Secretary Gates' statement that the national security team have spent an extraordinary amount of time and effort considering and preparing for the full range of contingencies with respect to Iran?

    If there is some ambiguity about what to do if Iran acquires but doesn't assemble nuclear weapons, then shouldn't this process (issue identified, reviewed and addressed) be exactly what happens?

    Are you endorsing Gates and the rest of the admin's team here, or is there some other point you're trying to make?
     
  19. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    43,787
    Likes Received:
    3,705

    the other point is "d'oh"
     
  20. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,382
    Likes Received:
    9,301
    i think there's a fair amount of unknown unknowns here, but if the gates memo exists as described, then it seems to contradict gates public statements. i leave it to you to decide which may be more accurate. but it does seem likely that Obama's strategy has been nothing more than "the Unbearable Lightness of Being Barack," and now that the Iranians have told them to piss off, they (the whitehouse- the pentagon certainly has contingency plans) have no idea what to do.

    and blaming Bush for the situation is just idiotic. Obama took five months to reexamine the Bush strategy in Afghanistan, before deciding to essentially continue it. he's had plenty of time to come up with a new strategy towards Iran, if he thought one were warranted.
     

Share This Page