Gates Says U.S. Lacks Policy to Curb Iran’s Nuclear Drive

[TomCADem]

Source: NY Times

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.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/world/middleeast/18iran.html?hp

---

Time to parade John McCain through all the talk shows so that he can complain about "dithering," and Sarah Palin can make the pitch for starting a new war with Iran.

[FrenchieCat]

1. It's obviously not secret. It's in the New York Times.

[lib2DaBone]

2. Why is Gates, a re-cycled George Bush Neocon even in the picture?

..call me crazy ( OK..you are crazy) but get Gates the hell out of there.

[ThorDem]

16. because Barack is a nice guy

and Gates isn't. Neither are his Republican masters. Crimeny, he headed up A&M for Pete's sake.

[bemildred]

3. That's reality Bucko, there isn't much we can do about it.

We got our ass kicked in Iraq, we are almost done getting our ass kicked in Afghanistan, and Iran knows it, and nobody else with clout cares all that much. If we cannot stop N. Korea, and we didn't, how are we going to stop Iran?

[TomCADem]

5. Never Really Though The Purpose Of The Military Should Be To "Kick Ass"

I know that George Bush seemed to be of that opinion, and that he measured success by body counts. Heck, if the goal is to run up a kill total, than the U.S. is by far extremely effective. Still, I would hope that the goal is not to kick ass, otherwise genocide becomes the goal of all this "ass kicking."

[bemildred]

9. It does seem to me that the purpose of a military, any military, ought to be

not to get it's ass kicked. Whether its mission ought to include to "kicking ass" would depend on the mission. If you are into nation building and imposing democracy and all that Bushite crap then "kicking ass" is clearly not very effective, it alienates the very people you propose to teach, but I was just pointing out that our military clearly failed to carry out it's admittedly ridiculous goals in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, unless the goal was to spend lots of money and fuck the place up.

[TomCADem]

11. Ah, I Interpreted "Kicking Ass" As Killing People, Which The U.S. Certainly Has Done

...and I would personally prefer that the U.S. stop "kicking ass" so much. If anything, I think the problem in Afganistan was that all Bush was interested in doing was in kicking ass, which tends to piss of the local populace. You kick someone's ass again and again, and they tend to get pretty bitter about it.

[bemildred]

12. OK.

I think for "kicking ass" to work you have to have a suitable enemy, as in Gulf War I, you can't just pretend because it is easier than politics.

[yava]

10. Why not talk to them about all?

Answer: AIPAC

[Prometheus Bound]

4. Well then, just be honest. Admit that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful.

Nothing wrong with the truth.

[polly7]

15. +1

I don't see the reason Iran shouldn't benefit from nuclear energy and medicine just as any other nation in the world. They have said over and over they have no interest in building nuclear weapons ..... they're in the exact same position we in Canada are - we have oil and gas, yet lack the refineries. They've allowed inspections, cameras, signed onto the NPT and asked for a nuclear weapon-free ME .... despite seeing what's happened to Iraq and Afghanistan. The IAEA has said over and over they're years away from being able to produce one. How many millions more have to die for lies and stupidity, reading these threats against them makes my stomach sick. Bombing Iran will be much, much different than Hussein's little conscripted army. They've got good ties with both China and Russia, huge oil contracts with China. I don't want to see WW111 and imo that is just what it will come to.

[Prometheus Bound]

23. It's shameful that 850,000 Iranian kidney, heart and cancer patients face an early death.

Because U.N. sanctions prevent Iran from buying more fuel on the world market for its medical reactor, despite Iran having the right to do so as a signatory of the NPT. The US deal to swap uranium would take a year to get Iran the fuel it needs to keep these people alive, and they're running out now.

Their using a US-supplied reactor for heaven's sake.

What choice does Iran have but to try to enrich their own uranium to 20%, which they are legally entitled to do.

I am so sick of this unrelenting propaganda from the US, Israel and France against Iran.

[joshcryer]

19. No, it is not.

[Prometheus Bound]

26. Then one would expect the IAEA to have found some evidence of that.

[defendandprotect]

6. Did any other nation have policy or voice in ending US's "nuclear drive" . . .???

What garbage framing --!!

[Demeter]

7. Also Lacks Power, Authority and Moral Standing

but who's counting?

[Bigmack]

8. I pressed an email buddy...

who wants to oppose Iran, and it's nuclear ambitions, about exactly what we should do.

He fumed and dithered a bit, but in the end he agreed on "sanctions".... whatever that means.

What we can't do is attack. Not by air, not by land... not at all.

Leaving all those moral arguments aside, and leaving all the "preemptive" arguments aside, we simply do not have the forces.... and most importantly, we simply do not have the money. Unless we're just talking about a preemptive strike on their nuclear facilities. Then we're just fucked!

Those who lived thru the Arab Oil Embargo remember what it did to our economy. This time... well, Ouch! The economy is already teetering. It wouldn't take much.

[RKP5637]

14. Excellent Points, IMO!!! n/t

[BeyondGeography]

13. The WMD sniffers at the Times think they have something with this story

And with their track record...

[impik]

17. If Gates is behind that leak

he should go home today.

[impik]

18. This is ridiculous

"Ben rhodes the National Security Council spokesman, said it was "absolutely false" that the memo had led to a reassessment of options. "This administration has been planning for all contingencies regarding Iran for many months," Mr Rhodes told the Associated Press".

[Dover]

20. Gates Says U.S. Lacks Policy to Curb Iran’s Nuclear Drive

Source: NYT

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. ..cont'd


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/world/middleeast/18iran.html?hp

---

I find it hard to believe they are just now strategizing a military response to Iran.

[FrenchieCat]

21. I find it hard to believe that a highly classified "secret" memorandum

is being discussed by "several" officials with the New York Times.

Must be some Bush-Cheney left behinds talking shit.

[Dover]

22. Yes...a curious article.

Perhaps Gates himself authorized it. This is an interesting few paragraphs...



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.

..snip..

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.

---

And then there's always the possibility that all of this is meant primarily for Iran's ears.

[leveymg]

25. Yes, that is the intended audience. eom

[leveymg]

24. Bang, bang, bang goes the drum.

********************TO IRAN*****************