Robert Gates: U.S. Lacks Policy to Curb Iran’s Nukes

While I pretty much suspected the Obama administration had no real plan for dealing with Iran’s nukes, it is kind of alarming to have those suspicions confirmed. Today in the New York Times there is a story about a leaked memo from Robert Gates. The memo is from January and it details his concerns that the administration has no backup plan should diplomatic means fail to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. 

The New York 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. […] 

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. 

After reading the article, I am immediately reminded of what Sarah Palin said in response to Obama’s glib remark about her nuclear expertise. 

In foreign policy, we’ve got the makings of the Obama Doctrine: coddling our enemies while alienating allies.

The administration eased sanctions on Cuba and sided with Chavez against Honduran democracy. They won’t bring up human rights with China because, quote, ‘we know what they are going to say.’ They offer tepid sanctions on North Korea and ‘gold stars and cookies’ for the Sudanese President. They send letters to Iranian mullahs but can barely muster a word of support for the Green Movement seeking freedom and women’s rights in Iran!

And President Obama, with all that vast nuclear expertise he acquired as a community organizer, a part-time senator, and a candidate for president, has accomplished nothing to date with Iran or North Korea.

Meanwhile, this administration alienates our friends. They treated Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai poorly and acted surprised when he reacted in kind. And they escalated a minor zoning decision into a major breach with Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East.

Folks, someone needs to remind the President: Jerusalem is not a settlement. Israel is our friend. And the critical nuclear concerns of our time are North Korea, who has nuclear weapons, and Iran, who wants them. 

I am sure we will all be talking about Gates’ memo for the rest of the week. I also have a feeling that Robert Gates maybe making an early exit from this administration. I am also pretty sure that the administration will be out in full force fighting the political ramifications of this story. Too bad they don’t employ the same zeal when it comes to handling the nations true enemies. 

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The New York Times

Via: Michelle Malkin 

Let the retreat begin: Hillary on WMD attack, “all bets are off”

Obama’s Nuke Plan came under fierce attack from the right, most noticeably from Sarah Palin. Well it appears that some retreat on the plan has begun.

Today on “Face The Nation” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates started walking back the idea that the US would not retaliate with nukes after a WMD attack. 

The Obama administration's nuclear posture review may have removed some of the intentional ambiguity from U.S. nuclear policy, but it does not leave the country any less safe, President Obama's top national security advisers said on CBS' "Face the Nation." 

In fact, they said, it gives a clear warning to other state actors that the U.S. will not ignore any growing threats. 

"This is putting everybody on notice," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer in an interview conducted Friday at the Pentagon. "We don't want more countries to go down the path that North Korea and Iran are." 

The revised nuclear policy says that the United States will not use nuclear weapons to respond to a chemical or biological attack from a non-nuclear country. The policy, however, leaves significant contingencies, said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. 

Countries which are non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (such as North Korea) or have been found to be non-compliant (such as Iran) are not exempt from nuclear retaliation under the Obama policy. 

"We were concerned about the biological weapons," Gates said, "and that's why the president was very clear ... if we see states developing biological weapons that we begin to think endanger us or create serious concerns, that he reserves the right to revise this policy." 

Clinton added, "If we can prove that a biological attack originated in a country that attacked us, then all bets are off."  

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Even with such retreats, I still do not see what is benefit to explicitly spelling out our nuke policy.  As I mentioned before all it seems to do is take some of the sting out of our deterrence. The idea that others will follow our lead, particularly North Korea and Iran, is a pure pipedream.

Something tells me if Palin delivers another stem-winder, the Obama administration will retreat further on this plan.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: CBS News 

Fantasy vs. Reality.

Barak Obama , Sunday April 5, 2009, Prague:

“…So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly -- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can."…”

I have one thing to say to Obama about that statement, “actions speak louder than words“! If this is Obama’s dream, one would imagine that some serious diplomacy is going to be needed to influence those nations that are rapidly trying to get or spread nuclear technology.

To date, the Obama Administration has not shown a very strong hand with diplomacy. Just this week, North Korea tested a long range missile capable of carrying a nuclear payload and hitting Alaska or Hawaii. What was the Obama Administration’s response? Obama’s official statement was; "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something," and then he promptly ran to the UN, like the teacher's pet snitching on the bad kids. To make matters worse the very next day Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announces that we are cutting spending on missile defense.

The one big stick we could possibly use against North Korea’s ambitions for long range missiles, has now been broken in half by Obama’s insane military spending cuts. Beefed up missile defense for our western most states or our allies (South Korea and Japan) who could be threatened by North Korea, has now been scaled back by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates as per Obama’s requested cuts.

Some argue that North Korea using long range nuclear weapons against us is highly unlikely. While this argument has some merit, it doesn’t answer another likely scenario. The scenario of North Korea selling it long range missile technology to a nation that would use it against us. Iran immediately comes to mind. Iran which is run by Islamic extremist, are racing toward getting nuclear technology. Their tactic of buying time by entering and exiting diplomatic talks have proven very successful for them.

The real threat comes from the fact that Islamic extremists are not deterred by the notion of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). This is because for the Islamic extremist, the survival of Islam takes precedence over the survival of their nation. Therefore losing Tehran in a nuclear exchange is acceptable so long as it advanced the causes of Islam as they see it. So to deter a nation with this kind of belief, the passive role of having a large nuclear stockpile will not do. Instead a more proactive approach is required (I.e. missile defense, aggressive diplomacy and stopping their plans early). Currently the Obama Administration is doing none of these.

So while Obama claims not to be naïve and dreams that “yes we can have a nuclear free world”, reality is taking a very different and dangerous tract.