And the purpose of telling Iran that it faces no threat of military action against it accomplishes…what? What do we gain by announcing to Iran that, no matter how far it goes, we won’t even think about using our military power against it?
Gates told a Senate panel that a military option would only delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions and drive the program further underground, making it more difficult to monitor, he said.
He said the better option would be for the United States and its allies to convince Iran that building a nuclear program would start an arms race that would leave the country less secure.
“Their security interests are actually badly served by trying to have nuclear weapons,” Gates said. “They will start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and they will be less secure at the end than they are now.”…
Clinton and Gates told the panel the United States and its allies should pressure Iran with tougher sanctions.
Gates must be smoking some seriously great crap. We need to convince Iran that building a nuclear program isn’t in its best interest? Because it would spark an arms race in the Middle East? As Allahpundit says, an arms race has been priced into their decision to go nuclear for quite some time. Does the Obama Administration really believe that Tehran is unaware that its decision to acquire nuclear weapons will piss of Saudi Arabia and Iraq? Like I said, it’s smoking some seriously great crap.
Basically here’s what we’re looking at: Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, the Obama Administration will strongly condemn it, the United Nations Security Council will issue a watered-down resolution accomplishing nothing, Iran will once again call us the “Great Satan” and talk about pushing Israel into the sea, and we’ll end up living with the Islamic Republic being a nuclear power. Then the Middle East arms race begins. Over to you, Israel.
by Stephan Tawney on Thu, Apr 30, 2009