Sec. Gates And The Iran Question

By Semperpapa

On 17 April, 2010, the NY Times published an article by David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker titled: Gates Says U.S. Lacks a Policy to Thwart Iran.

The report in question was a highly classified memo that Sec. Gates sent to the White House in January. The NY Times had received the leak of the existence of the memo from the ubiquitous anonymous source.
There was a time in our history when the divulgence of classified material was a quick ticket to the electric chair or a firing squad. But those were the good old days, when it was understood that the reason for classifying documents resided in the fact that the enemy’s knowledge of that information was a clear danger for our Nation, our people and our Military.
Today things are different. Classified material is leaked to the media all the time, action motivated by either political or financial gain or both. The good old days are gone, replaced by total lust for sensationalism or political revenge.

In any case, the memo was leaked and created quite a stir among those Americans who are actually paying a little attention. The reason for the stir was that Sec. Gates supposedly used the secret memo to communicate to the White House that the United States does not have a clear response to the Iranian march toward the acquisition of nuclear capability (read: nuclear weapons).
No official mention of the memo or even an admission of its existence had been brought forward by the Administration until the NYT article had shown up.

Three quick observations on the subject:

1. Obama spoke in very general term about Iran during the basically useless conference he led in Washington DC last week on the threat of nuclear terrorism;
2. 
   The memo was delivered by the Sec. of Defense to the Administration just following Iran’s open rejection of any diplomatic overture with the West;
3. 
   Even after Iran’s rejection of negotiations, Obama and his characters still continue to speak of promising diplomatic steps.

Secretary Gates wasted no time in defending himself about the memo. On April 18, just one day after the NYT article appeared, Mr. Gates came out to say that his observations in the report had been mischaracterized by the person that had leaked them to the NYT.
While the person had labeled the report as a “wake-up call” for the president, Gates stated that it was not any such thing, but just a continuation of preparation of the Pentagon for contingency planning and dialog among those tasked to address the issue by Obama.

So what is the truth in all this? Obviously, those who know the truth are not willing to share that knowledge, leaving the national security experts to analyze and the rest of us to wonder.

It is very obvious that the number one enemy of this planet is the theocracy in Iran and the often unhinged Ahmedinejad. It is also obvious that the Obama administration is pretty much clueless on the steps that may be needed to reach a solution of the Iranian question.

Ever since his inauguration, Obama has had to face the prospect of an increasingly aggressive regime in Teheran. The failures of the Bush administration on the subject were part of the anti-Bush campaign and rhetoric that Democrats and the media had used in boosting the image and campaign of the highly unqualified candidate from Chicago. And Obama delivered exactly on that premise, because his approach to the problem has been a complete failure.

The first step that Obama took was one aimed at ingratiating the Muslim world by presenting himself as the anti-Bush. The promised closure of Guantanamo Bay prison, the first television interview granted to Al-Jazeera, the apology tour and apology speech in Cairo. It was all part of a strategy designed to show the Muslim world that the United States was in a changing mode, that there was a new sheriff in town.
Subsequently, the American people have been treated to a myriad of moves aimed at showing the “tolerant” side of America, with the removal of terms like “war of terror” and “Radical Muslims” from the official jargon. Also an undertone opening of governmental avenues to Muslim groups which should not be anywhere near government officials.
Besides the visceral ideological differences with his predecessor, Obama believed that by just appearing as the antithesis of Bush was going to buy him the love and affection of the Muslim world, an obvious miscalculation one wants to believe.

While such effort was being, and still is, put forward by Obama and his cohorts toward the Islamic world, including our enemies, Iran continues to ramp up its nuclear program while remaining defiant of the demands of the international community.
And the shift in Washington policy has never been as overt as in the treatment of Israel. Obama has been more prone to chastise a true ally like Israel over the construction of few settlements than he has been toward the largest supporter of global terrorism in pursuit of nuclear weapons, not to mention the clear support that Iran has been providing to the terrorists that are killing our Military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is my opinion that Iran was somewhat preoccupied by the presence of American and Coalition troops across their eastern border, Afghanistan, and their western border as well in Iraq. Once Obama election was in the books, the theocracy in Teheran realized that the leadership of their worst enemy, America, had fallen in the hands of a man who had made one of the focal points of his campaign his opposition to the war in Iraq.
Obama practical ignorance of the events in Iraq and the pervading signs of appeasement gave the Ayatollahs the needed sense of security in the pursuit of their agenda, aided by the resurging Russian Bear and the ever increasingly powerful China. Is it any wonder that those two nations are so staunchly opposed to any UN resolution against Iran?
Moreover, Obama failed miserably in taking the appropriate stand for a United States President when he refused to publicly come out in support of the demonstrators who went in the streets of the Iranian cities protesting the dubious election results last year. Again Teheran saw the shifted policy of the American government. And the freedom seeking Iranians saw it too as they were slaughtered.

Then there are the words of Dr. James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation, who, in an article of 19 April 2010 titled Terrorist Short List is Getting Longer, enumerates the developing terror threats we as a country are faced with including Hamas and Hezbollah, who are backed by Iran and who may be soon ordered to directly attack American interests. These two groups are the ones that most likely would be the first clients of a nuclear power Iran.

Finally, for all those who still cling to the concept of the United Nations coming into the picture and save the day by passing strict sanctions against Iran, one only has to read Amb. John Bolton’s book Surrender Is Not An Option to really understand the complete and utter uselessness of that organization.

Just my thoughts!