Robert Gates to Israel: Nuclear Iran is inevitable, don’t bother attacking

by Infidelesto on April 16, 2009 · Comments

Easy for you to say…try living under threat of anihilation.  Israel can and will do whatever they can to save their people, and although I know you’re speaking for Obama on this issue, it’s still disgraceful that you’re going along with it. 

Reporting from Washington — Amid increasing suggestions that Israel might attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned this week that such a strike would have dangerous consequences, and asserted that Tehran’s acquisition of a bomb can be prevented only if “Iranians themselves decide it’s too costly.”

Using his strongest language on the subject to date, Gates told a group of Marine Corps students that a strike would probably delay Tehran’s nuclear program from one to three years. A strike, however, would unify Iran, “cement their determination to have a nuclear program, and also build into the whole country an undying hatred of whoever hits them,” he said.

Memo to Gates and Obama: The hatred for Israel and America ALREADY EXISTS.
[...]
Shimon Peres, Israel’s president, said in an interview with Israel’s Kol Hai Radio on Sunday that Israel would attack if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad didn’t drop his plans for the nuclear program.   

“We’ll strike him,” Peres said in the interview.

Netanyahu has also hinted at the possibility of an Israeli attack, describing the Iranian program as an “existential threat.”

 

Related posts:

  1. Arab newspaper: “Washington Bans Israel from Attacking Iran”
  2. Israel President: We will not attack Iran alone
  3. UN Nuclear chief tells Israel to leave Iran alone
  4. Nuclear Iran: 30% of Israelis would leave Israel
  5. Video: Joe Biden Warns Israel against Iran Strike
  6. US and Israel preparing to accept a nuclear armed Iran
  7. Iran Warns of Action if Israel Attacks Nuke Sites
  8. Ahmadinejad: Iran Will Not ‘Retreat One Iota’ in Nuclear Drive
  9. Obama Says Iran has a Right to Nuclear Power
  10. The case for attacking Iran
Want automatic updates?
4 choices: Twitter, Facebook, RSS feed or get daily email updates
  • Well, they already have an undying hatred of Israel, are already united on the need to go nuclear, and if Israel doesn't make it costly by attacking, they will not decide it is too costly. Attack!!! Attack, Netanyahu!

    Interestingly, Peres immediately waffled on his "We'll strike him" statement and said that they would not attack unilaterally without US support. Urmmm...Uhhh...bye bye Israel.

    If Netanyahu does not force the issue, Israel is done for.

    Gary H. Johnson, Jr.
    http://unitedagainstislamicsupremacism.wordpres...
  • Snake_Oil_Baron
    Too bad the "mutually assured destruction" doctrine only works if both parties are sane enough to fear mutual destruction. Funny how easily that little detail gets overlooked.s
  • Snake_Oil_Baron
    I just hope that if Israel goes to the effort of attacking Iran's nuke playgrounds that they are wise enough to bomb the military, police, government buildings and any other infrastructure that might allow the regime to crumble. Any attack which allows Iran to keep going the way it has been is just a temporary measure.
  • SirWilhelm
    Unfortunately, Israel doesn't have the military strength to occupy Iran in order to ensure a regime change in their favor. The kind of attack you describe may cause the present regime to crumble, but without an occupying force to ensure fair play, there's no telling what kind of regime would replace it. An even worse regime could arise.
  • JEWHAWK
    Israeli Military "modus operandi" doesn't require occupying Iran.Even the United States
    couldn't do such a thing.

    What Israel could do is to OBLITERATE Iranian oil refineries and facilities to such extent
    that it'd place Iran back at least 25 or 30 years in this field.It's economy would be RUINED,
    it's society in complete desarray,it's military without pay...

    If Israel destroys Iranian airfields,airstrips and airports,power grid,water and sewage
    facilities,police and firemen headquarters,roads,bridges,government buildings and the
    rest,Iran COULDN'T do ANYTHING with its Nuclear technology,for all society would MELT
    around it.

    Israel CAN do all things I've mentioned above EASILY...without having to put troops
    on Iranian soil,but only if the 30,000 plus IRANIAN JEWS should be held as HOSTAGES.

    Those 30,000 Jews are Ahmadinejad's most reliable defense against Israel.If he arrested
    them and placed them near or INSIDE Iranian military spots,Israel would HESITATE
    to attack.
  • SirWilhelm
    The US took out much of Iraq's infractructure during the Gulf War, and greatly weakened Saddam's military and it wasn't enough to bring him down, as I'm sure you remember. It took occupation to bring regime change, which Israel does not have the troops for, let alone the doctrine. I don't think Israel has the air strength, or the resources for the prolonged campaign it would take to destroy all the targets you mentioned, and there is the problem of flying over air space controlled by potentially hostile nations, a problem they face with even a single strike on Iranian nukes. I believe the shortest distance is over Iraq, and both Iraq have denied permission to use the air space. I hope Israel finds a way out of the situation with Iran at not too high a cost.

    ----------
    Sent from my Verizon Wireless mobile phone
  • Beejj
    Good thinking, Sir Wilhelm. Attack with missiles, perhaps? Send in Mossad?

    As for the Gulf War, it was a pity the Allies did not finish the job when they had the troops in place and had reduced the feeble Iraqi military to dross. But the good old UN in its infinite wisdom called for cessation of hostilities once Kuwait had been freed. As a result, Saddam was later able to butcher the Kurds: Turds killing Kurds.
  • SirWilhelm
    I think Israel will risk the possible repurcussions of an air strike since it's very survivle is at stake. Since I don't know the location of Iran's nuke facilities, I can't say if a SF strike is feasible. I think Israel hesitates because it doesn't trust the Obama administration.

    ----------
    Sent from my Verizon Wireless mobile phone
  • JEWHAWK
    Israel is capable of launching missiles from its submarines and from ground silos.Those missiles will probably be equipped with conventional warheads.

    MOSSAD:

    "The Institute" is already in Iran,alas,it's been there since the 1960's when Israel helped the Shah's Secret Service training.I bet that the older Iranian agents (that weren't executed by the mullahs)are quite known by the Israelis...

    TROOPS ON THE GROUND:

    As I said earlier,I don't think it's absolutely necessary to occupy Iran in order to destroy the nuclear targets.
    SABOTAGE is something very feasible,for many people in Iran are Israeli informers/agents.Many
    Israelis are from Iran and thus,speak FARSI fluently.
    The targets are already selected.The depth in which their underground bunkers are situated is also known.
    There are at least 25 or 30 targets to be hit,and if 50% of them should be sucessfully destroyed,Israel should only worry about Hizbollah's rockets on its Northern border.

    The plan to obliterate Iranian Nuclear facilities
    was made at least 10 or 15 years ago.Every detail imaginable is been gathered carefully,so when the time comes,all the hell will break lose.

    IRANIAN RETALIATION:

    Israel already prepared for the aftermath of its attack against Iran.At least 200 or 300 israelis will be killed by the THOUSANDS of rockets from Hizbullah.
    I can live with that.It's a much more acceptable outcome than to be NUKED by Iran.
  • Storm_Rider
    May the force be with you.
  • SirWilhelm
    We are differing on the details while agreeing that something must & will be done with the best results for Israel & the world.

    ----------
    Sent from my Verizon Wireless mobile phone
  • Beejj
    I don't know why I did not think of this sooner, but wasn't there a little incident in the early 60s when America took issue with neighbouring Cuba having rockets and nuclear weapons? Do some reading, Mr Gates.
  • Infidel_Tabatha
    I have to echo what ''Storm Rider' said. When people who live freely and comfortably in democratic nations scream abuse at Israel, for daring to defend herself against Hamas, they just don't realise that Israel is the 'canary in the coalmine'.

    I dislike the expression, but it's apt.

    What confronts Israel today in the shape of Islamic terrorism/Palestinian terrorism/Jihad, is going to confront the rest of the free world. It's just a matter of time - unless world leaders develop a collective backone and send a clear message to Muslims.

    And that doesn't seem likely to happen, what with the Brits pandering to every demand made by the Muslim community in the UK, and Obama frantically flapping his olive branch at Iran left, right and centre.

    Logically, every single person that values free speech and democracy **should** be supporting Israel.

    http://ajewwithaview.wordpress.com
  • JEWHAWK
    Infidel_Tabatha said: " unless world leaders develop a collective backone and send a clear message to Muslims."

    As long as OIL remains as the main source of energy,this "backbone" will never grow,
    even with Viagra.
    The aswer to this problem,I believe,lies here in Brazil,where Ethanol is used as fuel
    since 1979.Now we've got BOTH Oil and Ethanol,regardless of what happen in the
    Middle East.

    Obama SHOULD eliminate the tax barrier from our green,renewable,ALWAYS
    reliable (ish) suply of Ethanol and Biodiesel,and,in the process,PISSING OFF
    the madman Hugo Chávez and giving the muslims such as Saudi Arabia a hard
    time.

    Maybe,just maybe,Obama doesn't do just that by fearing that Saudi Arabia could
    STOP purchasing U.S.Treasury Bonds,bringing America to a financial collapse
    even worst than this current one.
  • Storm_Rider
    Everyone seems to think that the United States is protecting Israel; and while that may have been true in the past; I believe the shoe is now on the other foot. Obama and the American Marxist Left appears to be an ally of Totalitarian Political Islam, a conclusion confirmed by his deep submissive bow to the tyrant King of Saudi Arabia. No, in my estimation it will be Israel who will ultimately defend not only the United States, but human civilization its self.

    The United States used to be "One Nation Under God;" but the baton has been passed back to the first runner. I pray for us to return to our roots - the Declaration of Independence - and again become "One Nation Under God" along with Israel.
  • SirWilhelm
    Israel's strenght is limited by it's resources. The US support of Israel in the form of arms and ammunition has saved Israel on at least one occaision, the '67 war. What I fear is the withdrawal of this support by the Obama administration, although I believe Israel has attempted to become self sufficient. This kind of talk by Gates may be a warning to Israel that they could do that. This is another reason Iran wants nukes, they would use them to intimidate the US into ceasing their support of Israel. They may even dream of the day they have enough of them to destroy the US as well as Israel. But, how would 911 compare to even one nuke striking NYC?

    The idea of sanctions was to make it too expensive for Iran to aquire nukes. Obviously they have failed. Gates statement seems to be acceptance of that failure and the concession that Iranian nukes are inevitable. That leaves the situation in Isareal's hands. I think they have no choice but to strike Iran's nukes as often as necessary to protect themselves.
  • JEWHAWK
    SirWilhelm,I'd like to add that Israel's 1967 War was won using
    FRENCH weaponry,not american.

    Actually,during 1967,American Intelligence was SPYING Israel
    and giving valuable information to the Egyptians,with the
    help of its British counterpart,the MI-6,through its Cyprus
    facility...it's not a pretty story,huh?Even uglier was Israel
    response to this wicked policy from Lyndon Johnson...the
    attack against the USS Liberty,that was doing the radio frequecies
    intercepts of Israeli troops and officers exchange of comunication.

    After Israel beaten ALL Arabs to a pulp during this war,then
    Washington agreed to send A-4 Skyhawks and F-4 Phantoms
    in 1968,that were imediately used to bomb Egyptian refineries
    during the "Attrition War" in the Suez region.

    CEASING U.S.SUPPORT OF ISRAEL:

    Nowadays if this happen,Israel would be 5,000% more prepared
    than it was when France did just that,after 196 7.Back then,
    Israel relied heavily upon foreign aircraft,ammo,rockets,tanks,
    helicopters and other weaponry...
    Today,that's simply NOT the case,for Israel has the industrial and technological capability to manufacture at least 90% of what it needs.
    The biggest problem would be political and economical,but during a war
    for its EXISTENCE,Israel could manage to do it without America,but that would be a shame,nevertheless,Israeli Chief-of-Staff already has a contingency plan in this case,where Israel would have to fight on its own.

    America SAVED Israel during the 1973 War,also known as the "Yom Kippur War",but not because of Nixon/Kissinger,but DESPITE of them...The true
    unsung HERO that single-handedly saved Israel was General ALEXANDER HAIG that provided Israel with the new TOW anti-tank,shoulder-fired missile,WITHOUT Washington's approval and maybe even without knowledge.
  • SirWilhelm
    It seems I had my wars mixed up, thanks for that clarification. I knew that Israel was better prepared now, I know they make their own tanks and APCs for intance, I'm afraid there's just no way of knowing until they're in a prolonged war, just how well prepared they are. I hope we never have to find out.
  • Infidel_Tabatha
    Gates said: 'Tehran’s acquisition of a bomb can be prevented only if “Iranians themselves decide it’s too costly.'

    Er, no, actually, Mr Gates.

    A nuclear Iran can also be prevented if ISRAEL decides that it would be 'too costly' for her. Or to put it another way: Mahmoud repeatedly vows to destroy Israel. Does anyone really think that the Jewish state is going to just sit and wait while Iran makes up its mind which year it's going to hit Israel???

    As Jews, believe me, we have learned that when some little dictator threatens our very existence, we take those threats seriously.

    Israel will do whatever she must to protect her citizens. And if Obama and the rest of the world have a problem with that, then TOUGH.

    http://ajewwithaview.wordpress.com
  • JEWHAWK
    I'm afraid that it's up to Israel to decide if it's worthwhile to take
    such a risk,of being WIPED OUT from the face of the Earth and
    accept its fate like the Jews waiting in line in Birkenau to be
    gassed OR...

    STRIKE IRAN FIRST WITH A DEVASTATING PUNCH.

    Mr.Gates will be solemnly IGNORED by Israeli Chief-of-Staff
    regarding that decision,for only the Israeli PM,Knesset and the
    Israeli President will be briefed about it.

    Obama administration will watch on TV when it happens,for
    I doubt very much that it actually CARES about Israel.
  • Beejj
    If bankrupt Pakistan can afford the technology to produce nuclear weapons, Iran will build them using the petty cash, so forget the nonsense that Iran might find the exercise too costly. A strike by Israel will delay Iran's acquisition of such weapons by a few years? What then? Strike the bastards again, of course! A strike by Israel would unify Iran (I presume this means consolidation of Iranian hatred of Israel)? Does their loathing of Israel need further consolidation? Are there agencies in Iran calling for a cessation of belligerence towards Israel? Does this Gates bloke think we are idiotic enough to go along with his "logic"? Is he related to Jimmy Carter?

    Israel faces its greatest danger, and sweet talk by Obama and his minions will only exacerbate that danger. In the past, Israel has always heeded America, ceasing its triumphal progress as it dispatched the accumulated forces of Islam which had attacked it, but this time we have an infinitely worse scenario and Israel cannot afford to kow tow to American Liberals. If Israel does not flatten Iran's nuclear plants, Israel will be flattened in not many years from now. Israel will become but a memory. Does anyone truly believe otherwise? This places Israel in a dreadful position, for it knows better than all of us that a strike against Iranian nuclear plants will reap the condemnation of the entire world, with possibly catastrophic consequences. "On the horns of a dilemma!" Which is more important: survival or approbation of liberal governments? Go get 'em, Israel.
blog comments powered by Disqus