Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Gates Has Hope for Iran Talks, Urges Patience for Review of Afghanistan

By John Amick

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Sunday that if talks this week with Iran about its nuclear program are not productive, economic sanctions could be imposed.

Referring to the meeting starting Oct. 1 with diplomats from Iran, the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, Gates said on ABC's "This Week": "And then, if that doesn't work, then I think you begin to move in the direction of severe sanctions. And their economic problems are difficult enough that -- that I think that severe sanctions would have the potential of -- of bringing them to change their -- their policies."

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told CBS' "Face the Nation" that the Iranians must "present convincing evidence as to the purpose of their nuclear program. We don't believe that they can present convincing evidence, that it's only for peaceful purposes, but we are going to put them to the test."

Gates said the list of possible sanctions is plentiful, and that there is "no military option that does anything more than buy time."

"Sanctions on banking, particularly sanctions on equipment and technology for their oil and gas industry," he said on CNN. "I think there's a pretty rich list to pick from, actually."

Effective sanctions on energy, though, would take cooperation from China. Gates said it was too early to tell how the Chinese would or would not cooperate in such an event.

"I don't know the nature of the conversations that they had with the Chinese there, but I do have the sense that the Chinese take this pretty seriously."

On the recently-exposed nuclear facility in Iran, Gates said that the U.S. and its allies have known of Iran's actions for "at least a couple of years," but "waited to make it public was to ensure that our conclusions about its purpose were right."

"I think that, certainly, the intelligence people have no doubt that this is an illicit nuclear facility, if only because the Iranians kept it a secret," Gates said on CNN. "If they wanted it for peaceful nuclear purposes, there's no reason to put it so deep underground, no reason to be deceptive about it, keep it a secret for a protracted period of time."

On Afghanistan, Gates said that President Obama's reassessment of U.S. strategy, following a dubious Afghan presidential election and the call by America's top general in the country for more resources in fighting the Taliban, is necessary to ensure success in the increasingly violent war.

"The reality is, failure in Afghanistan would be a huge setback for the United States. Taliban and Al Qaeda as far as they're concerned, defeated one superpower," Gates said on CNN's "State of the Union," referring to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent withdrawal in 1989. "For them to be seen to defeat a second, I think would have catastrophic consequences in terms of energizing the extremist movement, Al Qaeda recruitment, operations, fundraising, and so on."

Gates denied any rift between civilian leadership and military brass. Top U.S. commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal "was very explicit in saying that he thinks this assessment, this review that's going on right now is exactly the right thing to do," Gates said on ABC's "This Week."

"He obviously doesn't want it to be open-ended or be a protracted kind of thing ... " Gates lamented the focus on Gen. McChrystal's call for more resources to avoid what McChrystal called failure in Afghanistan. Rather, the focus should be on the suggestion that America's existing forces should engage the Afghan people more while propping up the Afghan military.

Gates said that under McChrystal conditions in Afghanistan will not become what could be considered a quagmire, yet he warned against any timelines for an exit of military forces.

"I think that the notion of time lines and exit strategies and so on, frankly, I think, would all be a strategic mistake," Gates said on CNN.

"It (McChrystal's report) talks about accelerating the growth of the Afghan national security forces," Gates said on ABC. "It spends a lot of time talking about how we stay on side with the Afghan people. This is mostly what McChrystal's assessment is about."

Gates said the strategy Obama laid out for Afghanistan in March was the first real strategy America has had in Afghanistan since the '80s.

"The reality is, we were fighting a holding action. We were very deeply engaged in Iraq," Gates said. "We were too stretched to do more."

On the closure of the American military facility at Guantanamo Bay, Gates said he supported the president's initial call for its closure by late-January 2010, but currently doubts that deadline will be met.


By washingtonpost.com editors  |  September 27, 2009; 11:50 AM ET
Categories:  National Security  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Hails Renewal of 'American Leadership'
Next: Iran, Afghanistan Dominate Sunday Talk Shows

Comments

"Don't forget: that IS what Shia Islam is, an apocalyptic cult."

this is hate speech, and it's innacurate. shia islam is no more of an 'apocolyptic cult' than run-of-the-mill evangelical christianity, a point made clear by the eschatological pronouncements of the crusading G W Bush, whose religious beliefs seem to have been a motivating factor in his disasterous Iraq war.

this current trend of islamaphobia appears to be the only kind of extreme bigotry still sanctioned by our press. and make no mistake, this is solely because it serves the ruling powers' strategic interests in the middle east. readers should be vary wary of these types of assertions.

Posted by: watchclosely | September 27, 2009 9:26 PM | Report abuse

So Gates accuses Iran of "a pattern of deception and lies" to the IAEA. Where does that situate the USA, considering the false assertions and fabricated evidence it inundated the IAEA with preceeding the Iraq invasion? Not only a pattern of deception and lies, but one which led to the unnecessary deaths of up to 600,000 Iraqis. Obviously you're only allowed to lie to UN agencies if you're the USA, who, of course, have never allowed the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities, and never would.

The phrase "Double standard" seems somewhat inadequate for this scenario.

Posted by: watchclosely | September 27, 2009 9:11 PM | Report abuse

I'm getting tired of hearing ignoramuses repeat the tired old line, "sanctions don't work". Sometimes they do. We had better hope that this time they do, because if Bill Gates himself says there is no military option, then we had better believe him.

And do I really have to remind people? A nuclear armed Iran is a Doomsday device under the control of an apocalyptic cult.

Don't forget: that IS what Shia Islam is, an apocalyptic cult. They are even more out of touch with reality than David Koresh was.

Posted by: Syllogizer | September 27, 2009 9:06 PM | Report abuse

John King on CNN asked a very poignant question: "What Should Obama do about Iran?" and Sen. Bayh made a comment that answered the question: "Iran respects strength the most".
First and foremost, sanctions will not work in this case b/c it hasn't worked thus far and it only hurts the population on the verge of a revolution. And China will buy them more time regarding enforcing sanctions b/c it means loss of profit for them and that is their utmost concern. What is another alternative, although a hypothetical solution?
1. This action against Iran should not be a one nation decision but a group one collaborated by France, Britain, US, Russian and China.
2. Sarkozy already gave a time limit, which I would not have suggested, but since he has said end of December, that they have to abide by that. If and only if Iran refuses to dismantle or allow UN officials access to this newly developed and hidden nuclear site, then they should state EXACTLY what Iran will face:
bombing of the site similar to the one by Israel against Iraq in 1980's - but rather than a surprise attack, they will know the consequences of their decision.
3. How and why would this ultimatum work?
- this is not like North Korea where the site is located within miles of major populated cities. The damage will be minimal to population but damage the facility before it becomes operational.
4. Why would China go along?
- US could use the brigade currently in S. Korea as a bargaining chip. US could transfer the majority of non-functioning military personnel to Afghanistan, where it is in demand. Then China and South Korea will have no choice but to use their own resources to protect and control North Korea. The leader there is in ill health - they have the bark but no teeth - they are not a realistic threat to the safety of the region in Asia. It's a perceived threat psychologically. The majority of the citizens of S. Korea do not want the US military presence in the capacity and presence, so I really do not understand why we are there continuing to provide protection - against what and spending how much for this perceived protection?
5. If Iran disregards the sanctions and do not respect the deadline, military strike is taken on this nuclear site. What would be the consequence?
- it sends a STRONG signal to the rest of the world in addition to Iran that this topic is non-negotiable if they are not willing to cooperate. There has to be real police action if threats or sanctions are to be taken seriously.
It might even ultlimately help in the internal revolution if the people of Iran realize that their current regime is nothing but a threat to their own future.

Posted by: american17 | September 27, 2009 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Someone wrote: "If Gates lived next to Israel he would want nukes too"


I agree. Those 400,000,000 hostile Israelis represent an acute threat to the stability of the region.

Yeah. Real threat.

Posted by: jato11 | September 27, 2009 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Iraq buckled under sanctions.
Do not know if the conditions are analogous.
However, Iran might also crack under sanctions.
There might be many moderate Iranians who would express dissatisfaction with the regime if denied their Whoppers and Macs.
They'll realize no one can eat a nuclear weapon. Or when they require medicine and there is none an atomic pile won't help with anything.

Posted by: jato11 | September 27, 2009 8:29 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand this. The US knew about this site, and was perfectly willing to engage with Iran. All that has changed is that Iran has released the info. They seem piqued that Iran released the info without giving the US an opportunity for a "gotcha". All very strange indeed.

Posted by: ggreenbaum | September 27, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Gates must know that real sanctions -- those which would really hurt Iran -- would be considered an act of war. Lesser sorts of sanctions have never worked anywhere. I think Gates has thrown himself entirely in the camp of O'Bama and will say anything to further O'Bama's decisions, when he makes them. O'Bama is trying to devise a policy based on facts and reason, unlike the policies of LBJ in Vietnam and George W. Bush in Iraq. It takes time. This doesn't mean I trust him to come up with a good plan, only that he shows some need for careful thought. Much of his careful thought, however, may be designed less for reasons of national security and more for reasons of political expediency. He has a leftwing in the Democratic party to satisfy and he knows that he can easily fall into the trap set for him by the GOP where he is the one who will have lost Afghanistan. Of course, we cannot lose Afghanistan since we never had it in the first place. But the GOP invented the loss of China and blamed the Democrats. We didn't have China either so how could we have lost it?

Posted by: ravitchn | September 27, 2009 7:42 PM | Report abuse

sanction does not work. there are other ways:
1-Iranian reformist started a process of prosecuting Iranian Leadership in international court for crime against humanity they committed during recent unrest in IRAN. western countries including US should support them.
2- help Iranian people to access internet without their government blockage.

Posted by: solh26yahoocom | September 27, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Well our troops ostensibly control two of their borders. But my guess is that if our control is so porous that Iranian made mines and weapons are killing our soldiers and that the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is so gutless there really isn't much we can do about it.

Posted by: DCDave11 | September 27, 2009 7:04 PM | Report abuse


"Crippling Sanctions" will only hurt average Iranians, not the leadership of the country. Just as with Iraq, remember? About half a million Iraqi children died as a direct result of U.S. imposed sanction. Do you want to repeat that scene with Iranians?

If Gates lived next to Israel he would want nukes too

It's called self preservation....

Posted by: Rubiconski | September 27, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse


Iran needs MORE secret nuke sites!!!

ALL oil producing countries MUST have nukes to protect their citizens from invasion by OIL THIEVING SCUMBAGS!


Posted by: Rubiconski | September 27, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Sanctions worked so very, very well in Iraq, during the Saddam Husein days. And so afterwards we move on to another 'nation-building' endeavor?

Posted by: Loonesta | September 27, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

DECLINE AND FALL OF THE UNITED STATES
when and what was known publicly at the time

Sunday, September 27, 2009
by JaxMax

Israel needs to take strong military action NOW against Iran's nuke threat despite Obama's incompetence, indecision and ineptness.

When your neighbor buys a gun, says you should be shot, then starts to point the gun toward you house--you ACT, you do NOT ask Obama if its OK to LIVE.

Obama’s School Indoctrination Program–Obama’s back to school speech broadcast directly to school children during class in early September was opposed by many schools cognizant of Obama Indoctrination. Obama changed his speech, when caught, to be less blatant.

Well, now the open Obama Indoctrination has been broadcast on You-Tube, a website that publishes citizen videos. School children being led by Teachers to sing modified religious songs praising Obama were videotaped and posted on the web. There were several versions, “alteredbeat” was watched over 1 million times on You-Tube and was even more widely discussed by alarmed parents.

ACORN, the voter fraud thug group that helped elect Obama, was caught TWICE on video advising under age prostitutes and pimps how to avid paying income tax. ACORN’S response--Sue the surveillance operators.

Obama’s attack on the First Amendment and Free Speech took a quantum leap forward by the HHS illegal quash order against Humana Insurance Company for daring to criticize ObamaCare. The United States crossed a redline with Obama when the Media did not object at all to Prior Restraint by the Govt, not recognizing they would be next.

Obama continues anti Christian intimidation, but did back peddle from the Criminal prosecution by rogue anti-Christian Federal Judge Rogers in Pensacola against Robert Lay, a school Principal who committed the grievous crime against humanity of praying before eating.

While we are extremely grateful Mr. Lay was acquitted of criminal Contempt on September 17, 2009, (there were a lot of Christians praying over this persecution) this persecution, not prosecution, is indicative of the ant Christian program of Obama who is simultaneously zealously guarding and promoting Moslem prayer and facilities during the school day.

While night is clearly falling under Obama, in September 2009 Christians could still worship publicly with only regulatory and zoning persecution.

Posted by: JaxMax | September 27, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

More proof that Gates is not Republican. Gates actually has a brain...and he used his brain to think.

Posted by: jjedif | September 27, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse


Not all Americans support their government's numerous wars against Muslim-majority nations.

The US and the European countries are paranoid. The ''war against terror'' and the media, has created moral panic. They believe they are tackling this problem, but instead all they have made this world a more dangerous place and did not deal with the direct source of this problem.

America gets into other countries business, wanting to show that they can fix whatever problems, but mostly they just end up ruining people's lives in the process.

Posted by: Rubiconski | September 27, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Prepare yourselves for a nuclear Iran.
There is nothing we can do about it. All this noise about Israel is just that - noise, they are not a player in this matter.

Threatening to beat them up if they don't do what we say ... it's just such juvenile thinking that got us where we are right now in the first place.

Iran is no Iraq. There's more than just one letter difference. Do any of you bully fools even know where it is?

Posted by: katavo | September 27, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Iran wants nukes as a deterrent from being attacked themselves.

Considering recent history and the fact that the U.S. could very conceivably elect another right wing war monger President I think they are more than justified in trying to arm themselves as best as possible.

In their situation I would do the same.

I’d be happy to see a nuclear armed Iran.

It would force the belligerent Israelis to tone it down and it would make for a more peaceful Middle East

If I were Obama, I would set both sides down and tell them to leave each other alone because if either one of you attacks the other the US will f the attacker up beyond all recognition.

Like the man said.

“An armed society is a polite society.”


Posted by: Rubiconski | September 27, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Iran now has both Russia and China to deal with. Presdietn Obama laid the groundwork for this when he pulled back the absurd star wars carp bush was doing in Poland.

Posted by: John1263 | September 27, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Iran is a party to the NPT; Israel, India and Pakistan are not. Iran is required to comply with the NPT provisions; Israel, India and Pakistan are not. "Evergreen"'s comments regarding the UK, France and US military programs are simply ignorant; the NPT does not provide for inspection of or disclosure from any nuclear programs (whether civilian or military) of the US, France, Russia, UK or China.

The Iranian government is permitted under the NPT to develop nuclear power for non-military applications, and it is required under the NPT and its agreement with the IAEA to provide for specific monitoring and disclosure, which it is failing to do.

Posted by: albertcr | September 27, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

When did Dear Leader know about this plant, and when did he intend to share it with us?

Posted by: georgejones5 | September 27, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

If we try a military option the Republican Guard will turn the gulf into a mass of flaming tankers and will hit both Saudi oil facilities and Israel to boot. They can do it long before we would have the capacity to stop them. Everyone who knows anything about anything in foreign policy is well aware that this is the outcome of a strike.

Posted by: John1263 | September 27, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

The "containment" strategy is being revealed just as an onion skin is peeled back layer by layer.

Although the "tough talk" reserves the military option, the man responsible for implementing it essentially says it would be futile. Thus, the "military option" is off the table.

What remains? The concensus is that the only sanction serious enough to influence the Iranians is the denial of gasoline imports, which would require GLOBAL cooperation. We were never able to shut down the gasoline imports to Hussein, even when we ostensibly had world wide committments throught the United Nations.

Iranians will go ahead and develop nuclear weapons. We'll do some more "strategy reviews."

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | September 27, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse


Dammit, how in the hell are we supposed to keep people around the world scared about non-existent Iranian nukes when people keep talking about Israeli nukes?

Tell Dershowitz to write another 'anti-Semitic" article for our good friends at the NYT and have Abe go on FOX and scream about how dangerous it is to 'appease' those who want peace. It works every time!

Posted by: Rubiconski | September 27, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse


31 million pieces assorted US war junk in Iraq

must be moved!

Including
100,000 pieces of “rolling stock”
120,000 containers
34,000 tons of ammunition
618 aircraft.

The job will require an estimated 240,000 truckloads, which translates to 8,000 convoys.

At duh Pentagon, top officials are working overtime to manage duh "process"..

It is time Obama and Congress clean up the military complex for to me they are the biggest terrorists, as the only way they make any money is to instigate and create Wars! Eisenhower Warned us about them, now is the time to take action and bring them down!

Posted by: Rubiconski | September 27, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

A leaky old freighter, flagged in Liberia or Panama, could sail up the Hudson River and blow up NYC. This is the most likely target of Iran's first nuclear weapon.

-----------

You speak of it like it's just another bad Bruce Willis movie -- which it is.

You really shouldn't let your fears get the best of you.

Think people don't know what's going on in your head?

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | September 27, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

France gave Israel nuclear technology around 1960. They have had a nuclear bomb for almost 50 years. It is probably the only reason they still exist as a nation.

Ever since Iran seized our embassy, they have been been funding terrorist attacks against American forces and providing IEDs to our enemies. They have been at war with us for over 30 years.

A leaky old freighter, flagged in Liberia or Panama, could sail up the Hudson River and blow up NYC. This is the most likely target of Iran's first nuclear weapon.

It is time to make this war with Iran official. Let's declare war and occupy them for the next 100 years. We could use the oil.

Posted by: alance | September 27, 2009 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Ahmadinejad is really afraid of SANCTIONS.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why do we care about Iran anyway

----------

No, he's afraid of British and American personnel gaming his kooks, intellectually, from the inside.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
rotflmao
bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

oh, that is funny)

But the 2nd part of your post was right on!

Like the dinner jacket matters, anyway....

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | September 27, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Ahmadinejad is really afraid of SANCTIONS.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why do we care about Iran anyway?

They are no threat to us.

The worst they could do would be nuke Israel and that would actually be a blessing.


Posted by: Rubiconski | September 27, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Where is the inspection teams and/or sanctions against India , Pakistan , Israel , Turkey and Saudi Arabia which is the home of 15 of the 19 terrorist of 911 and supporters of the so-called insurgents in Iraq and now Afghanistan. U.S. even trades nuclear information and weapons to some of these nations.

Senate Backs Far-Reaching Nuclear Trade Deal With India.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/10/01/ST2008100103654.html

*******
President Obama said that...
Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
By his side was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the room with them, there was an elephant, a large and formidably destructive elephant, which they and the assembled press pretended not to see.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10621.shtml

Posted by: Sporty1 | September 27, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

I hope the fascist regime in Iran is overthrown and have said so a million times. I absolutely loathe it and always have.

That said, I would like any sanctions imposed do more damage to the regime itself than to the democratic opposition movement, which really represents the majority of people in that country. We should at least try to think of ways that we could assist them, at least indirectly.

I also agree with Gates that we cannot just cut and run in Afghanistan, even though we also have to consider politics at home, and public opinion, which will not support a long, drawn out conventional war there.

Posted by: mcmchugh99 | September 27, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

We supplied or let the Jews steal nuke materials and technology so they could build many bombs. How else did Israel get nuke bombs -- buy them on Maxwell Street in Chicago? Then the Jews used the threat of nuke bombs to commit human rights violations on the Palistinians and other Muslims in the region. This has been going on for over 30 years. The Muslims are tired of the US supplying Israel with nuke boms, guns, bullets, tanks, aircraft, and $3 billion a year in foreign aid to be used in killing Muslims. So Iran and most of the Muslim world wants to level the playing field. The best way to prevent Iran getting nukes is to de-nuke Israel and the entire middle East and have the US back away from total support of Israel's bankrupt policy of killing Muslims. If not, it will only be a matter of time before Iran and others get nuke bombs -- and I suspect a suitcase bomb will find it's way to the US with disasterous results. All from blind, head stuck in the sand, US support of Israel. Wake up people, it is not worth it to support Israel -- our supposedly friend that launched a 3 hour attack on a clearly marked US survaillance ship "Liberty" in 1967 that killed and wounded many. Yeah, and what about Pollard -- the Jew that spied for Israel and passed any and all secrets to Israel. Well he and his slimey wife are in jail and I could not be happier.

Posted by: DadBug | September 27, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Who appointed Gates, you Huckabee morons?

It wasn't your Glenn Beck anti-christ Obama.
It was your hero George the Dumber. Why don't you want to listen to what Gates has to say then?

Posted by: coloradodog | September 27, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Who appointed Gates, you Huckabee morons. It wasn't your anti-Christ Obama but rather your hero George the Dumber.

Posted by: coloradodog | September 27, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

andrew23boyle wrote:
"It's not a secret facility. What we did was completely legal."

- Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, yesterday

"This is my last territorial demand in Europe"

-Adolf Hitler, Sept 30, 1938 at Munich

Why does anyone give any credence to the lies of this tyrannical scum? Can't we see the danger of a nuclear armed Iran sitting athwart a good portion of the world's oil supply, especially given our shaky economy?

This is NOT going to get better if we wait, if we wait. It will only make the inevitable crisis that much more painful and dangerous.

Posted by: andrew23boyle | September 27, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Bush stood by and did nothing to rein in Iran and N Korea. Now Mr Hopey-Changey just cannot understand why the Iranians arent fainting at the sight of him. He still thinks they will come around and realize that he knows best. This nuclear program is alot farther along than Washington wants to admit, but Israel is the only one taking it serious. When it stops the precious oil from flowing to our country many of you might start waking up...and getting your heads out of the Persian sands. Ignorance can no longer be bliss. Obama did not encourage any kind of regime change during the turbulent elections in Iran and the mullahs took notice of his weakness. He did not even criticize the government for the crackdowns. Now they are playing it for all its worth.. Under Christianity we have prospered due to our relationship with Israel- its no time to turn our backs on them. Sanctions have NOT worked and dont expect Russia and China to be serious about enforcing them when they stand to profit handsomely .

Posted by: JUNGLEJIM123 | September 27, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY TO STOP THEM. GATES, YOU FREAKING IDIOT, TAKE YOUR DUTY PISTOL AND PUT IT TO YOUR HEAD AND P.T.T.!
------------
Now, hard to imagine, but do you think there are things Gates knows that you don't?

I mean, not even classifed things, but specifically, he understands the game.

Rush doesn't, god knows the kook Israelis don't, and well, the idiot spammers are slow on the pick-up too, despite their delusions of mattering.

Google boy pushes a preprogrammed button, calls himself Adam and a genius.

World trolls him.

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | September 27, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Maybe I'm missing something, but why do we not make the same fuss about Israel's much more secret nuclear program?

Israel is more friendly to us, but they have shown the capacity to be somewhat unpredictable. The Nazis were also a very sophisticated intelligent Western culture, like Israel, and look what they did.

Is the Moslem street seeing us as having a double standard, and is this perception justified?

What frightens me and angers me, is not that we have a double standard, but that we don't even mention Israel's program. We pretend it doesn't exist, and we act as if discussing it at all in an insult to our strategic ally.

We should at least ask the questions. That is, what is the difference between Israel's program (and for that matter Pakistan's and India's) and Iran's program, and why would opposition to Iran's program require us to go to war, and concern about the other nuclear powers in the middle east do not require us to go to war?

We were wrong to have the CIA overthrow Iran's democratically elected government, and install a cruel dictator (The Shah) in 1953. We may be wrong again.

Israel does have the right to exist, and the U.S.A. does have the right have Israel as strategic partner. But should we not be treating all countries by the same rules?

I don't see this happening with Iraq. I see a double standard, right or wrong.

The fact that we play dumb about Israel's already well-developed nuclear program, and her possession of nuclear bombs, makes all this fuss about Iran seem very wrong.

Posted by: owldog | September 27, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Heard Gates say the only way to stop Iran is for them to decide it's not in their best interest to have Nuclear weapons. Guess we don't need a military, Israel doesn't need a military, France doesn't need a military BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY TO STOP THEM. GATES, YOU FREAKING IDIOT, TAKE YOUR DUTY PISTOL AND PUT IT TO YOUR HEAD AND P.T.T.!

Posted by: chatard | September 27, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

US, UK, FRANCE DECEIVING WORLD ON THEIR NUKES.

IRAN'S AMBASSADOR TO THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY HAS ACCUSED THE US, BRITAIN, AND FRANCE OF DECEIVING THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY OVER THEIR NUCLEAR PROGRAMS.

IN AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH PRESS TV, ALI ASGHAR SOLTANIYEH REJECTED REMARKS BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA OF US, BRITISH PREMIER GORDON BROWN, AND NICOLAS SARKOZY OF FRANCE OVER IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM.

THE THREE LEADERS EARLIER ATTACKED THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OVER ITS SECOND UNDER-CONSTRUCTION ENRICHMENT FACILITY, LOCATED 100 KILOMETERS SOUTH OF TEHRAN, CALLING IT A "DECEPTION."

"I CATEGORICALLY REJECT THAT THERE HAVE BEEN ANY CONCEALMENT OR ANY DECEPTION," SOLTANIYEH SAID ON SATURDAY.

IAEA SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENTS DECLARED THAT IRAN IS ONLY OBLIGED TO INFORM THE UN NUCLEAR WATCHDOG OF THE EXISTENCE OF ENRICHMENT PLANTS 180 DAYS BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS INTO THE FACILITY.

THE IRANIAN ENVOY NOTED THAT HE GAVE A LETTER TO THE AGENCY ON SEPTEMBER 21 AND INFORMED THE DEPUTY GENERAL, ELABORATING THAT ITS NEW PLANT WOULD BE OPERATIONAL IN ABOUT 540 DAYS.

HE ADDED THAT THERE WERE NO OBLIGATIONS TO INFORM THE IAEA SOONER, ACCORDING TO THE AGENCY'S DOCUMENT 153.

"IT IS A PITY THAT NONE OF THESE THREE LEADERS HAVE LEGAL ADVISERS TO INFORM THEM THAT ACCORDING TO COMPREHENSIVE SAFEGUARDS WE ARE ONLY OBLIGED TO INFORM SIX MONTHS BEFORE WE PUT NUCLEAR MATERIAL."

"THIS SITE DOES NOT HAVE ANY NUCLEAR MATERIAL AT ALL NOW," ACCORDING TO IRAN'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE IAEA.

"THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE ARE THE VICTIM OF NEGLIGENCE OF THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT THEY KNOW IN FACT THE INTERNATIONAL LAW. THEY ARE TALKING IN THE UN BUT THEY ARE NOT AWARE OF THE VERY PRINCIPLES OF THE STATUE OF THE IAEA."

SOLTANIYEH ALSO CLARIFIED THAT WASHINGTON, LONDON, AND PARIS DECEIVE THE PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD BY VIOLATING THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY ARTICLES.

"THOSE THREE COUNTRIES IN FACT HAVE VIOLATED FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS NPT ARTICLES."

"THE UNITED KINGDOM HAS UNDER SECRET PROGRAM OF THE NUCLEAR SUBMARINES SO-CALLED TRIDENT WITH OVER 30 BILLION POUNDS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD AND EVEN THE BRITISH PEOPLE ARE NOT WELL AWARE OF THAT. THIS IS A REAL DECEPTION THAT MR. BROWN HAS TO ANSWER THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY BECAUSE THIS IS A SHOCKING THREAT TO THE INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY.

"FRANCE IS ALSO WORKING ON THE NUCLEAR WEAPON PROGRAMS CONTINUOUSLY."

"AMERICANS ARE WORKING HARD ON THE NUCLEAR WEAPON POSTURE REVIEW. THESE ARE ALL DECEPTIONS AND CONCEALMENT."

THE WESTERN COUNTRIES HAVE A "LONG-TERM STRATEGY" AND A "HIDDEN AGENDA" TO "DESTROY AND JEOPARDIZE THE SPIRIT OF COOPERATION BETWEEN IRAN AND THE IAEA IN ORDER TO FIND AN EXCUSE AND PRETEXT FOR SANCTIONS AND OTHER MEASURES," SOLTANIYEH CONCLUDED.

Posted by: evergreen2so | September 27, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

US'S PATTERN OF NUCLEAR DOUBLE STANDARD AGAINST MIDEAST NATIONS IS ANTI ISLAM


THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY (IAEA) IS DISCUSSING IRAN'S NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES JUST AS ISRAEL ACCUSED THE MONITORING IAEA OF HOLDING BACK ON ITS MOST RECENT REPORT ON IRAN, IRAN OF BUILDING SECRET NUCLEAR PLANT TO MAKE NUCLEAR BOMBS. ISRAEL SAYS IT "EXPECTS THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO TAKE SUBSTANTIVE AND PROMPT STEPS TO HALT IRAN'S MILITARY NUCLEAR PROGRAM" BUT WHAT ABOUT ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR ARSENAL? IT IS A WELL KNOWN SECRET THAT ISRAEL HAS NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS. OFFICIALLY, ISRAEL HAS A POLICY OF NOT CONFIRMING OR DENYING ITS NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES.
EXPERTS AND ANTI-NUCLEAR ACTIVISTS ARGUE THAT THE WAY IN WHICH THE WEST DEALS WITH ISRAEL'S PROGRAMME SETS A DANGEROUS DOUBLE STANDARD THAT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO STEM THE TIDE OF NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST OR ANYWHERE ELSE. BREAKING WITH PAST PRECEDENT, A US STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL RECENTLY SAID THAT THEY WOULD LIKE ISRAEL TO SIGN THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY, BUT A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL WENT ON TO NOTE THAT THE ISRAELI AND IRANIAN PROGRAM WERE UNRELATED "APPLES AND ORANGES". WE WILL DISCUSS ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR PROGRAMME AND ASK: WHEN WILL ISRAEL BRING ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS OUT OF THE SHADOWS? AND COULD AN OPEN AND HONEST DISCUSSION OF ITS CAPABILITIES PAVE THE WAY FOR A NUCLEAR FREE MIDDLE EAST?
ISRAEL, WHICH IS BELIEVED TO BE THE MIDDLE EAST'S SOLE POSSESSOR OF NUCLEAR
WARHEADS, HAS REJECTED REQUESTS TO JOIN THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY, TO WHICH
IRAN IS A SIGNATORY HAS A RIGHT TO ENRICH URANIUM, IS THE TRUE THREAT TO MIDDLE
EAST NATIONS, NOT IRAN. IT IS IRAN'S NATURALLY INALIENABLE SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY FOR SECURITY. IRAN CAN NOT BE DEPENDENT ON DECEPTIVE UNRELIABLE FOREIGN IMPORT.
ISRAEL WHICH IS PALESTINIANS KILLER AND ORGAN THEFT, HAS VOWED REPEATEDLY TO ATTACK IRAN IN THE PAST FOR NO CONCRETE REASONS.
LIKE US, UK, France
MIDEAST NATIONS ARE TO STAND SOLID BY IRAN FOR MORE THEN EVER.

Posted by: evergreen2so | September 27, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company