Mullen: No Attack on Iran

04/19/2010


There's a lot of hullabaloo about the New York Times article on Sunday, breathlessly reporting a "wake up call" from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates about the urgent need to rush contingency plans for attacking Iran.

Don't worry about it. Ain't gonna happen. Not a chance. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

I'll get to the Gates memo and the Times in a second. But geez: for years now, even under the Bush administration, it's been clear that the U.S. military is not going to attack Iran. Not then, not now, not ever.

Speaking at Columbia University this weekend, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pretty much said so. (By the way, he's been saying so for years.) Here's what Mullen said:


"I think Iran having a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. I think attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome. … This is as complex a problem as there is in our country and we have expended extraordinary amounts of time and effort to figure that out, to try to get that right. …


remainder here: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/553129/mullen_no_attack_on_iran

Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israel Radio on Monday that the only way out of the current stalemate with Iran is a bold Israeli move, adding that he felt that Iran did not pose an immediate existential threat to Israel.

The defense minister's remarks came in response to a statement by Pentagon officials on Sunday, who said that U.S. President Barack Obama's national security advisers were considering a broad range of options to curb Iran's nuclear program, among them military strikes, if diplomacy and sanctions fail.

Barak also responded to remarks by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said Sunday that the military options available to Obama would go "a long way" to delaying Iran's nuclear progress but may not set the country back long-term. He called a military strike his "last option" right now.



The comments underscored the difficult choices facing Obama in trying to keep Iran from getting a nuclear bomb without setting off a broader conflict.

Barak told Israel Radio that the time has come for sanctions with a specific deadline "in order to facilitate what Mullen's remarks imply."

"I prefer to refrain from speculation about the future," Barak added. "Right now, Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel. If Iran becomes nuclear, it will spark an arms race in the Middle East. This region is very sensitive because of the oil flow ? the region is important to the entire world. The fact that Iran is not an immediate threat, but could evolve into one, means that we can't let ourselves fall asleep."

On Sunday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, releasing a statement about a secret memorandum he sent to the White House in January, said he identified "next steps in our defense planning process" that would be reviewed by decision makers in the coming weeks and months.

"There should be no confusion by our allies and adversaries that the United States is properly and energetically focused on this question and prepared to act across a broad range of contingencies in support of our interests," Gates said in the statement, issued to refute characterizations of the memo in a New York Times report.


Also Sunday, Mullen spoke to reporters after addressing a forum at Columbia University in New York, saying that "it's very hard to predict outcomes there."

Mullen said there was "not much decision space to work in because of both outcomes - having a weapon and striking generate unintended consequences that are difficult to predict."

"I think Iran having a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. I think attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome," he added.

The Times reported on Saturday that Gates's memo was meant as a warning to the White House that the United States lacked an effective strategy to curb Iran's steady progress toward nuclear capability.

Number of proposals

In his statement, Gates said: "The memo was not intended as a 'wake up call' or received as such by the president's national security team. Rather, it presented a number of questions and proposals intended to contribute to an orderly and timely decision-making process."

Mullen said Gates was leading policy deliberations within the administration that have had "great focus for years, not months."

"This is as complex a problem as there is in our country and we have expended extraordinary amounts of time and effort to figure that out, to try to get that right," Mullen said.

Mullen and Gates both support continuing the diplomatic and pressure track pushed by the United States at the U.N. Security Council, including a new round of U.N. sanctions aimed at persuading Iran to give up its nuclear program without resorting to military force.

A U.S. draft proposal provides for new curbs on Iranian banking, a full arms embargo, tougher measures against Iranian shipping, moves against members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and firms they control and a ban on new investments in Iran's energy sector.

"We in the Pentagon, we plan for contingencies all the time and so certainly there are options which exist," Mullen said.

He said these military options "would go a long way to delaying" the nuclear program but said Obama would have to choose how to proceed if diplomacy fails.

"That's not my call. That's going to be the president's call," Mullen said. "But from my perspective ... the last option is to strike right now."

Mullen said that his "worry about Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability" is that other states in the region will seek nuclear arms of their own.

"There are those that say, 'Come on, Mullen, get over that. They're going to get it. Let's deal with it,'" Mullen said.

"Well, dealing with it has unintended consequences that I don't think we've all thought through. I worry that other countries in the region will then seek to, actually, I know they will, seek nuclear weapons as well. That spiral headed in that direction is a very bad outcome.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1164024.html

Officials, Seeing Impending Policy Split With U.S., Debate Prospect of a Military Strike Without Washington's Consent
* APRIL 21, 2010

.....Some senior Israeli officials say in interviews that they see signs Washington may be willing to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, an eventuality that Israel says it won't accept. Compounding Israeli concerns were U.S. statements this past weekend that underscored U.S. resistance to a military option. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday discussed a memo to National Security Adviser James Jones warning that the U.S. needed new strategies, including how to contain a nuclear Iran—suggesting that Iran could reach nuclear capability without any foreign military force trying to stop it.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reiterated Sunday the U.S. position that a military strike against Iran is a "last option."

....There are a number of routes Israeli attack jets can fly to attack Iran. They all would require Israeli planes to fly through U.S.-controlled airspace in Iraq or through the airspace of U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey, which could cause serious political consequences for Israel.

Many Israeli military experts say Israel can easily cope with any military retaliation by Iran in response to a strike. Iran's medium-range rockets would cause damage and casualties in Israel, but they aren't very accurate, and Israel's sophisticated missile-defense system would likely knock many out midflight. Israel has similarly proved it can handle attacks against Israel by Hezbollah and Hamas. Israel also hosts a contingent of U.S. troops attached to a radar system to help give early warning against incoming rocket attacks.
....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703757504575194223689622084.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

Israel won't attack Iran. Their attack would be ineffective, and they would lose quite a few airplanes. The Iranians have been purchasing the latest Russian ground to air missiles, and they are being manned by Serb mercenaries, who are known for their skill. And why are the Serbs in Iran? Because the US bombed Yugoslavia in 1999 as part of a move to convince the world it would help Muslims - and this in turn was driven by the US plan to side with the Israelis in the ongoing peace talks. The Serbs know they were thrown to the wolves by Clinton because the US president wanted to show his loyalty to the Israel Lobby. And today, Serbs who know the score, are waiting to shoot down US planes. And if it's Israeli planes, they may like it even better.

The U.S. has ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear program any time soon, hoping instead negotiations and United Nations sanctions will prevent the Middle East nation from developing nuclear weapons, a top U.S. defense department official said Wednesday.

"Military force is an option of last resort," Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy said during a press briefing in Singapore. "It's off the table in the near term." The U.S. and its allies fear Tehran is using its nuclear program to build arms.


Iran denies the charges, and says its program only aims to generate
electricity.

"Right now the focus is a combination of engagement and pressure in the form of sanctions," Flournoy said. "We have not seen Iran engage productively in response."

Iran has rejected a 2009 U.N.-backed plan that offered nuclear fuel rods to Tehran in exchange for Iran's stock of lower-level enriched uranium. The swap would curb Tehran's capacity to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran has proposed variations on the deal, and Foreign Minister Manouchehr
Mottaki said Tuesday that a fuel agreement could be a chance to boost trust with the West.

Earlier this week, he said Iran wants direct talks about the deal with all the U.N. Security Council members, except one with which it would have indirect talks - a reference to the United States, which with Tehran has no relations.

remainder: http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1164385.html