Gates: Attacking Iran Would ‘Worsen The Violence In Iraq And Lead To Greater American Casualties’
Gates: Attacking Iran Would ‘Worsen The Violence In Iraq And Lead To Greater American Casualties’
The Pentagon is actively planning, and the administration is reportedly considering, a preemptive strike on Iran. Today, Defense Secretary nominee Robert Gates was asked about his views on attacking Iran. Gates said “the consequences of a military conflict with Iran could be quite dramatic” and agreed it would “worsen the violence in Iraq and lead to greater American casualties.” Watch it:
Gates joins many other respected national security experts who believe there are no good military options in Iran.
Transcript:
BYRD: Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
And, Dr. Gates, our relationship goes back over a number of years.
Do you support — now, we hear all these rumors about the potential for an attack on Iran due to its nuclear weapons program, or on Syria due to its support of terrorism.
Do you support an attack on Iran?
GATES: Senator Byrd, I think that military action against Iran would be an absolute last resort, that any problems that we have with Iran, our first option should be diplomacy and working with our allies to try and deal with the problems that Iran is posing to us.
I think that we have seen, in Iraq, that once war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable. And I think that the consequences of a military conflict with Iran could be quite dramatic.
And therefore, I would counsel against military action except as a last resort and if we felt our vital interests were threatened.
[snip]
BYRD: Would you say that an attack on either Iran or Syria would worsen the violence in Iraq and lead to greater American casualties?
GATES: Yes, sir, I think that’s very likely.
BYRD: Your answer is yes on both questions?
GATES: Yes, sir, very likely.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
But he’ll do it anyway…?
December 5th, 2006 at 2:08 pmThis guy sounds like one of those damn liberal terrorist sympathizers.
We gotta kill the brown people because they don’t believe in the same god as the United States does and they have oil.
/sarcasm = off
December 5th, 2006 at 2:09 pmOf course it would. Hopefully, now that the holy-rolling crusaders have been rebuked, we can avoid duplicating the Iraqi catastrophe in Iran.
Of course, these people still think religion is real, so, who knows what they might do. They aren’t working from a reality-based ideology.
December 5th, 2006 at 2:09 pmWHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU, ROBERT GATES??? What the hell kinda TEAM PLAYER is you gonna be??? Where in the Bright Blue Hell do you get off contradicking the Preznit of the United States? Once again, frankly, yer lack of team spirit is distressing, sir! YOU got the talkin’ points! READ THE FRIGGIN’ THINGS!!!
December 5th, 2006 at 2:15 pmRobert Byrd is one of the most dynamic, charismatic, awe-inspiring members of that august body known as The United States Senate. Just watching him speak makes my nipples tingle.
December 5th, 2006 at 2:17 pmOpening With an Apology ( What America did to Iran )
But maybe it really wasn’t such a good idea for the CIA to help the British overthrow Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected, secular prime minister of Iran, back in 1953. Maybe we should have been more careful about installing the shah and propping him up with American arms. We only hurt ourselves in 1972, when we helped the shah buy more of our weapons by nudging him toward an artificial inflation of oil prices. It seems that was the beginning of OPEC. If we’d left Mossadegh alone, we might have avoided those lines in 1973 and 1979, and gas might be cheaper today.
Probably we should have thought twice about training SAVAK. The secret police tormented the Iranian people for nearly 25 years with such brutal efficiency that nearly every Iranian who was born before 1980 had a friend or family member who was imprisoned, tortured, or murdered by SAVAK.
So before we talk about brutalizing those people any further, maybe we should apologize for what we’ve already done.
Sure, we don’t want them to build a bomb, but we don’t really want to go to war with them either. According to Time magazine, an aerial assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities would require at least 1,500 sorties, some against sites in civilian areas. And that’s just counting the 30 facilities we’ve identified. As Donald Rumsfeld once said, there are things “we don’t know we don’t know.” And we won’t know those things until our boots are on their ground, which is where an aerial bombardment is likely to leave us.
Iranian retaliation might lead to more attacks on American troops next door in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran might mine the Strait of Hormuz, driving oil as high as $100 per barrel. That would be before their supporters blew up pipelines in Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. At that point we’d have little alternative to full-scale occupation and regime change in Iran, while we’re still trying to manage Iraq and Afghanistan.
And it’s not just the sorry state of any future war, but also the tragedies of wars past. When the Iranians finally got rid of the shah and SAVAK in 1978, they were no longer pro-Western. So they established an Islamic Republic, commandeered our embassy, and shouted “Death to America.”
We were looking for a way to contain our newly minted enemies, so in 1983, Ronald Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad to cozy up with Saddam Hussein. We shipped Saddam weapons that he used to slaughter a million Iranians. In order to wage that eight-year war, Saddam borrowed $20 billion from Kuwait. When Kuwait asked for repayment in 1990, the cash-strapped Saddam decided that it would be no more difficult to send his troops to Kuwait than to Iran, and that the U.S. would not object to one any more than the other.
So there was that four-day storm in the desert. Apart from hundreds of burning oil wells and thousands of slaughtered Shi’ites, it didn’t end too badly for us because the elder Bush was wise enough to stay out of Baghdad. But he was able to do so only by setting up American military bases in Saudi Arabia. That upset a black sheep from the bin Laden family. Down went the WTC, and then came the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In retrospect, it’s hard to say what was so bad about Mossadegh. Not only was he democratically elected, but he was not anti-American. We weren’t at war in the Middle East. Oil was cheap. We were spending more of our treasure on our own roads and schools.
Of course, we’re not responsible for every twist in this vicious cycle, and we’ve suffered along with everyone else. But we gave it a spin back in 1953, and we’ve torqued it a few times since then. It’s not going to stop until we take a look at what we did in Iran and start doing things differently. An apology might not be a bad start.
What we did to the Iranian people was wrong.
KARMA IS COMING TO AMERICA
December 5th, 2006 at 2:19 pmI didn’t think Byrd was going to make it through that second question!
Anyway, seems as though perhaps Gates may have learned from his mistakes? Let’s hope…
December 5th, 2006 at 2:20 pmNow, is there a sincerity checker in place? My WTF-Incredulometer is vibrating, but the siren hasn’t gone off….yet.
December 5th, 2006 at 2:22 pmThe United States has been accused of lying over Iran’s progress towards building a nuclear weapon.
A leaked letter from the UN’s atomic watchdog claims a congressional report contained “erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated information”.
The agency noted five major errors, including a claim that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in Natanz. The IAEA called that “incorrect”.
Agency inspectors previously made clear Tehran had only purified the substance to a low level usable for nuclear power reactor fuel.
The congressional report was released last month with the stated intention of “helping increase the American public’s understanding of Iran as a threat”.
The letter said the IAEA Secretariat also took “strong exception” to a claim that the agency removed an inspector for supposedly concluding Iran was aiming to build weapons.
The IAEA has been inspecting Tehran’s nuclear programme since 2003.
Although it has found no hard evidence that Iran is working on atomic weapons, it has uncovered many previously concealed activities linked to uranium enrichment.
Agency spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said: “We felt obliged to put the record straight with regard to the facts on what we have reported on Iran.
“It’s a matter of the integrity of the IAEA.”
Diplomats say Washington, spearheading efforts to isolate Iran with sanctions over its nuclear work, has long perceived agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei to be “soft” on Tehran.
Atomic Watchdog Letter
December 5th, 2006 at 2:23 pmGates said “the consequences of a military conflict with Iran could be quite dramatic†and agreed it would “worsen the violence in Iraq and lead to greater American casualties.â€
Unspoken message: start getting used to the idea.
December 5th, 2006 at 2:26 pmIranian requests for IAEA technical assistance on seven other nuclear energy projects were approved in a compromise reached ahead of the IAEA board meeting.
Iran’s heavy water Arak reactor is due for completion in 2009.
The UN’s atomic energy watchdog has rejected Iran’s request for technical assistance on its nuclear reactor project.
Tehran denies claims it is working on a nuclear weapons programme, saying it is only interested in for producing energy and the Arak reactor would be used to create radio-isotopes for medical purposes.
Give them a break guys
December 5th, 2006 at 2:29 pmJeebus… is Byrd doing ok? He seemes drugged or out of it a bit. I’m honestly concerned that he may be in bad health here… I’m not talking mentally as his question was right on.
December 5th, 2006 at 2:33 pmHey, #8… I used to have one of them WTF-Incredulometers, too, but the tympanic membrane of the Internal/External Bullshittamodulator Whinge holder ruptured during the Alito hearings and I haven’t been able to locate a replacement. Do you have an extra?
December 5th, 2006 at 2:39 pmWait a minute.
Upon closer reading~
“I would counsel against military action except as a last resort and if we felt our vital interests were threatened.”
Does this ring a bell? Isn’t this exactly what the Bushites said before going ahead in March 2003?
December 5th, 2006 at 2:39 pm#13 Trucker – I do, but it’s made from enriched plutonium. Still want it?
December 5th, 2006 at 2:40 pmNO IRANIAN INVASION! Look what happened last time we pre-emptedly attacked another nation. Uncountable Iraqis and 2908 dead Americans!
December 5th, 2006 at 2:43 pm#6
December 5th, 2006 at 2:53 pmI agree to a great deal. But I believe KARMA has not yet unfolded its real effect of hundreds of years, not just 50.
I still can’t comprehend why it would be ok for Pakistan,
India and North Korea to have Nukes, but not for Iran.
That’s where the problem lies and Iran knows that and they
deserve the same ‘right’ as those formentioned countries
to achieve a nuclear deterrend to protect themselves from
George, Tony and Ehud.
Britain wants to update their nukes for about $60 Billion.
That’s the right message to send. Arming up, not disarming.
If I would be Iran I would test my first nuke right now.
Regarding Gates, he is Georgie’s own and will not bite the
hand that feeds him. Until he intends to run for presidency.
The unresting part of his statement is “And therefore, I would counsel against military action except as a last resort…”
What last resort? What for? Kicking off a not to be avoided WWIII?
Get those deluded guys from the trigger before it is too late.
Angst is the wrong adviser, always was.
To deescalate the whole thing we should indeed apologize to Iran and step forward into peaceful relations. We need friends, not enemies. And as the US is the only remaining ‘capitalist’ nation in the world, there is money to be made with Iran too.
Big time. Maybe that helps in making decisions. In wartimes only the defense industry wins, everybody else looses. We need peace and disarmament for everybody to prosper.
But over all KARMA is definitely coming our way.
I wonder if Gates is talking shit before he gets in, then does the 180 degree turn and acts like Rummy?
December 5th, 2006 at 2:54 pm“And therefore, I would counsel against military action except as a last resort and if we felt our vital interests were threatened.”
Meaning that Cheney and his stooges are already cooking up the intelligence to “prove” that our vital interests are being threatened.
If you think that Cheney and the boy Bush are chastened by the debacle in Iraq, think again. They want their little nuclear attack, and they are going to do everything necessary to get it.
December 5th, 2006 at 2:57 pmThe American Empire will recieve its Karma at some point. All the arrogance, choices of ignorance, lack of participation in the human community, bullying, posturing, threatening, killing, taking, entitling, stepping on, brushing aside, ignoring, over consumption — will all come home to roost some day.
December 5th, 2006 at 2:59 pmNO to the radical right wing Neocon killers.
December 5th, 2006 at 3:02 pmWhere is their “Pro-Life” stance now?
And BTW: Shouldn’t we get some troops into FIJI? If it is all about bringing democracy to the world, well there’s a place that needs it badly. Go Georgie, go!
December 5th, 2006 at 3:04 pmWhere is their “Pro-Life†stance now?
Comment by GFH — December 5, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
These assmunchers only care about life before it’s born.
After birth, children should suffer as much as possible to toughen them up to make them more effective cannon fodder.
December 5th, 2006 at 3:13 pmI wonder if Gates is talking shit before he gets in, then does the 180 degree turn and acts like Rummy?
Comment by ForTruth — December 5, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
Exactly.
December 5th, 2006 at 3:22 pmI wonder if Gates is talking shit before he gets in, then does the 180 degree turn and acts like Rummy?
Comment by ForTruth — December 5, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
Exactly.
Comment by RealScientist — December 5, 2006 @ 3:22 pm
given his history of being a bush crime family operative (IranContra, anyone?), I’m sure he’ll fit in nicely. and tomorrow’s distraction of the Baker (bush consigliere) Bipartisan(?) Consensus, i.e., what daddy had in mind to get his worst son an out, I’m comfortable thinking that this is a ruse, like every other hearing.
Now, with the new Dems coming in, we’re getting greased before we get screwed.
I can’t wait to hear Murtha speak before a majority Dem House. I don’t give a schitt who is in the shrub’s cabinet or how many years they worked for pappy shrub.
December 5th, 2006 at 3:42 pmGates, bad choice, but when have the bush’s ever made a good choice….Good for them bad for every one else in the world….Iran/Contra all over this again…Blessings, we need them
December 5th, 2006 at 4:00 pmAn attack on Iran would
We’re paying these people to come up with this sh!t?
The game of politics is disgusting. What’s the point of asking these stupid questions that have no meaning and no straight answers? Did he say “No” to the question? No, he didn’t. They’re just there to put on a show for those in the world who are stupid enough to read something into what they say, and to get the braindead media to make a headline out of the exchange.
Another day in the do-nothing world of U.S. government.
December 5th, 2006 at 4:01 pmIf the Unites States does not want China, Russia, India, Pakistan Israel, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or any other SOVERIGN country to have nuclear weapons, why does it not destroy its own nuclear weapons?
Is not the United States already in violation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty just like England, France, and the others who agreed to destroy their own nuclear weapons in return for other nations not developing nuclear weapons in the first place?
If it is “right” for the UN to put sanctions on Iran, who has NOT broken the NPT by enriching uranium, then it must be even more “right” for the UN to put sanctions on the United States who has broken the NPT by not destroying its nuclear weapons and by designing new ones?
Why are not these questions asked?
December 5th, 2006 at 4:04 pmgates will do what bush tells him to do.
December 5th, 2006 at 4:08 pmSoo…… If Iran can’t prove the negatives that they do not have weapons of mass destruction and they are not a threat to the U.S. we will launch another preemptive war as a last resort?
December 5th, 2006 at 4:13 pmLast Preemptive Resort…
December 5th, 2006 at 4:26 pmlet`s not glorify this man too much.He does have alot of messy baggage strapped to his back of his own doing.
December 5th, 2006 at 5:52 pmGates is stating the obvious.
December 5th, 2006 at 6:12 pmcan we quote him on this?
December 5th, 2006 at 6:43 pm#32 Yeah, Gates is a feather in the wind. He is Alberto Gonzalez on ‘ludes.
December 5th, 2006 at 10:38 pm[...] His opinion on the violence in Iraq and its neighbors. Gates: Attacking Iran Would ‘Worsen The Violence In Iraq And Lead To Greater American Casualties’ The Pentagon is actively planning, and the administration is reportedly considering, a preemptive strike on Iran. Today, Defense Secretary nominee Robert Gates was asked about his views on attacking Iran. Gates said “the consequences of a military conflict with Iran could be quite dramatic” and agreed it would “worsen the violence in Iraq and lead to greater American casualties. Read and watch. Think Progress » Gates: Attacking Iran Would ‘Worsen The Violence In Iraq And Lead To Greater American Casualties’ __________________ STUPIDITY Is The Deliberate Cultivation Of Ignorance The TRUE HYPOCRITE is one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity. TRUTH exist, only a falsehood has to be invented. [...]
December 6th, 2006 at 4:58 am… there are no good military options in Iran.
FFS already. How many times has this been written on this blog now ? 200 ? Could you look any less clued in ?
What good diplomacy options are there to stem Iran’s nuclear program if there is no military threat ? Eh ?
Ever heard the term “sabre rattling” ? Refers to the threat of attack without actually drawing a weapon. Just like what’s been happening. Still no clue ?
You must actually be in the scaremongering business yourself Thinkprogress at the same time you are chastising the Bush administration for it.
I’m not sure short term memory loss or blatant stupidy is enough to explain yet another “OMG they’s talking about attacking Iran!!!!” story right next to yet another story where the fact that the military cannot afford to commit an extra 20k troops to Iraq. Haven’t joined those two dots in about 2 years so far and it doesn’t look like you will yet.
Yeah keep the diplomacy insights coming Thinkprogress. Awesome stuff.
December 6th, 2006 at 5:05 amThis Is Why The Iraqis Hate Us
Another beating snuff video shames coalition of the killing, You Tube censors it
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, November 17, 2006
British troops punch, beat and kick pleading Iraqi children as a sadistic comrade films the brutal scenes of torture, laughing, screaming, growling and frothing like a serial killer filming a snuff movie. This is why the Iraqis hate us.
Iraqi children throw rocks as they flee from running British troops, are grabbed, brought inside a gate and beaten half to death. Watch the video below. The censorship spies at You Tube rejected it 2 minutes after upload so I re-named it “Fluffy Happy Poodles In Heaven,” to try and bypass their keyword filters and it was still rejected. I even renamed the actual ‘wmv’ filename but it was still blocked for “terms of use violation.” I finally managed to get it posted on Google Video. If it disappears again, here’s the Windows Media link on our server.
November 19th: Google removed the video too! So here’s an old copy the censors at You Tube missed.
They keep killing this guys video so here is the link
http://prisonplanet.com/video/171106beating.wmv
share it with all you know.burn it to cd pass them out.it will diappear for good soon I fear.
get it while it lives,as a policy changer.
December 6th, 2006 at 5:48 amDeja vu , ” I think that military action against Iran would be an absolute last resort, that any problems that we have with Iran, our first option should be diplomacy and working with our allies to try and deal with the problems that Iran is posing to us.”
This is more or less what Bush said albeit on Iraq at the same time the airforce was on a “full air offensive” in september 2002, nice diplomacy…….
Here’s a reminder of those day’s, the 48 Hour speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
December 6th, 2006 at 5:58 amThis Is Why The Iraqis Hate Us
Another beating snuff video shames coalition of the killing, You Tube censors it
Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet, Friday, November 17, 2006
LMAO. PrisonPlanet… where those fed up with the lies of the MSM go to get their news… where they even manage to fit two lies into just the title of the article. Seriously LMAO.
This is neither “another” video nor a “snuff video”. It’s the same one documenting a beating (a beating in a war zone!?) you’d remember from last year if you’d given a crap at the time.
I don’t know where you grew up but I used to catch beatings for all manner of things, none of which approach that. If I was throwing rocks at armed soldiers in a war zone I would have expected to be shot. This stuff isn’t complicated. Get some perspective.
December 6th, 2006 at 6:57 amI don’t know where you grew up but I used to catch beatings for all manner of things
Comment by Tank — December 6, 2006 @ 6:57 am
It shows.Believe me it shows.It`s all in your shitty demeanor I suppose.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:58 amI didn’t think Byrd was going to make it through that second question!
Anyway, seems as though perhaps Gates may have learned from his mistakes? Let’s hope…
Comment by SouthPaw — December 5, 2006 @ 2:20 pm
Just forgive him,……………..just like that.
Boy oh boy,have your standards for personnel in the fed.govt really taken a dive…..Learned from his “mistakes”Is that what you categorize IranContra as?………….a mistake?
It was a CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE contrived and carried out by our ELECTED OFFICIALS.Nope sorry,……a “mistake” won`t apply here.
When we can all agree that Iran Contra was,……..”just a mistake” …and gaff it off like you do,we are really doomed as a people.
I am glad you are in the minority as far as Gates is concerned. This “premeditated slight” called IranContra is only the really bad stuff that got DISCOVERED.
I would love to read the official dossier on all the other “unmentionables” concerning this man.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:38 amTank,
you missed my point ENTIRELY
maybe the video is a contributing factor to PTSD.
….zing!!!
December 6th, 2006 at 12:19 pmThe media and Democrats have gone out of their way to define Iraq as a failure. Fact is we won in the battle with Iraq. Now we are fighting a war on terror.
“Mission Accomplished”
What we have here right now is a humanitarian effort for the benefit of the Iraqi people. The fact is being hidden that the other oil producing countries are strategically opposed to Iraqi competition on the oil market as a democracy. You have to look at motive them simply consider that a democratic Iraq is a threat to the current status quo. And don’t give this bologna about Iran being a democracy either.
Once you have established that simple fact it becomes obvious considering that Iran and Syria are assisting the Mahidi army that they are indeed on the side of evil.
The problem is the Democrats have been given total freedom to play armchair quarter back with impunity by the media. They are the spoilers in the War against Terrorism” once again look at who benefits and you have motive. The problem is with this strategy we all loose. I disagree with Bush caving in to their game in hopes that he will gain an ally in the war instead they will only take the knife that they have imbedded into Bush’s back and twist and slash for better effect.
The only way to level the playing field is if the media properly informs the public a properly informed public will do the right thing. This idea of posturing for a Vietnam scenario in order to wreak the benefit of preaching a false story of failure instead of the real story of betrayal does no one any good.
Consider this if we only went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Our troops get hit with WMD’s Shall I remind you of the 50 or so quotes by high level Democrats touting the thread that Saddam poses to National security? These going back into the 90’s? If it had happened we would sure be hearing about how Bush screwed up by not covering our flank side and addressing the Iraq problem.
When the world can see that Iraq is a problem that deserves to be looked at as a humanitarian issue and sees the true picture of what the problem is. Instead of a Bush vs. the world and the Democrats on the side of the world issue as it has been framed. There never will be a good ending to this story.
December 6th, 2006 at 5:50 pmre: Atomic Watchdog Letter
Comment by Tobey Tall
Why do you suppose that Iran has a need for Nuclear power generators? Sitting on top of a huge percentage of the worlds oil supply they can easily generate electricity from oil. It’s actually costlier for them to go the nuclear route.
Why does it seem incredibly ridicules that I would need to point this out?
December 6th, 2006 at 11:35 pm[...] Dori Smith: During the confirmation hearings of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense he said attacking Iran was a bad idea. Do you think he will be held accountable for making that statement or do you expect that it will be forgotten as policy marches on? [...]
December 24th, 2006 at 7:14 pm