Tell us something we haven't already known!
From Fox:
"A memo from Defense Secretary Robert Gates to the Whitehouse warned that the United States lacks a nimble long-term plan for dealing with Iran's nuclear program, according to a published report."
A "nimble" - "long-term plan"?,----for dealing with a nuclear armed Islomofascist regime,-- that is motivated to bring about the return of the hidden Mahdi?
Sorry, but "nimble" certainly won't work.
The certain danger of an Islamist regime armed with nukes requires an overwhelming and dispportionate response of "shock and awe".
Something like lots of MOP's [Massive Ordinance Penatrator] for those nuke sites deep underground:
Not a "nimble" response.
Unfortunately, "nimble" has characterized how both the Bush and Obama Administrations have responded thus far.
There are no "good" options. But the consequences of a nuclear Iran will be far worse for America and the rest of the free-world.
And "long-term" is a clueless delusion on the part of Gates.
It betrays the fact that Gates is under the false delusion that the Iranian Islamists are equivalent to the cold-war Soviets for which a deterrent factor had credence.
Not so with an Islamist regime that wants to bring about the return of the hidden Mahdi.
And has already been at war, and perpetrating acts of war against the U.S. troops via it's terrorist proxies and revolutionary guards.
That statement of Gates also betrays what we have suspected and known all along anyway:
The Obama administration is resigned to a nuclear armed Iran.
And there is this:
"Gates wrote the three-page memo in January and it set off efforts in the Pentagon, White House and intelligence agencies to come up with new options, including the use of the military, The New York Times said in its Sunday editions, quoting unnamed government officials."
[Obama Whitehouse denied that.]
"White House officials Saturday night strongly disagreed with the comments that the memo caused a reconsideration of the administration's approach to Iran."
["...strongly disagreed with the comments that the memo caused a reconsideration of the administration's approach to Iran."]
This is absolutely true!
The Obama administration's response to a nuclear armed Iran has always been the same:
Diplomatic rhetoric about useless, meaningless sanctions that would have no effect and would be blocked by Russia and China anyway.
There is no diplomatic solution. Only a "bunker-buster" solution.
Dilemma- "any situation in which one must choose between unpleasant alternatives."-Websters
Aside from perhaps Israel, the U.S. and the rest of the so-far free-world do not correctly understand the "dilemma".
The rest of the world is more frightened about "what Iran might do", and what it's Islamo terrorist affiliates [Hamas, Hezbollah] might do,-- should there be a preeminent military operation to stop Iran,
------than they are over what Iran "will do" if they become nuclear armed.
They have it backwards.
The world needs to be more frightened, more concerned of the certain deadly consequences of a nuclear armed Iran, than the temporary consequences of a joint preemptive military operation to stop Iran.
There are no "good" options. There are no "diplomatic" solutions.
Comments