Robert Gates, a suitable secretary of defense … for President James Baker
(See Spencer Warren’s and my disagreement over this issue, below.)
Melanie Phillips draws our attention to the unbelievable badness of Robert Gates’s statements on Iran during his confirmation hearings. Among other things, Gates said that Iran is developing nuclear weapons only for purposes of self-defense. This ignores the Iranian leadership’s clearly stated intentions to use their weapons to destroy Israel.
Mein Gott, what a falling off is here. From President Bush’s bellicose inclusion of Iran in the “axis of evil” in January 2002 and his repeated assurances that he would never tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, to his nominating as his Defense Secretary a man who flatly denies Iran’s openly stated aggressive intentions, it’s as though all of Bush’s imperious posturing has collapsed, leaving only the smallness and hollowness that was always there.
- end of initial entry -
Spencer Warren writes:
I saw Gates’s testimony on C-Span. What Phillips writes is typical ignorant journalist rubbish.
1. She oversimplifies, writing that Gates said Iran seeks nukes for self-defense. He used the term “deterrent” and qualified it by saying it was the mullahs’ aim “in the first instance.”
2. The wacko president is not the main power in Iran; the mullahs who run the Supreme Council or whatever it is called are the powers. I’ve read other expert testimony saying the same thing on this point. They likely want nukes as a deterrent and also (in the second instance, as it were) to give them flexibility in aggressively pursuing their regional hegemonic ambitions—including the use of terrorism, support of Hezbollah against Israel and in Lebanon, in Iraq, etc. Gates cannot go into such detail in public testimony given his position, but I think this is what he was alluding to. Again, he referred to “deterrence” as “in the first instance.” The flexibility I mention would be to deter the US and Israel from standing up to their use of terrorism and other means to advance their ambitions.
3. Phillips writes: “These moderate, reasonable, Iranian leaders, Gates calmly explains” Gates did not say that; his nuanced comment is over the head of this ignorant woman. She is way out of her depth here.
I’ve written before that especially in foreign affairs, journalists terribly oversimplify, are ignorant of these highly complex issues and of the politics of foreign countries; they also don’t understand nuance or subtlety. They are very naive just to take at face value what foreign leaders may say. I’m not minimizing the danger to Israel, just saying there is more to the matter than Phillips presents.
Journalists constantly identify—incorrectly—the wacko president as the power in Iran; they are too lazy to consult experts because they don’t understand their own great limitations. She sounds here like the ranting ignoramus Michael Savage.
I also think you should be more careful in dismissing a man like Gates, in view of his vast experience as head of the CIA, deputy head of the CIA and earlier very responsible intelligence posts. Remember, you are read widely.
LA replies to Mr. Spencer point by point:
1. This was not Melanie Phillips’s report of Gates’s testimony. She was quoting at length from an editorial in the Jerusalem Post. And her quote of the Jerusalem Post said that Gates said that the Iranians want the nukes “in the first instance as a deterrent.” It was I who characterized that as “only for self-defense.” The “only” was incorrect, I should have said primarily; but deterrence is self-defense, so that part of it was correct.
2. I am surprised by Mr. Warren’s easy acceptance of the notion that mere “deterrence” is a legitimate Iranian aim. What he’s actually describing is the Iranian ability to use nuclear weapons to intimidate all powers in the region away from resisting Iranian aggression in any area. And by the way, it won’t be only regional powers Iran intimidates and blackmails, but the whole West. To blackmail America, Iran doesn’t need to be able to target the U.S. The ability to target Israel or Europe would do the trick.
3. The phrase, ““These moderate, reasonable, Iranian leaders, Gates calmly explains” comes from the Jerusalem Post editorial, not from Phillips.
Finally the notion that we’re supposed to accept that Johnny is not the real power in Iran, but other people, who are less dangerous, are, is based on what? Who are these other, moderate leaders? Is Mr. Spencer thinking, perhaps of the former president who spoke of an entire plan to destroy Israel as soon as Iran has a few bombs, even if it means the death of millions of Iranians?
With respect for Mr. Spencer, I don’t see Melanie Phillips as being naïve in her discussion of this issue, but the people who are closing their eyes to the manifest threat before us.
Mr. Warren replies:
1. I did not suggest that deterrence is a “legitimate” Iranian aim, simply that it is one of their aims, according to Gates and experts on the subject. I was making the point that the matter is far more complex than set forth in the Jerusalem Post editorial, which Melanie Phillips quotes approvingly.
2. With regard to the mullahs, I did not write that they are “moderates.” Rather, I noted their desire for nuclear weapons “to give them flexibility in aggressively pursuing their regional hegemonic ambitions—including the use of terrorism….”
3. You ask, “the notion that we’re supposed to accept that Johnny is not the real power in Iran, but other people, who are less dangerous, are, is based on what?” No, it is not, as you suggest, based on a statement by the former Iranian president. It is based on the experts on whom I rely for my information, whom you should read as well. Your point here is sheer speculation, not based on in-depth study of the country’s internal politics.
4. A reasoned critique of Gates’s testimony would have asked questions such as these: (1) Regardless of Iran’s aims, once it obtains nuclear weapons, does not its acquisition of nuclear weapons greatly increase the danger of proliferation, not least to terrorists? (2) What would be the impact on North Korea’s aggressiveness? (3) What are the aims of the mullahs who control the country, what is their relationship with the president, and why do they allow him to carry on as he does?
As a former State Department official with an M.A. degree in international affairs, let me say that it is dangerous to rely on typically superficial journalists (including editorialists) in discussing these very complex foreign policy issues.
Mr. Warren continues:
Let me also add that you are wrong to charge that Gates or I are “pretending that this hideous threat does not exist.’” What are the specific words we used to support this charge?
You persist in oversimplification and overstatement, relying apparently on nothing more than news reports and columns. It is very presumptuous to dismiss a man of Gates’s immense national security experience at the highest levels. He answered a couple of questions at a hearing; you jump on his nuanced comments and claim he believes “this hideous threat does not exist.” He also may have had a good diplomatic or other reason not to make an Auster-Phillips-like statement at that hearing. I have written you in the past that, from my State Department experience in the Reagan administration, I learned there is often far more involved in foreign policy issues than would be known from reading news accounts.
The foregoing exchange seems to come down to this: I warn against oversimplification and stress in-depth, nuanced knowledge of the issue, as Gates did, and in response you exaggerate and mis-characterize my points, claiming that I (and Gates) pretend the threat doesn’t exist.
LA replies:
There is this fanatical Islamic regime openly threatening to use nuclear weapons, as soon as it acquires them, to destroy countries that have committed no aggression against it. The Jerusalem Post pointed out—and Melanie Phillips and then I quoted it approvingly—that Gates said that the Iranians’ primary concern was “deterrence,” which is the same as denying their obviously threatening intentions. Nothing that Mr. Spencer has said here changes that or even puts it into question. Mr. Spencer’s continuing references to some mysterious “nuances” in Gates’s presentation do not constitute an argument.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 14, 2006 05:49 PM | Send