In the history of mankind, many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state. TR


Panetta: We Will do Whatever it Takes on Iran

Does the White House know about this?

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta indicated Sunday during an interview on CBS that if push comes to shove, we’ll take out Iran’s nukes with military force.

Panetta: If they proceed and we get intelligence that they’re proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, then we will take whatever steps are necessary to stop it.

Scott Pelley: Including military steps

Panetta: There are no options that are off the table.

Unfortunately, President Obama has never been so forthright, always holding back just a bit from stating that we will take military action if the sanctions don’t work.

Which they won’t.

Obama has previously stated that a Mullahbomb would be “unacceptable.” During the State of the Union, he decreed he is “determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”

This is all very careful phrasing that falls short of a promise to do what is necessary.

An Iranian nuclear weapon must at all costs be prevented. Such a device could one day be used on us either by the Iranians or their terrorist proxies; would give Iran tremendous new power in confronting us across the Middle East; and would result in a nuclear weapons race throughout the region as Saudia Arabia, Egypt, and potentially others seek a bomb of their own.

My hope is that Obama is letting Panetta send a clear signal to the Iranians, and that Panetta’s comments represent U.S. policy. Recent reports state that the Pentagon is engaged in a crash program to increase the strength of our bunker-busting bombs so they can be sure to reach the Iranian centrifuges.

My fear is that we’re hedging on a life-or-death issue for our country.

10 thoughts on “Panetta: We Will do Whatever it Takes on Iran”

  1. You’ve got to understand Obama’s leadership style. He puts someone in charge of something important, if it’s successful Obama takes all the credit (see: OBL). If it fails, then that person gets all the blame.

    Good luck Panetta ;)

  2. Imagine…you have to keep the US voters feeling “safe” yet keep those Muslim Brotherhood pals happy that IAmANutJob gets his nuke. Buh-Rock hasn’t faced a decision this difficult since UConn or Butler.

  3. I am betting that the Pentagon is working on an upgrade of the GBU43/B (MOAB) for deployment on Iran’s nuke facilities. If they are, watch for a huge back lash due to the destruction wrought by these bombs, but also watch for large chunks of Iran to be nothing more than craters.

    That’s if Obama has the backbone to order their use.

  4. We are going to have a nuclear 9-11 because the Democrats were so eager to exploit the “Bush Lied, People Died” Bovine Scatology to loose a war so they could win an election. (with the stuff Sadam had in Iraq, I could have built him a nuke). Even worse, Obama is determined to transform Pakistan, which already has 100-200 nukes, from a secular democracy into a militant Islamic Theocracy. When they do nuke us, my slogan will be ” Bush Lied? People Died?” as I shoot any refugees who come my way.

  5. As impressive as the Bunker Buster bombs might seem, a bomb dropped from an aircraft doesn’t have a prayer of penetrating to targets buried hundreds of feet under solid rock. One possible solution would be to mount a rocket boosters on the bombs to increase the impact velocity to a velocity comparable to the muzzle velocity of an Abrahms Tank’s cannon ( about 5,000 feet per second). A far better solution would be to resurrect the old, Pershing II missile with it’s deep pentrating, low yield, shaped charge nuclear warhead. Unfortunately; Obama isn’t going to adopt a potentially successful tactic.

    1. James,

      Multiple strikes by a modified GBU28 followed by a modified GBU43 could do the job. It would depend on how deep the actual facilities are, and what type of civilian casualties the administration is willing to endure.

      I think that any use of a nuke by the US would end up being a nightmare for domestic and foreign policy. I agree that it would be a quick end to Iran’s nuke program, but the political fall out would be too intense for Obama and the lib peaceniks to tolerate.

      1. It would take every B-2 that the US has to carry enough bombs to peck their way through the rock to reach a deep bunker and we need to hit multiple bunkers simultaneously. It can’t be done without a nuke.

        An alternative strategy would be to drop a bunker buster on Iran’s new nuclear power reactor after it has operated long enough to accumulate a significant inventory of fission products. The fallout would be thousands of times more radioactive than from an Earth penatrating nuke. The resultant carnage from radioactivity might provoke a backlash against the Iranian regime.

        The above is obviously an offensive but accurate description of how constrained the options are. Unfortunately; Obama squandered the opportunity to support the 2009 revolt against the Iranian regime because he arrogantly presumed that he could negotiate with them. Perhaps our President could persuade the Mullahs to beeaceful by getting down on his knees to show them how much he loves them?

Comments are closed.