April 30, 2009
Posted: April 30th, 2009 04:06 PM ET

From

 Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke before a Senate panel.
Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke before a Senate panel.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday a military strike on Iran's nuclear program would not stop that country from pursuing the development of a nuclear weapon.

Gates told a Senate panel that a military option would only delay Iran's nuclear ambitions and drive the program further underground, making it more difficult to monitor, he said.

He said the better option would be for the United States and its allies to convince Iran that building a nuclear program would start an arms race that would leave the country less secure.

"Their security interests are actually badly served by trying to have nuclear weapons," Gates said. "They will start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and they will be less secure at the end than they are now."

Gates was joined by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an appearance before the Senate Appropriations Committee to discuss the 2009 supplemental request.

Clinton and Gates told the panel the United States and its allies should pressure Iran with tougher sanctions.

"We do have intensive consultation efforts going on with our friends and like- minded nations, not only in the region but elsewhere in the world concerning the threats that Iran poses," Clinton said.

Gates said the U.S. should partner with Russia on missile defense programs in the region to isolate Iran, an issue that has soured relations with Russia recently.

"I think there is value in pursuing a partnership with the Russians on missile defense in Europe and in Russia itself," he continued, but did not elaborate.

Another hot-button issue that touched off questions from the panel: the final destination of suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Gates said the relocation to the United States of dozens of suspected terrorists held there is being discussed by U.S. officials this week.

Gates told senators the Department of Justice has started working on relocation plans within the United States for detainees who cannot be tried or transferred to another country.

The issue of moving the detainees is a touchy subject among politicians who do not want the high-profile prisoners in their backyards.

Gates told committee members he understands that the majority of Congressional members will file legislation barring the U.S. from moving the detainees to their states.

While the Department of Justice is sorting through the 241 detainees cases to see who will not be put on trial or be taken by other countries, Gates said the number will most likely fall between 50 and 100 that could be relocated.

"There clearly will be a specific plan that comes out of this, but what we've had to await is the determination, roughly speaking, of about how big a group of people we will be talking about. And so the review of each of these case files has to precede the development of a specific plan in terms of where the prisoners would go," Gates said.

An early possibility: the Army's prison facility at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, which is being considered as a site to build a detention facility especially for the detainees.

Kansans have been outspoken about rejecting the idea, and panel member Sen. Sam Brownback started his questioning of Gates with a plea.

"Please not at Leavenworth. I think you should look overall, and I'm glad you're looking at Europe with that," said the Kansas Republican.

"It's a hot topic with your commander at that base, whose primary mission is educational," Brownback continued.

"What we are attempting to do is try to convince other countries to take back their own nationalities of detainees and perhaps even others," Clinton said when asked about the status of the closing down the detention facility.

Senators were also concerned whether the Pakistani leadership understood what was happening inside their country.

As Taliban forces threaten to move closer to the capital Islamabad, and instability throughout the country looms, Secretary Gates likened the struggle to a familiar fight in the U.S.

"The United States was first attacked by Al Qaida in 1993. Al Qaida was at war with the United States for eight years before we decided we were at war with Al Qaida," Gates said. "I think the same kind of thing has kind of happened in Pakistan, the Pakistanis haven't realized the threat that has been posed to them over the last several years," he said.

Filed under: Hillary Clinton • Iran • Robert Gates • Sam Brownback


Jon in CA   April 30th, 2009 5:49 pm ET

Holy batcrap – the Obama Surrender Virus has infected Defense Secretary Robert Gates!!

He says,

".. the better option would be for the United States and its allies to convince Iran that building a nuclear program would start an arms race that would leave the country less secure."

So instead of DESTROYING the Iranian Nuclear Program and/or CRIPPLING the program.... we should "talk" to Iran hoping to convince them the would be LESS SAFE by having a nuclear weapon??

WHAT??

Let's be very clear.... Talk = Iranian Nuclear Device.... Action = No Nuclear Program.

Wow – the Obama Surrender Virus is spreading fast!

Proud DHS radical   April 30th, 2009 5:49 pm ET

Don't worry, the Israelis unlike this administration will have the gonads to launch a military strike at Iran's nuclear facilities.

Aaron   April 30th, 2009 5:47 pm ET

It's good to hear this Gates finally talking some sense. For all you self-righteous crusaders who think that Iran only understands the business end of a shotgun, you're partly right, if not historically ignorant; we gave them that during the Iran/Iraq War, in the form of U.S.-made weapons, hand-delivered to Saddam, that killed over 1 million Iranians. Any wonder why they hate us (or don't trust us, since at one time Saddam was more our ally than they, and look what we did to him...)? Stop the Bush-era strong-arm tactics and get some global and historical perspective.

ken   April 30th, 2009 5:46 pm ET

What kind of crap is Obama feeding you? You honestly think Iran is going to believe that nuclear weapons will make them LESS secure? They're learning from what our stance is on Iraq and North Korea. We took a non-nuclear power out and left a more dangerous nuclear power in. What conclusions are they supposed to draw from this?

interesting, and you are publicly discussing this... why?   April 30th, 2009 5:40 pm ET

so much for surprise, reminds me of the CIA being on the front pages all the time

I'm all for free press and all that, but certain aspects don't need a full vetting

JML   April 30th, 2009 5:37 pm ET

Will they listen to him? They sure NEED to.

KenB, MI   April 30th, 2009 5:36 pm ET

This is nothing new...we knew military intervention wasn't on the table when the Soviets were building the plants years ago...too many variables...more cold war.

Dayahka   April 30th, 2009 5:36 pm ET

Why should Iran give up its desire to have nuclear weapons, if it in fact has such desires, when Israel, led by an equally rabid bunch of lunatics, has hundreds of nuclear weapons and is always threatening Iran?

A better way would be to get Israel to admit that it has nuclear weapons and then to agree to give them up–and the second will not happen until the bad place freezes over. So, the next best thing is for the US to share nuclear weapon secrets with Iran, maybe in fact give Iran a nuclear weapon or two, and so place Iran more-or-less on par with Israel.

Tim   April 30th, 2009 5:25 pm ET

Don't tell that to Newt Gingrich. That would be his first option.

Dan   April 30th, 2009 5:20 pm ET

I respect this man. He respect his bosses too!

Rob Johnson   April 30th, 2009 5:14 pm ET

Hear that? It's the sound of a foreign policy based on reason and logic, not fear and hatred.

Sounds good to me!

Tim   April 30th, 2009 5:10 pm ET

That's good, publicly take a military option off the table, I'm sure Iran will respond favorably.

Man   April 30th, 2009 5:09 pm ET

Mr Gate,Military strike doesn't work but Iran would continous to produce more nuclear and sell them to the country with civil war or to the Palestinian.

Karen S Crow   April 30th, 2009 5:08 pm ET

How do you know? Have you tried, Mr Gates? Not to be flip ... but the US may not have to lift a finger. If Iran keeps this up, Israel will. And anyone out there doubt that Israel won't do everything possible to stay alive?

And given comments by Iran's prez ... does anyone doubt Iran's desire to use nuclear weapons on Israel?

Yeah ... thought so.

Larry   April 30th, 2009 5:05 pm ET

Gates and Clinton ...

Good people in the right places

Thank you ...

No More Incumbents   April 30th, 2009 5:04 pm ET

Right. Discuss it logically with a lunatic. That's a good plan......

Sandi   April 30th, 2009 5:03 pm ET

It seems to me that Iran's leader at the moment is intent on destroying Israel due to his religious beliefs and it won't matter what we propose. Most likely he will not discontinue the production of nuclear weapons or be dissuaded from his mission.

Randy   April 30th, 2009 5:00 pm ET

Wow! A very sensible remark, intelligently thought out, and prgamatically driven. This coming from a Bush appointee! Something from President Obama must have rubbed off on Mr. Gates!

Randall   April 30th, 2009 5:00 pm ET

Maybe a stike on just their facilities won't work but a strike on Tehran I bet would.

Brian   April 30th, 2009 4:58 pm ET

I feel very confident with this guy at the helm of Defense. Hope he stays at least the next four years.

dreamer   April 30th, 2009 4:58 pm ET

To bad GW didn't have the kahuna's to handle the problem when he had the chance(political or militarally).Of course that's tipical RNC tatics to put off and blame the next president...

Illinois 2   April 30th, 2009 4:55 pm ET

They work before when another country did it...

Dutch/Bad Newz, VA   April 30th, 2009 4:50 pm ET

In respect to the detainee issue, if the detainess were sent to a prson in the U.S., I doubt if they will last a week. They will wish they were still Gitmo.

Jon   April 30th, 2009 4:50 pm ET

Hey Gates, if you weren't in Israel's back pocket you would realize it was THEY who started the nuclear arms race. Geez!

mark   April 30th, 2009 4:49 pm ET

Just send BO over there and BOW, Pander, problem solved.........

Alex   April 30th, 2009 4:48 pm ET

You don't have to convince most Americans, Gates... Tell it to Bibi Netanyahu!

Though I wouldn't put it past the Iranians, I don't think there's real solid proof that they're developing nuclear weapons technology anyway. Nuclear energy has plenty of problems of its own, but that doesn't mean the world has the right to tell Iran how to generate their own domestic power supply.

RH   April 30th, 2009 4:47 pm ET

That's good, appease the Iranians. See what that gets you.

just another "arrogant" American   April 30th, 2009 4:47 pm ET

Come on Gates, get real.... I love ya 'cause you're an Aggie, but don't let those liberals in Washington convince you that we can smile and handshake the extremists running Iran into doing the right thing.

Len   April 30th, 2009 4:46 pm ET

It is a breathe of fresh air to know the United States of America now has an Administration the is intelligent and understands that "Shock and Awe" does not work!

John   April 30th, 2009 4:39 pm ET

Gates sounds like a realist....quite different than his sycophantic predecessor.

FreeNLovIt   April 30th, 2009 4:38 pm ET

I rather wake up to ashes of bombs, than ashes of contaminated TOXIC gas of DNA degeneration. LIke I used to say, throw me a 1000 scud missiles, just dont throw me that toxic nuke.

FreeNLovIt   April 30th, 2009 4:36 pm ET

It will be easier to take over Iran than Iraq. They are a uniformed society without fragmented minorities. If they dont quit, we just keep showering them with bombs until they submit. Dont be afraid!

Kevin in Ohio   April 30th, 2009 4:33 pm ET

Unfortunately, Gates is right. We languished too long under Jimmy Carter's reign...we should have taken care of the mess then when we had the chance.

Gary   April 30th, 2009 4:32 pm ET

A strike would be dangerous and invite retaliation against us but it would work. You need to get a coalition of 50 large countries who are like-minded and concerned to particpate in the strikes. It would require 2000 sorties a day for a week but it would work.

Night #1 you hit the radar centers, landing fields, anti-aircraft sites and all know missiles. Night #2 you hit the communication and power grid. Night #3 you hit all nuclear sites and storage facilities. Night #4 you hit any nuclear development offices. Night #5 and 6 for "clean-up" to his any targets partially hit but not destroyed. It is not an easy one hit wonder like Isreal did with iraq and Syria but it is possible and will set them back 10 years. If we target Ackmedemijad and the republican guard perhaps we could also destabilize the government to get a new more moderate miliatary dictator in place.

phoenix86   April 30th, 2009 4:29 pm ET

No one said that a strike would diminish Iran's attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon. A strike would set back their acquisition of one.

Seems like Gates has transitioned well into Obama's world of timidity and doublespeak.

FreeNLovIt   April 30th, 2009 4:29 pm ET

Oh dear, is it Armageddon yet? The only way to stop them is to take over the country like we did with Iraq. It's the end time and no matter what, Iran is preparing for the coming of the Age. There's no stopping them. The only way to stop them is to reduce them to stone-age society like what the Russians did to Afghanistan. Good luck America!!

Jennie   April 30th, 2009 4:27 pm ET

I respect Mr. Gates opinion, he was the only competent appointee from the Bush admin. He's steady, smart and capable.

J.P.   April 30th, 2009 4:27 pm ET

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday a military strike on Iran's nuclear program would not stop that country from pursuing the development of a nuclear weapon."

Oh really? I don't see the Japanese with a nuke.

Tom   April 30th, 2009 4:25 pm ET

It is refreshing to hear a non-fear mongering simple minded comment coming from a Republican.

Smartest republican to comment on the subject in a long time – no wonder he made the cut to be on the Obama team.

RICO   April 30th, 2009 4:23 pm ET

First of all, how can anyone say that bombing anothers countries nuclear plants, and reserch be acceptable. This would just cause even more maddness in the Middle East.

Second, the prisoners at Gitmo are not anymore dangerous than any other prisoner in our prison system now. Its not like we are going to put then in prision with AK-47 attached to them. Come on people give it up with this not in my back yard crap.

Qui-Tam Relator   April 30th, 2009 4:16 pm ET

****************************************************************
I guess there are a lot of people that didn't see The China Syndrome. You can't blowup working reactors you bunch of bone heads. If you think we have problems with this manufactured so called Swine Flu just go ahead and blowup a working reactor ! Man, you people scare me ! ****************************************************************

Mahmoud   April 30th, 2009 4:15 pm ET

Good luck with that.

The Broker.   April 30th, 2009 4:12 pm ET

It just did. Otherwise you would not be talking about it.

BobAbrams   April 30th, 2009 4:12 pm ET

Oh yea, this is a good idea, let's "CONVINCE" iran that they shouldn't build nuclear weapons. While we're at it, let's convince them to stop hating the west and America...this won't be hard...I don't know why Bush didn't think of...this whole time all we had to do was convince them to stop!

Super D   April 30th, 2009 4:11 pm ET

I guess Gates now is a card carrying Liberal.

How Stupid an idea!

The only thing Iran is ever going to understand is the business end of a shotgun.

Doesn't really matter because Israel doesn't believe this nonsense.

Seth   April 30th, 2009 4:11 pm ET

Sounds like Gates wants to stay on as Secretary of Defense, I'm sure he would have said the opposite under Bush.

Comments have been closed for this article

subscribe RSS Icon
About The Ticker

The latest political news from CNN's Best Political Team, with campaign coverage, 24-7. Sign up for our twice daily Ticker emails. Got a news tip or feedback? For complete political coverage, bookmark CNNPolitics.com.

CNN=Politics Screensaver

CNN=Politics ScreensaverTap into the power of The Situation Room. Download this powerful new tool that keeps you posted on the latest political news from the campaign trail.
Download (4.1 MB, PC only)

twitter
Categories
Powered by WordPress.com VIP