Iran Reportedly Test-Fires 9 Missiles

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards reported Wednesday test-firing nine missiles. According to Iranian claims, one of these missiles has the range to reach Israel. Al-Alam quoted Revolutionary Guards air force commander Hossein Salami was quoted as saying, "Our missiles are ready for shooting at any place and any time, quickly and with accuracy. The enemy must not repeat its mistakes. The enemy targets are under surveillance." Defense Secretary Robert Gates correctly noted that this military activity bolsters the U.S. and Israeli argument that Iran is a geniune threat. Iran could be preparing for a counterattack against Israel and U.S. interests if a military attempt to halt its dangerous nuclear program is taken. It is interesting that the Iranian state-run news agencies went out of their way to make sure to let everyone know that the missiles are capable of reaching Israel. "Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch," the official IRNA news agency quoted Salami as saying Wednesday. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Wednesday's tests "evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one. Those who say that there is no Iranian missile threat against which we should build a missile defense system perhaps ought to talk to the Iranians about their claims."

Both McCain and Obama responded to this news. John McCain rightly responded with this statement: "Iran’s most recent missile tests demonstrate again the dangers it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel. Ballistic missile testing coupled with Iran’s continued refusal to cease its nuclear activities should unite the international community in efforts to counter Iran’s dangerous ambitions. Iran’s missile tests also demonstrate the need for effective missile defense now and in the future, and this includes missile defense in Europe as is planned with the Czech Republic and Poland. Working with our European and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy."

Barack Obama, on the other hand, seems to have taken a different lesson from this than did John McCain. On the Today Show Matt Lauer asks what Obama's immediate response would be if he were president today and Obama answers that we need a "coherent policy" with regard to Iran that must "combine much tougher threats of economic sanctions with direct diplomacy...so that we avoid provocation but we give the strong incentives for the Iranians to change their behavior." He contradicts himself in the same sentence. How can he "avoid provocation" while at the same time use "much tougher threats of economic sanctions"? Are much tougher economic sanctions not a provocation in the eyes of the Iranian government? He says that it is the absence of "aggressive diplomacy" that will lead to "rising tensions." This is a blame America first attitude that he seems to hold. Obama seems to think that it is just the fact that Bush has not gone and talked with the Iranians that has caused all the tensions. Placing the blame on Bush for Iran's actions and nuclear ambitions are naive and ignorant. The Iranian regime has been the strongest state-sponsor of Islamic terrorism before Bush was even in the White House. Obama should leave the blaming of Bush to the Iranian government. Futhermore, Obama calls for tougher economic sanctions but fails to point out that Bush supports tough economic sanctions but that Russia and China are the roadblocks to this. Of course Obama makes no mention of how he would get the Russians and Chinese to stop covering for the Iranians in the United Nations. Furthermore, Obama brags on his website that he "opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment" calling it "saber-rattling" and claiming "it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran." The Kyl-Lieberman amendment called for labeling Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. This creates tougher sanctions on the Iranian military and those associated with it. But Obama, who today says we need tougher sanctions, opposed this common sense amendment. Obama is flat out wrong when it comes to dealing with Iran. Obama then goes on to hit his talking points about how we've been "farming out dipolomatic activity to the Europeans." Bush is constantly attacked for being a unilateralist and engaging in cowboy diplomacy on the one hand, but when he gets the EU-3 to negotiate with Iran it is "farming out" diplomacy. The U.S. should not be negotiating with a state-sponsor of terrorism that is funding and supplying Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban elements, and terrorists in Iraq that have killed Americans. For years Bush has allowed the Europeans to conduct diplomacy, to offer incentives, to attempt to convince Iran to abandon it nuclear program. Bush gets attacked for this as well. This one issue, the danger of Iran and its nuclear ambitions, is reason enough to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama. John McCain's response in his statement is makes sense and shows an understanding of the Iranian threat. Barack is all over the place in his response and displays his inexperience in foreign policy and his naivete when it comes to America's enemies.



Tweet