that Washington is not seeking a military confrontation with Iran.
Panetta went further and said that a war with Iran could be very harmful to American interests by causing a general outbreak of chaos in the Middle East. Panetta called it the danger of “unintended consequences.”
Panetta said the Iranian leadership is divided on whether to build a bomb—a point no other senior US official is believed to have made in public. Panetta said a US bombing campaign in Iran could drive the entire Iranian leadership to support a nuclear weapons program—the exact opposite of the goal of US efforts.
(See the box on Page Three for the full text of what Panetta had to say.)
Panetta said—as have numerous American officials for years—that US policy is geared to increasing pressure on Iran, chiefly through sanctions, to make it change its policy and rein in its nuclear program.
But Panetta also repeated that American policy holds that it is “unacceptable” for Iran to develop a nuclear weapons capability. The implication of that is that America is willing to go to war with Iran if all else fails to stop Iran’s nuclear program. But the reporters at Panetta’s news conference failed to even try to pin him down on that point.
Panetta himself, however, volunteered, “As to what happens down the road, you know, I think our hope is that we don’t reach that point and that Iran decides that it should join the international family.”
While some Republican presidential candidates, notably Mitt Romney, said outright this week that they would go to war with Iran to stop it from building a nuclear weapon, all US administrations—including the George W. Bush Administration—have avoided saying that outright, while at the same time implying that they would as a last resort since a nuclear Iran is “unacceptable.”
News articles and commentaries continue to mutter of alleged US war plans. They chiefly originate in London where America-plans-to-attack-Iran stories have been staple fare for decades.
But in reality, the fundamentals of US policy have remained unchanged for two decades. Two Republican and two Democratic administrations have consistently sought to mobilize all the political and economic pressures they could to squeeze the Islamic Republic in hopes it would junk its nuclear program.
There has been talk of the “axis of evil” and references to Iran as a “rogue” state and constant rhetoric about all options being on the table. But the rhetoric has been little more than a distraction, often used by politicians who want to convince the public they are being tougher than the other guys, while, in fact, the basic policy remains the same.
President Obama brought along an offer of talks when he became president. He made many public appeals, which were rebuffed by Tehran. Obama then pointed to the rebuff to justify more and tighter sanctions. In reality, the offer of talks to Iran became another arrow in the US quiver being used to mobilize more countries to support stronger sanctions on Iran. The core policy, however, remained unchanged.
In Tehran, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenehi addressed the war talk the very same day Panetta spoke out. But Kha-menehi rattled the sabers Panetta was trying to stifle. Khamenehi continued a popular rhetorical line used for years in Tehran—that the Americans are threatening to “invade” the Islamic Republic. The violence of the rhetoric even outdid that of most of the Republican presidential candidates.
Khamenehi warned enemies about Iran’s tough response to any aggression or even threat, stressing that the country would respond with full force to any attack.
“Iran is not a nation to sit still and just observe threats from fragile materialist powers which are being eaten by worms from the inside,” Khamenehi told students at the national military college.
“Anyone who harbors any thought of invading the Islamic Republic of Iran—or even if the thought crosses their mind—should be prepared to receive strong blows and the steel fists of the regular military, the Pas-daran and the Basij, backed by the entire Iranian nation,” he said.
“Iran will respond with full force to any aggression or even threats in a way that will demolish the aggressors from within.”
Khamenehi said his message was directed at Iran’s enemies, “especially America and its stooges as well as its police dog in the region, the Zionist regime.”
In reporting Khamenehi’s speech, the Fars news agency added the background comment: “The United States has always stressed that military action is a main option for the White House to deter Iran’s progress in the field of nuclear technology.”
And Brig. Gen. Masud Jazayeri, the chief propaganda officer for the armed forces, said American officials are openly talking about attacking Iran to “cover up their own failures and divert the attention of the public.”
Jazayeri seemed unaware that the one issue that has truly diverted public attention this month has been the sex scandal at Pennsylvania State University and the ensuing firing of Coach Joe Paterno, an action that has drawn more public attention than everything said about Iran in years.