has scoffed at the idea of launching air raids on Iranian nuclear sites, saying that would only set back Iran’s nuclear program for a short time and would likely do more harm than good to US efforts to stop Iran from making nuclear weapons.
This time Panetta listed five specific reasons for not launching air raids on Iran’s nuclear sites: 1) an attack would delay Iran’s program no more than two years; 2) an attack would bring sympathy to the regime and strengthen it; 3) Iran might retaliate against US forces in the region; 4) an attack could send the price of oil sky high and undermine the global economy; and 5) the attack might not be confined to air raids but escalate into full-scale and devastating war.
Panetta has launched a veritable anti-war campaign that has gone almost entirely unreported even in the United States, where many people are writing stories asserting that the Obama Administration is plotting to attack Iran. The plot stories originate largely with the British media and in the blogosphere. But there have never been any indications that the Obama Administration has any interest in going to war.
Panetta took his case last week to a gathering of American supporters of Israel at the Saban Center in Washington, DC.
Panetta started by making clear that the Obama Administration wants to stop Iran’s nuclear program. “No greater threat exists to the security and prosperity of the Middle East than a nuclear-armed Iran,” he said.
He said Washington is determined “to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and more broadly to deter its destabilizing activities, particularly those that could threaten the free flow of commerce throughout this vital region. That is a redline for the United States.”
As to how the United States will stop Iran, Panetta said, “Our approach to countering the threat posed by Iran is focused on diplomacy, including organizing unprecedented sanctions and strengthening our security partnerships with key partners in the [Persian] Gulf and in the broader Middle East”—in other words, diplomacy, sanctions and arms sales.
Panetta warned: “Iran must ultimately realize that its quest for nuclear weapons will make it less, not more, secure. These efforts are increasing Tehran’s isolation and I continue to believe that pressure—economic pressure, diplomatic pressure and strengthened collective defenses—are the right approach. Still, it is my department’s responsibility to plan for all contingencies and to provide the president with a wide range of military options should they become necessary.
“That is a responsibility I take very seriously because when it comes to the threat posed by Iran, the president has made it very clear that we have not taken any options off the table.”
These tough comments were in his prepared remarks. It was in the Q&A that followed the speech that Panetta got up a full head of steam warning against the use of air raids at this juncture.
“At best it might postpone it [Iran’s nuclear program] maybe one, possibly two years,” Panetta said. “It depends on the ability to truly get the targets that they’re after. Frankly, some of those targets are very difficult to get at. That kind of shot would not destroy their ability to produce an atomic weapon, but simply delay it.”
Secondly, he said, “Of greater concern to me are the unintended consequences.… Ultimately, it would have a backlash and the regime that is weak now, a regime that is isolated would suddenly be able to reestablish itself, suddenly be able to get support in the region, and suddenly instead of being isolated would get the greater support in a region that right now views it as a pariah.
“Thirdly, the United States would obviously be blamed and we could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, striking our ships, striking our military bases.
“Fourthly, there are economic consequences to that attack—severe economic consequences that could impact a very fragile economy in Europe and a fragile economy here in the United States.
“And lastly, I think that the consequence could be that we would have an escalation that would take place that would not only involve many lives, but I think could consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret.
“So we have to be careful about the unintended consequences of that kind of an attack,” he said.
The moderator then asked Panetta what he thought would be the consequences of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Panetta did not cite the possibility of Iran ever attacking the United States or Israel with nuclear weapons. Instead, he spoke of the possibility of Iran giving nuclear weapons to terrorist groups and the concern that a nuclear-armed Iran would drive its neighbors to go nuclear as well.
“Iran’s entire effort of using the IRGC [Pasdaran], supplying terrorists in the world, undermining governments throughout the world, clearly supporting terrorists in part of the world – a nuclear weapon would be devastating if they had that capability.
“In addition, once Iran gets a nuclear weapon, then you will have an arms race in the Middle East. What’s to stop Saudi Arabia from getting a nuclear weapon? What’s to stop other countries from getting nuclear weapons in that part of the world? Suddenly we have an escalation of these horrible weapons that, you know, I think create even greater devastation in the Middle East.”
The moderator then asked if the US goal was to change Iran’s nuclear policies or to change the Iranian government. Panetta dismissed regime change as a goal, and said the aim was to get Iran to change its policies—though he failed to mention its human rights policies.
Panetta said, “The effort that we’re concerned about is to make sure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon, first. Secondly, we would like to have an Iran that becomes part of the international community and that it decides that it is going to engage with the rest of the world, as opposed to isolating itself, as opposed to supporting terrorists, as opposed to trying to influence and support those that attack our country and attack others in that region.
“That is our fundamental goal—to try to ensure that we have an Iran that becomes part of the international community and that understands its obligations as part of the international community. But most importantly—most importantly—we have to do everything we can to make sure that they never obtain a nuclear weapon.”
