Petraeus said the sites could be knocked out—but could also be rebuilt in time. “We have done quite a bit of thinking about this, as you would expect,” Petraeus said. “They [Iran’s nuclear sites] certainly can be bombed. The level of effect would vary with who it was that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they bring to bear.”
Petraeus did not advocate an attack; he merely answered Amanpour’s question by saying that people who say the United States doesn’t have the technological capability to destroy Iran’s nuclear sites were wrong. But that didn’t stop some from mis-characterizing what he said. Pakistan’s The Nation wrote: “The General has made it clear that it was a matter of time before the military targeting of Iran’s nuclear facilities may take place.” And the Pakistan Observer opined: “It is the first time that a top U.S. commander has hurled a naked threat of this kind. This shocking statement clearly points out that Washington is bent upon making mischief.”
In Iran, however, where the regime likes to grab onto every American comment about Iran as a threat, the Petraeus remarks about the ability to bomb were simply ignored. Some thought that was because the regime has been saying America doesn’t have the capability to attack Iran and would not want to publicize a remark by a professional military officer saying the exact opposite.
Others have said a danger in attacking Iran’s known nuclear sites is that there may be other, unknown, sites. Amanpour did not ask, and Petraeus did not indicate, if he felt confident that all Iran’s nuclear sites were known.
Amanpour, however, asked Petraeus about the drawbacks to any military attack on the sites. Petraeus then cited a laundry list of drawbacks: “disruptions to the global economy, the challenge to infrastructure in that particular very, very important region, … threats against various U.S. forces.…”
That echoed remarks days earlier by Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Petraeus’ immediate superior, who warned that any military strike against Iran would be “very, very destabilizing.”
Petraeus said the Central Command, the U.S. geographic command covering the Middle East, has developed contingency plans for tackling Iran’s nuclear sites if it should be ordered to do so by the president. Amanpour asked if there was a deadline for implementing those plans. Petraeus said, “We don’t see a deadline.… We think there’s a period of time, certainly, before all this might come to a head, if you will. There’s certainly more room for the P5-plus-one [six major powers] to engage in a bit more diplomacy and then certainly to explore heightened economic sanctions.”
In Tehran, the next day, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast accused Pet-raeus of having “threatened” the Islamic Republic with his reference to contingency plans (while ignoring the comments about the ability to bomb). He said Petrae-us’ remarks were “unmeasured and irresponsible.”
PressTV, the English-language outlet of state television, went even further and said that Petraeus’ answers to Amanpour were “the strongest hint of war in months.” PressTV falsely reported that Petraeus said Washington was considering adopting contingency plans for an attack on Iran.
Admiral Mullen said he had no doubt that the Islamic Republic had “the strategic intent” to develop nuclear weapons. Mullen then said, “I think that the outcome [of a nuclear Iran] is potentially a very, very destabilizing outcome.… On the other hand, when asked about striking Iran, specifically, that also has a very, very destabilizing outcome.”
Mullen said he worried about the “unintended consequences” of either allowing Iran to become a nuclear power or attacking its nuclear sites. Either way, he said, “that part of the world could become much more unstable, which is a dangerous global outcome.” Therefore, he said, it was essential to continue diplomatic efforts to forestall either outcome.