Defense Secretary Warns Iran

On Dec. 2, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta made extensive remarks about Iran to the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center. The following are excerpts.
 
        Iran’s continued drive to develop nuclear capabilities, including troubling enrichment activities and past work on weaponization that has now been documented by the IAEA, and its continued support to groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations make clear that the regime in Tehran remains a very grave threat to all of us…        
   
       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…
       
        Iran is isolating itself from the rest of the world.  It is truly becoming, particularly as a result of the attack on the British Embassy, a pariah in that region.  Their own government is off balance in terms of really trying to establish any kind of stability even within Iran…  
 
[Question:] Mr. Secretary, how long do you believe a military attack on Iran would postpone it from getting a bomb? 
 
       At best it might postpone it maybe one, possibly two years.  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, that kind of shot would only, I think, ultimately not destroy their ability to produce an atomic weapon, but simply delay it – number one.  Of greater concern to me are the unintended consequences, which would be that 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… 
           
        In addition, once Iran gets a nuclear weapon, then they’re not – 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.  
           
         So a key for all of us – for all of us is to work together – together – to ensure that that does not happen.  We have made good progress in these efforts.  We continue to make good progress in these efforts.  That’s where we ought to continue to put our pressures, our efforts, our diplomatic, our economic, experts working together to make sure that that does not happen.  
           
         You always have as a last resort – as the prime minister said – the last resort of military action, but it must be the last resort, not the first. 
           
[Question:] Is the chief priority of U.S. policy toward Iran to moderate the nuclear ambitions of the Iranian regime, or to change the Iranian regime?  Will this regime be willing to change its behavior? 
 
         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.