Panetta: It would probably be about a year before they can do it. Perhaps a little less. But one proviso, Scott, is if they have a hidden facility somewhere in Iran that may be enriching fuel.
Pelley: So that they can develop a weapon even more quickly…
Panetta: On a faster track….
Today a pentagon spokesperson told the AFP that Panetta’s comments were made “hypothetically” and that he was not suggesting that there was new intelligence pointing to secret facilities.
The ISIS’s David Albright said Panetta’s public speculations were “not helpful” in the absence of evidence and “definitely misleading.” He added that there was “low probability” that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon within a year without detection by inspectors and a military response.
Hawkish commentary aside, there is no concrete evidence to prove that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon or intends to. In fact, the most damning aspect of the latest IAEA report about Iran is its suggestion that the country is leaning towards “breakout capability”. This corresponds with U.S. intelligence assessments and means there’s still time to pursue diplomatic engagement with Iran.
Panetta’s “red line” comment also landed him a top spot on the front page of AIPAC’s website today. He appeared to suggest to Pelley that the U.S. was not only keeping the military option open, but that it would support Israel by taking “whatever steps necessary” to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. (As Joe Cirincione notes, he stopped just short of saying military force would be used):
Pelley: You just said if we have to do it we will come and do it. What is it?
Panetta: If they proceed and we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it.
Pelley: Including military steps?
Panetta: There are no options off the table.
A disclaimer-like mention at the end of the transcript notes that Panetta told CBS News that “while Iran needs a year or less to assemble a weapon, he has no indication yet that the Iranians have made the decision to go ahead.”
Panetta did not take the opportunity to reiterate comments he made earlier this month about the calamity of a US war with Iran. The secretary told an audience at the pro-Israel Saban Center that an attack would “not destroy” Iran’s ability to produce weapons, would cause major “backlash” against the US along with “severe” economic consequences, strengthen the regime, and “could consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret.”
]]>In an interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes, the U.S. military commander atop international forces in Afghanistan said U.S. forces would not be leaving the war-torn Central Asian country any time soon. The comments by Gen. John Allen, who took command of the International Security Assistance Force [...]]]>
In an interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes, the U.S. military commander atop international forces in Afghanistan said U.S. forces would not be leaving the war-torn Central Asian country any time soon. The comments by Gen. John Allen, who took command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) when Gen. David Petraeus stepped down to take the helm of the C.I.A. in July, fall in line with other U.S. and international officials since President Obama announced in June that a complete transition to Afghan security responsibility would take place by the end of 2014.
CBS’s Scott Pelley asked Gen. Allen what his plan for Afghanistan was:
PELLEY: …You’re talking about U.S. forces being here after 2014?
ALLEN: Yes, there will be.
PELLY: …Are we talking about fighting forces?
ALLEN: We’re talking about forces that will provide an advisory capacity. And we may even have some form of counter-terrorism force here to continue the process of developing the Afghan’s counter-terrorism capabilities. But, if necessary, respond ourselves.
PELLEY: But what you’re saying is that the United States isn’t leaving Afghanistan in the foreseeable future?
ALLEN: Well that’s an important message.
As for specific numbers of U.S. forces that will remain, Allen said it was “too early to tell.”
Also in the 60 Minutes segment, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker, in response to a direct question form Pelley, offered a veiled acknoweldgement that the U.S. was talking to at least some factions of the Taliban-led insurgency: “[W]e talk to the whole range of people, anyone who will talk to us. You can draw your own conclusions.”
Allen recounted a recent episode where he’d gone to Pakistan to ask the top military commander there, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, to help stop a truck bomb that U.S. intelligence indicated was travelling from Pakistan to Afghanistan to target U.S. troops. “We think it ultimately exploded against the outer wall of one of our combat outposts,” said Allen. “Seventy-seven [Americans] were wounded that day.”
]]>