Panetta: Iran cannot develop nukes, block strait

(CBS News) 

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta outlined some red lines when it comes to Iran in an interview on "Face the Nation" Sunday, saying the U.S. would not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon or to block the Strait of Hormuz, which is a key passageway for oil from the Middle East.

"Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that's what concerns us," Panetta told "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer. "And our red line to Iran is to not develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us."

Panetta also said that the U.S. would "not tolerate" the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz.

"That's another red line for us and that we will respond to them," he added.

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that while the Iranians have the capability to block the strait for a time, the U.S. would also be able to "defeat" them if it happened.

"They've invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Straits of Hormuz. We've invested in capabilities to ensure that if that happens, we can defeat that," he said. "We've described that as an intolerable act. And it's not just intolerable for us, it's intolerable to the world. But we would take action and reopen the Straits."

Panetta also addressed the actions the U.S. is taking to put pressure on Iran.

"I think the international strategy here, and this really has been an international strategy to apply sanctions, to apply diplomatic pressure on them, to try to convince Iran that if... they want to do what's right, they need to join the international family of nations and act in a responsible way," he said. "I think the pressure of the sanctions, I think the pressure of diplomatic pressures from everywhere -- Europe, United States, elsewhere -- is working to put pressure on them, to make them understand that they cannot continue to do what they're doing."

He added that the U.S. does not "take any option off the table."

"You don't take any option off the table. I think that's extremely important," he added. "But the responsible thing to do right now is to keep putting diplomatic and economic pressure on them to force them to do the right thing. And to make sure that they do not make the decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon."

Schieffer also asked Dempsey and Panetta about how hard it would be for the U.S. to take out Iran's nuclear capability.

"I'd rather not discuss the degree of difficulty and in any way encourage them to read anything into that," Dempsey said. "But I will say that -- our -- my responsibility is to encourage the right degree of planning to understand the risks associated with any kind of military option... in some cases to position assets, to provide those options... in a timely fashion. And all those activities are going on."

When pressed whether the U.S. could "take out their nuclear capability" without using nuclear weapons, Dempsey said this: "I certainly want them to believe that that's the case."

Panetta added: "I think they need to know that... if they take that step -- that they're going to get stopped."

The Defense Secretary also addressed questions about what the U.S. would do if Israel took out Iran's nuclear capability on their own.

"Our preference is that the intelligence community, including Israel, ought to work together on this issue," he said. "We have common cause here. We're not interested in them developing a nuclear weapon. We are not interested in them proliferating violence throughout that region. We are not interested in them trying to assist in terrorism. We are not interested in them trying to destabilize governments in that region or any place else. We have common cause here. And the better approach is for us to work together."

When pressed about the U.S. response to an operation by Israel, Panetta said the U.S. would protect its forces in the region.

"If the Israelis made that decision, we would have to be prepared to protect our forces in that situation. And that's what we'd be concerned about."

Report: Iran begins uranium enrichment

[Nikos_Retsos]

The U.S. warmongering against Iran has gone too far, and it is actually quite foolish. Firstly, if Iran decides to produce a nuke, we cannot stop them - like we couldn't stop India and Pakistan. The U.S. Congress went berserk when India and Pakistan tested their nuclear devices, and accused the CIA for "complete incompetence" for failing to predict that those countries were developing nukes - even though the late Pakistan dictator Zia U-Hack had joked that his country may host the first "Muslim nuclear weapon!"

Now the U.S. is going overboard with the possible Iran nuke, but those threats against the Iranian nation only solidify the rule of the militant ayatollahs that come up as brave nationalists standing up against the "Great Satan" - the U.S., a title coined by the founder of the Islamic Republic Ayatollah Ali Khameini. And in this heated U.S.-Iranian saber rattling, the U.S. will end up the loser because: a) Iran would certainly support ant-American politicians in Iraq, and Afghanistan. b) Islamists are gaining in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya because they see the U.S. as an arrogant power that is hostile to Muslim religion, and as the unabashed supporter of Israel. That is why Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan who had broken off diplomatic relations with Israel -against the U.S. pressure not to- has become a hero in the Arab and Muslim world.

During the last elections in Iran, the U.S. has clandestinely plowed hundreds millions of dollars into Iran to help the moderate Hussein Mousavi be elected - with the hope that he will scrap Iran's nuclear program, and move closer to the West. That failed, and our current warmongering policy against Iran is definitely a "death sentence" to the Iranian opposition.

The epilogue: The all-out Western saber-rattling and financial isolation of Iran over its nuclear program will wipe out any opposition to the regime in the next elections as " Western collaborators, traitors, and enemies of the state!" Nikos Retsos, retired professor

[onehuman]

Iran already has the the nukes and now that everyone realizes they can in fact close Hormoz they are back paddling and saying stuff like "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No." As early as last month, same guy said Iran would be able to develop a nuke in a year!

Bottom line is Iran was the dominant power in the region during the Shah era and after that Iran lost it's place due to the decade long war with Iraq and now with all the focus in military acquisition and development they are once again the power in Persian Golf.

And there is nothing anyone can do about it. If they close the Hormoz even for a short period (what is short?) of time they markets (not only oil) will tumble and the effects will be so bad that no one has the stomach for it.

Best path here on out with Iran is - MAKE A DEAL - after all, everyone who knows the Mullahs also knows that they are interested in two things, power and wealth, and only are interested in power to get the wealth!

[netjunkie1]

They don't accept Israel.
They want the UN to admit the Israelis are Europeans settlers, because the truth is, Europe didn't care much for them before Hitler decided to have a bake out.
That being said, it is no longer a reason to resist the existence of that state.
Admittedly the Israelis must pull out of east Jerusalem at least.

[Truth_Guru]

We must attack NEPAL because they MAY make atom bomb and MAY attack USA.

[netjunkie1]

Panetta says the US isn't interested unless they are trying to build the bomb.
Iran kept their nuclear development secret for 20 years and it was Israel who exposed them.
Iran cannot be trusted. The leadership is illegitimate and puppets of the revolutionary guard.
As terrorists go, Wall street kills.

[fedup12]

I do wonder what Iran is up to. They have the capability to close it. For a short while.

I wonder how many of our HK subs are out there.

[samXXkiley]

coucou
****Leon Panetta.saying the U.S. would not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon or to block the Strait of Hormuz...****
====================
by threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, Iran is playing a dangerous game, it's unworthy conduct from of a great nation, the United States have the means to obstruct the Iran's actions for sure, but the use of force will worsen situation and will threaten an already fragile stability in the region,
act with intelligence and subtlety, is the best solution
"au revoir"

[flexsf]

If you're a consumer of oil, here in the U.S., you're responsible for this problem. Because of your unchecked need for oil, the U.S. is forced to engage in a war it can't afford. Thanks for nothing, oil consumers. You own this.

[venusvegasvada]

That's everybody man. Do you own anything made from plastic? Then by your definition, you're the problem. Got grease and oil on your bicycle? You're the problem.

The problem is not our oil consumption, although I wholeheartedly agree we should be doing a lot more to reduce our consumption- no doubt. The problem is these Iranians are religious fanatics/psychos that want a nuclear bomb and they have had no problem in the past killing Americans.

[Hutterite]

I'm not sure how we get to say what goes through the strait of Hormuz, any more than Iran can tell us what goes through the St. Lawrence Seaway. I'm sure we'll find a way. I, too, am glad you made time to watch my words.

[venusvegasvada]

International waterway. Nobody gets to close it.

[onehuman]

venusvegasvada - you are wrong!

1/2 of it is Iran's and the other 1/2 Oman's with right of passage for friendly nations!

[MacDerb]

Get him out of office.

[thechooch1]

MacDerb it will be hard as Boehner is in a very republican district.

[flexsf]

If you consume oil, you own this. The financial burden of war should be on anyone who drives a gas guzzling car.

[msimamaji]

"Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

That's exactly what will happen if we elect the GOP.

Of course, I have to ask a few questions. What effect will global warming have on Iran's water supply? And, what sort of nuclear reactors does Iran use?

Those aren't really dumb questions, either. Nuclear reactors demand a lot of water - even if they are closed circuit contraptions. Sea water is corrosive - especially if you get it from the Persian Gulf which is loaded with all sorts of toxic chemicals from oil producers. So how will Iran's nuclear program affect Iran's water supply?

Furthermore, Iran's nuclear advisors are Russians. Knowing batting average of nuclear safety in the bad old USSR, that should not give anyone any degree of confidence.

Basically, Iran is really endangering itself and its neighbors.

I favor Obamas approach rather than the GOP guarantee of a new ear.

I might add that one of Iran's neighbors Abu Dhabi is turning to solar energy instead of nuclear power. That would be a much better, much more constructive investment for Iran. You can also get gasoline and fuel from algae - That would be a far more constructive way of getting energy for the US. Compared to the costs of a war, it would be far cheaper and fare more humane as well.

[takacrat]

Iran is the one that want to BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB Israel and America. Iran has a lot of other constructive investment abilities, being that they have over 20% of the known would oil supply

[kbbpll]

"Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No."

And yet, on December 19, Panetta told this same news organization that Iran can have a nuclear weapon in a year or less.

[kcits]

The word "can" is being used by those in power to suggest it as "will". But as a signer of the nuclear non proliferation treaty they have the right to peaceful technology.
Our government isnt reading that part of the treaty and seem to be trying to lead us into another war. That would be a disaster our kids kids will be paying off. Ron Paul is looking more and more like someone who isnt as insane as those other GOP candidates that will surly lead us into war, and Obama who looks like he will eventually.

[kbbpll]

Yes, kcits, "can" and "try" are the key words in this latest propaganda effort from the war machine. We must go to war over something Iran isn't "trying" to do, but "can" do in less than a year if they would only start "trying". How many other wars shall we start with countries who "can" do something if they "try"?