The Monday broadcast of CBS Evening News (12/19/11) began with big news, with anchor Scott Pelley announcing:
The secretary of Defense says tonight that the United States will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. In an interview with CBS News, Leon Panetta says that despite efforts to disrupt their nuclear program, the Iranians have reached a point where they can assemble a bomb in a year or potentially less.
To ratchet up the drama, Pelley told viewers that Panetta was aboard “the jet nicknamed the Doomsday Plane. This is the command post where he and the president would direct a nuclear war.”
Pelley reiterated that, according to Panetta, “Iran needs only one year to build a nuclear weapon.” Then came this exchange:
PELLEY: So are you saying that Iran could have a nuclear weapon in 2012?
PANETTA: It would be sometime around a year that they would be able to do it. Perhaps a little less. The one proviso, Scott, is if they have a hidden facility somewhere in Iran that may be enriching fuel.
PELLEY: So that they could develop a weapon even more quickly than we believed?
PANETTA: That’s correct.
Near the end of the segment, Pelley made this remark:
Panetta told us that while the Iranians need a year or less to assemble the weapon, he has no indication yet that they have made the decision to go ahead.
So Iran could have a weapon in a year–or maybe not at all.
In today’s New York Times, we see a story headlined, “Aides Qualify Panetta’s Comments on Iran,” which leads with this:
An assertion by Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta that Iran could have a nuclear weapon as soon as next year was based on a highly aggressive timeline and a series of actions that Iran has not yet taken, senior Pentagon officials said Tuesday.
The report added these comments from a Pentagon spokesperson (bolded for emphasis):
“The secretary was clear that we have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Little said. “He was asked to comment on prospective and aggressive timelines on Iran’s possible production of nuclear weapons–and he said if, and only if, they made such a decision. He didn’t say that Iran would, in fact, have a nuclear weapon in 2012.”
Now without knowing what was actually said in the full interview, it’s hard to know whether Panetta’s office is trying to walk back his careless, inaccurate rhetoric, or whether the CBS interviewer was pushing a hard line on Iran and nuclear weapons, treating the allegations being made about that country’s nuclear program as if they were facts.
If it’s the latter, it wouldn’t be unprecedented. At the December 15 Republican debate, Fox host Bret Baier posed this question to Ron Paul:
Congressman Paul, many Middle East experts now say Iran may be less than one year away from getting a nuclear weapon. Now, judging from your past statements, even if you had solid intelligence that Iran, in fact, was going to get a nuclear weapon, President Paul would remove the U.S. sanctions on Iran, included those added by the Obama administration. So, to be clear, GOP nominee Paul would be running left of President Obama on the issue of Iran?
Paul tried to explain to Baier that there is not, in fact, any intelligence suggesting Iran is less than a year from having the bomb. As Paul explained:
For you to say that there is some scientific evidence and some people arguing that maybe in a year they might have a weapon, there’s a lot more saying they don’t have it. There’s no UN evidence of that happening. Clapper at the–in our national security department, he says there is no evidence. It’s no different than it was in 2003. You know what I really fear about what’s happening here? It’s another Iraq coming. There’s war propaganda going on.
Baier, for his part, followed up by demanding that the candidate answer a question based on a false premise:
Congressman Paul, the question was based on the premise that you had solid intelligence, you actually had solid intelligence as President Paul, and yet you still at that point would pull back U.S. sanctions, and again, as a GOP nominee, would be running left of President Obama on this issue?
It’s probably not that these journalists want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. But they do seem to want to have a public debate that assumes Iran is about to have a nuclear weapon. Given the possible repercussions, that’s bad enough.
I’d be curious to know how Paul responded to the followup. The assumption here is that if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be “destabilizing” to the region.
The reality is that such a weapon could only be of use in a defensive posture, to deter the possibility of military action against it.
The only sane solution is to rid the world of these abominations. The US blocks that at every turn, so we’re forced into these contortions in an attempt to figure out how to keep untold numbers of fellow human beings from being killed.
It’s maddening, but it’s necessary, if we’re to take our duty to humanity seriously.
What I had read is that some neoconservatives openly admit that this isn’t about Iran’s having nuclear weapons. It’s about “maintaining the balance of power in the region in favor of Israel.” This means that regime change, for them, is necessary so that we can have a “friendlier” government in place in Iran.
In stead of the rhetoric of constant belligerency against Iran, the whole debate needs to be re-framed. Instead of a disasterous war under the pretext of ‘preventing’ Iran from having nuclear weapons, the focus needs to be toward nonproliferation of nuclear weapons in general and the dismantling of existing nuclear stockpiles in particular.
Iran is currently surrounded by Israel, India and Pakistan, all countries with nuclear weapons. There are US bases and naval fleets flanking Iran, no doubt with nuclear weapons capability. The focus should be that all these nuclear nations should be subject to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The surounding countries should dismantle their nukes in exchange for Iran agreeing to inspections and not building nuclear weapons. Nuclear Apartheid will never work. The more we threaten Iran, the more they will perceive the need to have nuclear weapons to protect themselves from us.
Bill, I completely agree. All these nuclear nations should be subject to inspections by the IAEA. Do you remember how, after 9/11, Bush named Iran as part of the axis of evil? What part did Iran play in 9/11? Yet Bush threatened Iran with regime change if it tried to acquire such nuclear weapons. I don’t remember similar threats when other nations acquired such weapons.
I agree Iran should not get nuclear weapons , but what about the other nations that had it around in that area in Israel for example , how about the big ones : France , Russia , USA , China etc.
1. The United States took from 1939 to July 1945 to get to the Trinity test, say six years, starting from … dirt.
2. The US, given the option to purchase nuclear weapons from the USSR, for use as fuel in nuclear reactors, declined to purchase all that were available, since there were “cheaper ways” to create fuel for the plants. “Megatons to Megawatts”, USEC Co, J Stiglitz: http://bit.ly/v7WO6C
3. Israel has hundreds of nuclear bombs.
4. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, plus (plus!) F16’s.
5. Iran already has a weapon that can create more havoc than a nuclear weapon: oil.
The lead-pipe cinch here, is that the Iranians would be crazy NOT to develop a nuclear weapon!
That’s right, Ray. So, Ron Paul is a leftist if he doesn’t want to, say, blow up Tehran, or at least start jabbering insane lies about Iran (like that war-mongering asshole Panetta)? He’s to the “left” of Obama if he doesn’t accept the imbecile talking points proffered by some stupid hack moderator? Very revealing psycho-babble presented as received wisdom–the right is interested only in lying, confrontation, assault, destruction, and of course endless war, while the damnable left wants to . . . think things over, talk to our “enemies,” and perhaps avoid mass murder if at all possible? The utter depravity and intellectual barrenness of Baier’s points sums up perfectly what’s going on on both GOP tv and inside the heads of lunatic Beltway actors. The irony that Paul is the very opposite of a leftist is irrelevant; Obama is prima facie leftist, so Paul, disagreeing with Panetta’s lies, must be to the left of this administration mouth-piece, and therefore to the left of Obama. Very, very bad–another step along the road to war with Iran.
Well Im reading everybody’s posts.Doug thinks the bomb would only be used defensively.Well maybe yes maybe no.Iran has stated many many times they will gladly die for the right to ignite israel in flames, and destroy the great Satan(us)to bring on the 4th Imam.A simple blast in the straits of H could cripple us.Are they nuts enough to do it?Maybe yes maybe no.If you read the daily Farsi translations of the words of Irans leadership,it is 10x more bellicose and threatening than anything you will hear them say abroad(and that is pretty bad).So I guess we can all sit back and believe that the threats they make daily in all it’s insanity are all not to be believed.And that their promise never to develop the bomb is to be believed.And that it is just our government and Israel’s government that are the real nuts and all will be well if we just stop watching so hard.Hear no evil ,speak no evil,see no evil.And Ron Paul who can’t answer a strait question on this issue because even he knows his answer would scare off voters is answering the question why he should never be president.
Look no one is going to attack Iran or has any plans to UNLESS….they offer a real threat to the world at large.They daily threaten that world.Bankroll terrorism.And seem determined(no matter how they lie about it) to develop a bomb.In every way they are moving away from becoming a peaceful member of the world body.Their leaders are lets face it…NUTS!Yet the people are very educated and against much their government does.I think we could have much better relations if nut for their leadership.I suppose we should pray they follow the road to peace.I don’t think Obama can afford that luxury.Their are evil men in this world, with evil designs.Iran is a center piece to that.
Today Iran threatened the straits if sanctions are placed on her for non compliance to nuclear arms accords…..
Michael, Iran has not attacked another country for over 200 years. Can you say that about the US or Israel? Who is more bellicose here? Actions speak louder than words. BTW, the Shi’a are awaiting the 12th Imam not the 4th. As mentioned over an over by the other writers here, we need to do away with the madness of nuclear power/weapons. We are slowly poisoning the Earth with the waste and threatening total annihilation. If nuclear weapons are bad for Iran, they are bad for all others including those who hypocritically ask for inspections in Iran but aren’t even signatories to the NPT (e.g. US, Israel, Pakistan, India, et al).