Did the US sober up?

YNET

In response to Panetta’s new tune, Elliott Abrams says

“Whatever steps are necessary to stop it” is very strong language with very little wiggle room. Perhaps Panetta or others in the administration came to realize the foolishness, indeed the danger, of having the Iranian regime believe it can pursue its goals unhindered by the U.S. Perhaps they came to realize that any chance of a negotiated resolution with Iran was undermined if the ayatollahs came to believe there was no real military option “on the table.” Perhaps this has been the administration’s bottom line all along, and an Iranian nuclear weapon is truly “unacceptable” to the president. Whatever the explanation, this is the way our secretary of defense should be speaking in public about Iran.

‘Military option against Iran is executable,’ says Dempsey

U.S. Chief of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey is formulating a plan for a U.S. military attack on Iran, he told CNN in an interview published Wednesday, to go into effect should U.S. President Barack Obama decide to stop Tehran’s drive for nuclear weapons.

“My biggest worry is [the Iranians] will miscalculate our resolve,” Dempsey said during the interview, which was conducted from Afghanistan. “Any miscalculation could mean that we are drawn into conflict, and that would be a tragedy for the region and the world.”

Dempsey confirmed that despite the recent loss of a U.S. drone in Iran – which was reported to have been used for surveillance in the country – U.S. spying efforts there have not ceased.

Get the Israel Hayom newsletter sent to your mailbox!

“If you are asking ‘are we gathering intelligence against Iran in a variety of means?’ the answer is of course,” Dempsey told CNN. “It would be rather imprudent of us not to try to understand what a nation who has declared itself to be an adversary of the United States is doing.”

In similar comments made by other U.S. administration officials, the U.S. chief of staff said “all options are on the table” with regards to Iran and that the options are feasible.

“I am satisfied that the options that we are developing are evolving to a point that they would be executable if necessary,” Dempsey said.

Asked about speculation surrounding a potential Israeli strike on Iran, the U.S. general said there is no guarantee Jerusalem will give the U.S. prior notice if it decides to move forward with an attack. However, the U.S. continues to share intelligence with Israel, he said.

“We are trying to establish some confidence on the part of the Israelis that we recognize their concerns and are collaborating with them on addressing them,” Dempsey noted.

His comments come as the Pentagon on Tuesday tried to soften U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s remarks on Monday that Iran will be capable of developing a nuclear weapon within a year.

On Monday, Panetta told CBS News anchor Scott Pelley in an interview on the news magazine “60 Minutes” that, “It would probably be about a year,” before Iran could obtain a nuclear weapon. “Perhaps a little less. But one proviso is if they have a hidden facility somewhere in Iran that may be enriching fuel.” Panetta, who has cautioned against a military strike against Iran, said the U.S. does not want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, saying that would constitute “a red line for us and that’s a red line, obviously, for the Israelis.”

Pentagon Press Secretary George Little clarified Panetta’s comments one day later, saying, “The secretary was clear that we have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon. He was asked to comment on prospective and aggressive time-lines 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.”

At a speech at the Washington-based Saban Center for Middle East Policy on Dec. 2, Panetta said that U.S. President Barack Obama has not ruled out using military force to stop Iran. Panetta said that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would “at best” delay its nuclear program by one or two years. “We have to be careful about the unintended consequences” of an Israeli or U.S. attack, he said. Among those unintended consequences would be an increase in regional support for Iran and the likelihood of Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces and bases in the Middle East. An attack also would have harmful economic consequences and could lead to military escalation, he said.

Israeli government officials were listening carefully to statements made by White House and Pentagon officials recently concerning Iran, and were hoping that the Israeli warning of time running out to stop Iran’s nuclear program was being taken more seriously now.

The Prime Minister’s Office did not comment on Panetta’s statements, but Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Tuesday, “The U.S. is standing behind Israel in a way it has not done for a long time now, with more determination and depth in everything related to Israel’s security. We are very aware of this, and thank them for it.”

A senior defense official said on Tuesday, “As of now, there is a big gap between what the Americans know and what they are doing. We hope that Panetta’s statements indicate a change in policy that will lead to much tougher sanctions and more serious threats against Iran.”

Speaking to French news agency AFP, an official in the U.S. government said on Tuesday that U.S. intelligence has not changed its assessment of Iran’s nuclear program.

In another interview by AFP, David Albright, president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security said, “It’s definitely misleading. The likelihood that Iran could have a nuclear weapon within a year was a low probability, as any shift to weapons-grade uranium would be exposed by inspectors and Israel would almost certainly take military action.”

Meanwhile, Iran has reinstated an offer for U.N. nuclear agency officials to visit Tehran, but is not saying whether they will be able to focus on suspicions that it is secretly working on nuclear arms — a key condition set by the agency, diplomats said Monday.

The renewed invitation to the International Atomic Energy Agency comes after a previous offer was withdrawn. It appears to reflect Iranian efforts to deflect pressure over mounting allegations that Iran is experimenting with components of a nuclear weapons program.

A senior diplomat — one of four who agreed to discuss the confidential issue only on condition of anonymity — said a top-level IAEA mission could fly to Tehran in late January.

But, he told The Associated Press, that would only be likely to happen if Tehran agrees to meet IAEA calls to supply information on its alleged secret weapons work. He added that a Dec. 14 letter from Iran to agency chief Yukiya Amano offered no such specifics beyond saying that such a trip could take place.