Two Days in Israel

Joint Chief’s Head Adm. Michael Mullen Briefs the Pentagon Press

Admiral Mullen:   As you know I just returned from a short trip to Europe and Israel….  My two days in Israel were very informative.  I spent time with my counterpart, Lieutenant General Ashkenazi and had the opportunity to meet with the defense minister as well.

I also took a very interesting tour of some of their bases and facilities up north on the Syrian-Lebanese border as well as down south near the Gaza Strip.  I greatly appreciated the time that was afforded me and the candor of the discussions.  As always when I visit Israel, I’m reminded of the security threats they face  and the tyranny of what I call “close-quarters geography” within which they face them,

Israel remains a vital and trusted military ally in the Middle East,  Forging the personal relationships that must underpin that alliance was the principle reason for my visit.  To that end, it was very successful,

We certainly talked about Iran and the degree to which the Israeli military views the Iranian regime as a threat to their security and the security of the broader Middle East.  That should come no surprise to any of you.  I will not –I won’t discuss the details of the concerns they expressed, nor will I comment, one way or the other,  about the speculation surrounding Israeli intentions.  Those are matters for the Israeli military and the Israeli government to address…

Question:  Admiral, let me take a stab here at the Iran issue. Can you give us a sense – although you don’t want to say what the Israelis told you, can you give us a sense of what your message to the Israelis was while you were there about Iran  and whether or not you can say now what your view is of the analysis that Iran may or may not have surface-to-air capabilities by the end of this year, as well as the ability to enrich enough uranium to fuel a nuclear bomb?

Mullen:  Two – well actually several thoughts come to mind . One is, I cherish the time I have with my counterparts around the world and always keep those conversations private… Certainly, the concern about Iran continues to exist.  And you talk about the nuclear threat.  And I believe they’re still on a path to get nuclear weapons and I think that’s something that needs to be deterred. They are – and I talk about my time up on the border.  They are very involved with Syria, very involved with Hezbollah supporting Hamas.  And so the network that they [Hezbollah] support is also a very dangerous one and a very destabilizing one.  So we talked a lot about that specifically, the specifics of that .  But I really don’t want to go into any kind of details.

Question:…do you think it’s possible by the end of the year, or within that sort of a period of time?

Mullen:  Which?

Question:  Whether Iran will indeed have surface-to-air capabilities  and the ability to enrich enough uranium to fuel a nuclear bomb?

Mullen:  No, I don’t want to address that.

Question:  Sir, if I can – you said in your opening statement that the preference is to use other elements of national power .  So can you give us your assessment of what the consequences of an Israeli air strike on Iran would be?  How do you believe the Iranians would react?  And what are the potential risks there?

Mullen:  Well, I try – I think – I don’t want to speculate in that regard.  Clearly, there is very broad concern about the stability level in the Middle East.  I’ve been pretty clear before, that from the Unites States’ perspective, the United States military in particular, that opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us.  That doesn’t mean we don’t have capacity or reserve, but that would really be very challenging. And also, the consequences of that sometimes are very difficult to predict… So I think that, you know, just about every move in that part of the world is a high risk move…

Question:  Admiral, you said that opening a third front now would be extremely stressful, you know, and hard on the U.S.  Yet, if Israel were attack Iran, you’re suggesting , then, that would drag the U.S. into a confrontation – military confrontation – with Iran.

Mullen:  I’m not specifically again speculating about what the consequences of any action would be.  It is very, very broad what has been enduring  for awhile, concern about the instability in that part of the world.  And destabilizing acts, destabilizing events, are of great concern to me.

Question:  But what would be a likely scenario, that if Israel were to attack Iran, the U.S., whether directly or indirectly, take some of the blame for that attack,  as it were, and could drag the U.S. into a military confrontation.

Mullen:  Well again, I’m not going to, in terms of speculating what happens when certain events occur, we oftentimes don’t get that right.  And so I really don’t want to do that.  I’m really focused on trying to inject as much stability in that part of the world. And it is my view that Iran is at the center of what is unstable in that part of the world.  And it reaches all the way, you know, from Tehran to Beirut.

Question: Is Israel operating on a shorter timeline than the U.S.? 

Mullen:  The discussion that we had last fall about, you know, when the projections would be there down the road, about what the possibilities were, indicated that they were.  But again,…these things evolve, both with time and focus, to really understand over time where we are. And again, I’m not, I mean , this going at, you know, very specifically how the Israelis are thinking, what they’re deducing, what their technical assessment is.  And overall, it’s really up to then to talk about that….

Question:  Sir, did you come away from your trip to Israel, more, or less convinced, that the Israelis would go it alone and strike Iran?

Mullen:  Actually, neither.  I mean I didn’t go with any kind of preconceived notion there.  Again, it was really more than anything to have face-to-face meetings with my counterpart and a very clear understanding across a host of issues, to include Iran. But again, they’re – I’m extremely reluctant to speak for the Israelis, They really need to do that.

Question:   Is that actually a bluffing game, though, that we’re witnessing?  If you look at the aid exercises that took place [in Israel], did you come away feeling there’s a bluffing game taking place that could lead the region into a conflict?

Mullen:  The Israel press reported fairly widely that the Israel Defense Force – that those exercises were planned and routine.  And I’d leave the exercises at that.  I’m – this is –it is high stakes, there’s no question in this part of the world.  And I just – I guess I’d just leave it at that with respect to that…

Question:  …Can you even say whether the subject of an Israeli first strike is something that came up in your discussions?

Mullen:  No, I can’t. I won’t do that…

Question:  …How concerned are you and other senior leaders in the building , in the E Ring, that Israel may undertake a unilateral strike against Iran by the end of the year?

Mullen:  Again, back to what I said before, from the standpoint of a – my strong preference here is to handle all of this diplomatically, you know, with the other powers of governments, ours and many others, as opposed to any kind of strike occurring.  And I am, as I indicated earlier – you know, this is a very unstable part of the world. And I don’t want it to be more unstable…