Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- A public exchange on Tuesday between two U.S. senators -- one a Democrat, the other a Republican -- illustrated differences in Washington perspectives about whether Obama administration threats to stop Iran from developing a nuclear-weapon capability should be believed (see GSN, Jan. 31).

Speaking at a Senate intelligence committee hearing on national security threats, Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) noted Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s recent warning that any Iranian move to a bomb-making capacity would constitute a “red line” and trigger U.S. action, potentially including a military strike.

“If they proceed and we get intelligence that they're proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon then we will take whatever steps are necessary to stop it,” Panetta told CBS’s “60 Minutes” in a segment aired on Sunday.  Asked if the steps might include military force, the defense secretary said, “There are no options that are off the table.”

Senator Daniel Coats (R-Ind.) reminded hearing witnesses that Washington policy-makers had earlier set out similar red lines against North Korea developing a nuclear weapon.  However, Pyongyang has twice conducted underground tests of nuclear devices and the United States has not responded with armed force.

Leading up to the first of these tests in 2006, “I heard much the same rhetoric regarding North Korea, and now we know that North Korea -- despite all of our rhetoric -- possesses nuclear weapons capability,” Coats said.  “I just hope we don't have to talk ourselves into a situation where we're not able to back up what we say.”

The experience with North Korea “raises some skepticism on my part by statements made by both Republican and Democrat leadership” about Washington’s willingness to use force against Iran, if necessary, Coats added. “We've been down this road before,” he said.

Nelson took exception.

“This senator believes the stakes are so high that the policy will be executed,” the Florida Democrat said.

Iran continues to enrich uranium that its leaders claim is for civil purposes, including power generation, medical uses and research.  However, with further refinement, Tehran’s uranium could potentially be used as bomb fuel. 

Much of the international community has become increasingly alarmed at indications that Iran has pursued an ability to build nuclear weapons and has skirted full transparency about its atomic efforts.  Israeli leaders, in particular, have lately heightened their rhetoric about the “existential threat” that Tehran could pose to their nation and reportedly have warned they could attack the Persian Gulf nation sometime in 2012 (see GSN, Jan. 26).

A visit to Iran by U.N. nuclear watchdog inspectors, aimed at spurring dialogue and fact-finding, concluded on Tuesday.  Both sides described as “good” their three days of intensive discussions, though reportedly no on-site inspections of nuclear facilities took place.  Herman Nackaerts, who headed the International Atomic Energy Agency delegation,  said there was “still a lot of work to be done” and another trip is planned for “the very near future," according to news reports.

Testifying before the Senate panel, the president’s national intelligence director said Panetta’s red-line warning to Tehran should be viewed as official U.S. policy. 

At the same time, though, James Clapper noted that the administration remains hopeful that a growing international sanctions regime would affect Tehran’s calculus in developing an atomic capacity.

Iran since 2006 has withstood four U.N. Security Council sanctions resolutions, in addition to numerous unilateral penalties imposed by individual nations. Measures have included prohibitions on supplying or assisting Iran's uranium-enrichment program, and calling on Tehran to comply with international nuclear requirements (see GSN, Nov. 23, 2011).

A new round of U.S. sanctions against Tehran late last year and European Union penalties issued last month have targeted Iran's petrochemical industry and blacklisted the country's financial sector for money-laundering (see GSN, Jan. 3 and Jan. 24).

“Our hope is that the sanctions, particularly those which have been recently implemented, would have the effect of inducing a change in the Iranian policy towards their apparent pursuit of a nuclear capability,” Clapper said.  “Obviously, this is a very sensitive issue right now.  We're doing a lot with the Israelis, working together with them.”

In a prepared statement, Clapper said the intelligence community has determined that “Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so.”

The intelligence head also said that he has come to believe that Iran’s ruling regime would not give up its aspirations to a nuclear weapon unless it finds that its own grip on power is threatened.

“This would be based on a cost-benefit analysis, starting with the supreme leader's world view and the extent to which he thinks that would benefit the state of Iran or, conversely, not benefit,” said Clapper, a retired three-star Air Force general who has led the intelligence community for the past 18 months.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked what specific developments might convince Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to change course on the nuclear issue.

Clapper responded that “a restive population,” distressed by “the economic extremis that the country of Iran is incurring,” could make a difference.

“The plunging value of the rial,” the national currency, and “the extremely high unemployment rate in Iran … could give rise to resentment and discontent among the populace,” the intelligence chief said.  “And that's not to say there haven't been other examples of that elsewhere in the region.”

Iranian protesters staged riots following President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s disputed 2009 re-election, but the uprising ultimately ended after a violent crackdown by police and paramilitary forces (see GSN, June 15, 2009).

“Sanctions to this point have not made any kind of difference with the regime in Iran,” said Coats, addressing Clapper and six top U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement officials who accompanied him at the witness table.  “Does anybody dispute that?”

Clapper agreed that “the intelligence community view or assessment” is that “the sanctions, as imposed so far, have not caused them to have changed their behavior or their policy.”

However, he and other administration officials noted that financial sector penalties have begun to put pressure on the Iranian economy.  The economic effects have begun to sow “dissension and debate in the political hierarchy of Iran,” Clapper said.

The CIA director, retired Army Gen. David Petraeus, urged patience.

“The latest round of sanctions, of course, is really just being felt and it will take a number of months,” Petraeus said.  Unemployment is on the rise and there have been runs on banks as Iranians seek to covert their savings to foreign currencies, he said.

“So I think what we have to see now is: How does that play out?  What is the level of popular discontent inside Iran?” the CIA chief said.  “Does that influence the strategic decision-making of the supreme leader and the regime, keeping in mind that the regime's paramount goal, in all that they do, is their regime survival?”