U.S., Israeli Security Officials Warn Against Attacking Iran

FCNL

Military leaders, intelligence officers, and other U.S. and Israeli security officials from across the political spectrum have warned that an attack on Iran would likely provoke a full-scale regional war with catastrophic consequences for global security. Below is a sampling of quotes from select U.S. and Israeli security officials cautioning against an attack on Iran, and find out more about what you can do to prevent war with Iran on FCNL's Iran webpage.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta

"[If Iran were to be attacked] the United States would obviously be blamed and we could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, striking our ships, striking our military bases, and there are economic consequences to that attack....which could impact a very fragile economy in Europe and a fragile economy here in the United States.

"The consequence could be that we would have an escalation that would take place that would not only involve many lives, but I think it could consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret."

[See the video of Secretary Panetta's 12/02/2011 speech at the Brookings Institution or read the full transcript.]

Col. Wilkerson, former chief of staff for former Secretary of State Colin Powell:

"We're marching down a road for yet another war in western Asia. A war that will be disastrous not just for the region, but for the United States of America too. "Look at what's happening in Israel right now. Israeli leaders from the Israeli defense force, military, the Mossad, everywhere across the leadership spectrum in Israel, there are people coming out and saying-either retired or in one case active-this is crazy. Netanyahu and Lieberman and the rest of that gang are leading us down the road to Armageddon."

[See the full video of Col. Wilkerson's interview on Russia Today TV.]

Meir Dagan, former head of the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency:

[Attacking Iran is] 'the stupidest thing I have ever heard...It will be followed by a war with Iran. It is the kind of thing where we know how it starts, but not how it will end."

[Haaretz, 5/7/11]

Gary Sick, National Security Council analyst and principal White House aide for Iran during Iranian hostage crisis:

"A war with Iran would not be surgical, brief, or one-sided. As memorably noted by Gen. Anthony Zinni, if you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you will love Iran. It is a huge country, well-defended, with a fierce sense of nationalism. No air campaign, even if prolonged, will end the problem. Regardless of how a conflict begins, it is most likely to end with lots of boots on the ground. A squad of special forces will not do the job.

Paradoxically, the quickest way to insure that the Iranians decide to go for a bomb may be to bomb them. The most predictable result of a military strike would be Iran's withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the ejection of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and cameras that watch every step of the Iranian enrichment process....The surest way to rally the Iranian people around this corrupt and repressive system is for an external power to attack it."

[CNN, 01/12/2011]

Ephraim Halevy, former head of the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency:

"An attack on Iran could affect not only Israel, but the entire region for 100 years."

[YNet, 1/04/2011]

Paul Pillar, veteran intelligence officer on Middle East issues:

"If the saber rattling were ever to lead to the use of military force, among the disastrous consequences for U.S. interests would be to ensure the enmity of future generations of Iranians and to provide the strongest possible incentive for those Iranians to build, or rebuild, a nuclear weapons capability."

[National Security Network, 2/3/11]

General Anthony Zinni, former CENTCOM commander:

"I think anybody that believes that it would be a clean strike and it would be over and there would be no reaction is foolish."

[PBS, 8/04/09]

"After you've dropped those bombs on those hardened facilities, what happens next? What happens if they decide, in their hardened shelters with their mobile missiles, to start launching those? What happens if they launch them into U.S. bases on the other side of the gulf? What happens if they launch into Israel, or somewhere else? […] What happens if they now flush their fast patrol boats, their cruise missiles, the [unclear] full of mines, and they sink a tanker, an oil tanker? And of course the economy of the world goes absolutely nuts.

"Eventually, if you follow this all the way down, eventually I'm putting boots on the ground somewhere. And like I tell my friends, if you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you'll love Iran."

[New America Foundation, 09/02/2009]

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates:

Mr. Gates’s spokesman, Geoff Morrell, said that Mr. Gates believed:

"a potential strike on the Iranian facilities is not something that we or anyone else should be pursuing at this time."

[New York Times, 01/10/2009]

"Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General [Douglas] MacArthur so delicately put it."

[Christian Science Monitor, 02/26/2011]

Brigadier General John Johns, former combat arms officer in U.S. Army:

"While rhetoric about military strikes may work as an applause line in Republican debates, there is little or no chance that military action would be quite so simple. Quite the contrary. Defense leaders agree that the military option would likely result in serious unintended consequences.

"America ought not consider another war in the Middle East without a very serious discussion of the consequences. Political candidates should curb their jingoistic, chauvinistic emotions and temper their world view with a little reflective, rational thought.

[New York Times, 11/14/2011]

Lieutenant Colonel Eckholm, strategic plans and policy directorate for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

"Proponents of a more comprehensive military intervention will argue that a full-scale invasion is the only means by which to crush the regime and its military apparatus, guarantee total elimination of the Iranian nuclear enterprise, and create a window for democratic change. But the price of invasion would be astronomical, and the nationalistic reaction would be fierce; thus, the projected cost in life and treasure must be weighed against the envisioned, yet unpredictable, advantages of a new regime in Tehran."

[Hoover Institution, 8/1/11]

Ambassador Nicholas Burns, former undersecretary of state for political affairs under the G.W. Bush administration:

"Air strikes would undoubtedly lead Iran to hit back asymmetrically against us in Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider region, especially through its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. This reminds us of Churchill's maxim that, once a war starts, it is impossible to know how it will end."

[Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 5/6/09]

Admiral Mullen, Retired Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

"I think Iran having a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. I think attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome… But from my perspective … the last option is to strike right now."

[Reuters, 4/19/11]

Admiral Joe Sestak, former member of Congress and retired Navy Admiral:

"A military strike, whether it's by land or air, against Iran would make the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion look like a cakewalk with regard to the impact on the United States' national security."

[Think Progress, 9/20/11]