US-Iran Front: On Sunday, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said that the U.S. military has a plan to attack Iran if necessary though he thinks this is a "bad idea".
In response, Iran's envoy to the United Nations, Mohammad Khazai, said: "If the Zionist regime commits the slightest aggression against Iranian soil, we will set the entire war front and Tel Aviv on fire."
US Commitment to Israel's Security: The House of Representatives, the junior chamber of the US Congress, has endorse funding of the Israeli missile defense programs to an unprecedented level, with $422.7 million now slated for 2011.
The package is more than twice as much as last year’s total and brings to nearly $1 billion joint US-Israel missile defense programs in the past four years.
Israel-Hamas Exchange of Fire: Both Israelis and Hamas exchanged fire for the second time in the last 48 hours. First, a rocket was fired from Gaza on Friday. Israel's Air Forces responded quickly and killed a militant/terrorist leader. Then, Hamas sent another Qassam rocket Saturday night. Israeli jets struck two smuggling tunnels in the southern Gaza Strip overnight Saturday.
There were two big developments in Gaza last week. Last Tuesday, the top security official in Hamas-ruled Gaza said that he was considering setting up a bigger military force, first with volunteers and eventually with a mandatory draft. Instead of a paid security force, Hamas can have a broader access to Gazans (about one-third of the labor force in Gaza is unemployed) through large number of potential recruits.
Secondly, following the Arab League's "yellow light" to the trio of Washington, West Jerusalem and Ramallah, Hamas criticized the decision harshly. Ismail Radwan, a senior Hamas leader, said:
We reject any cover for the resumption of the direct talks with the Zionist occupation. This committee is not authorized to make concessions over the rights of our people.
Meanwhile, after Israeli attacks, Islamic Jihad said on Sunday that it has decided to resume suicide attacks against Israel from the West Bank.
The Green Movement has reshaped the Iranian political factions both inside and outside the country. After one year of ongoing protests by Green Movement activists, it is now clear that there are two different tendencies both inside the country and abroad. One section of the movement pursues its goals within the framework of the existing regime and its constitution, while the other does not believe the regime is capable of reform and aims to overthrow the regime through a series of non-violent actions. This duality does not have distinct and predefined sides such as reformist/revolutionaries (monarchists and Mujahedin-e Khalq), and religious/non-religious as it did in the 1990s. Both secularist and Islamist dissidents have supporters among different groups and political parties.
Disagreement on the substance of an alternative regime
Despite an agreement within the Green Movement on the method of political campaigns and struggles against the regime, secularists and Islamists dream of two very different future political regimes. This is the reason behind most existing disagreements about the slogans and approaches to current developments. For example, although they both deny the existing administration, one side believes in an Iranian republic while the other side still believes in the Islamic republic.
The reformists view slogans against the foundations of the regime and unconstructive ideas as deviations; they believe they hold the tape measures of right and wrong in their hands. They also believe that [Mir Hossein] Mousavi and [Mehdi] Karroubi are the only leaders of the movement, and do not deny the basis of the Islamists' rule. The section that is reformist in method and revolutionary in substance believes that "Mousavi and Karroubi are just two members of the movement," or in the extreme, "Mousavi and Karroubi are good excuses, the target is the whole regime."
The regime’s reaction to the protests was essential in revealing the revolutionary demands of the secularists. This harsh repression brought the oppositions’ desite to topple the state structure into the light, but when there was no repression (June 15, 2009), the protesters rallied in silence and shouted the minimum of their political beliefs.
Revolutionary in substance
Political groups who have turned their backs against Islamism as an authoritarian and totalitarian ideology have no common ground with the Islamic Republic regime. If the secularist groups were silent in some periods, it was not because of their satisfaction, but because they were living under a brutal dictatorship. These groups are looking for a democracy without any reservation or condition. The Rafsanjani and Khatami administrations, which came to power with many promises of reform, proved to be closed handed. Even unseating [President] Ahmadinejad or Khamenei [the Supreme Leader] is not enough for them --- the secularists want regime change.
There is not even one sign in all the protesters’ slogans that shows they want the continuation of the existing regime, but the opposite signs are numerous. The reformist leaders who were aware of this demand for fundamental change asked the protesters to be silent in rallies, not to provide an excuse for the police and plainclothes men to use violence against them.
To reform the existing regime
Islamists believe in “the presence of religion in the public sphere,” that is, enforcing religious ordinances such as hejab or prohibiting intimate relationships between individuals based on their choices. They believe that the government has to enforce shariah law and should not be neutral with respect to different ideologies and religions. Islamists who take the side of the Green Movement are completely against overthrowing the existing regime, not because it is not practically impossible but because they want to maintain an authority (such as the velayat-e faqih, the guardianship of the jurist, Iran’s theocratic head of state) to enforce Islamic laws.
What they are against is the jurist who is ruling now, not the guardianship of jurists in general (Mohsen Kadivar, Rah-e-sabz, October 26, 2009). Shi’i opposition Islamists have also criticized the notion of the guardianship of jurists in some periods (Kadivar, "Velayat-e-faqih and Democracy", on his personal website, July 10, 2010: he has changed his position with respect to this issue many times in the last twelve months).
They want the jurists to act according to the law and ask for the extension of checks and balances to the so-called Supreme Leader’s office through the Assembly of Experts (Atoullah Mohajerani, Alvatan al-Arabi, April 6, 2010). Islamists do not believe that the Islamic regime is responsible for the misery of the Iranian people. They consider Khamenei’s regime to be a deviation from the original idea of the Islamic republic.
From the Islamists’ point of view, the Green Movement’s agenda is to topple Ahmadinejad’s administration, and those who are against the Islamic Republic or the velayat-e faqih are not considered to be Green Movement activists: “From the outset of the victory of revolution, there were people who were against the revolution, the Islamic Republic, the late Imam Khomeini, [and] the clergy. There is no problem. They have opposed [the system] for thirty years. They can continue their opposition but cannot be a part of the Green Movement.” (Ataollah Mohajerani in a lecture in London, June 26, 2010)
The irreformable regime
Iranian secularists who are participating in the Green Movement have brought some questions to the attention of the Islamist section of the movement: 1) What else must this regime do to be disqualified or denied by the Shi`i Islamists, and not simply labeled as a deviation? 2) How is it possible to remove an Islamist party—democratically or non-democratically elected—from power and stop it from repressing others and enforcing shariah law by resorting to coercion? and 3) Iranian Islamists call all the Islamic regime’s crimes against humanity and repression mistakes (Kadivar’s letter to Seyed Hassan Khomeini, June 16, 2010). What are the theoretical foundations of these mistakes? Do they just stem from misinterpreting Islamic doctrines and ordinances or have the culprits been following Islamic rules?
Islamists claim movement’s leadership
Secularist activists want to know why the Islamists want religion to be active in individuals’ private and public lives, civil society, politics and the state. Is it because they want to enforce shariah law by resorting to the power of the state or do they want to monopolize wealth and social status in the hands of a few? If the religious rulers are to follow wisdom and expertise in leading society, and shariah law is not to be the main source of regulations and policies, why does a nation need to have Islamists in power?
Islamists not only want the government in Iran, but claim leading any social movement against the Islamist regime. From the Islamists’ perspective, the leadership of the Green Movement is in line with them. (Mosen Kadivar, Rah-e-sabz, October 26, 2009)
Iranian secularists demand real change in the substance of the regime. Their actions truly present this inclination. During the campaign of men in hejab (launched after the arrest of Majid Tavakoli, a university student activist, claimed to be in hejab when arrested), the Islamists’ opposition media outlets kept their silence while secularist men wore hejab to show solidarity with Tavakoli. The Islamists’ silence was in line with their other positions in support of the Islamic regime and its constitution, which obligates the government to enforce Islamic ordinances. This is a very clear sign of degrading women and totalitarian control of the state over women’s bodies. Islamism in this case is an obstacle for some of the regime’s opponents to speak out against denigrating a political prisoner.
In any Islamist regime, even different from Khamenei’s, Islamic ordinances are going to be enforced in the public sphere. Islamist websites located abroad still publish women’s photos in hejab although they publicly show their hair to others.
Reformist in method
In contrast to the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the Green Movement is not a violent one. Both Islamist and secularist members of the movement avoid violence even when confronted with the regime’s brutality. They have shown their self-control and self -preservation in different circumstances including at press fairs, university campuses, Friday prayers, labor protests, funerals, and other public gatherings while under attack by the regime’s militia and police.
The regime was not able to accuse any of the movement’s activists of armed protests or the killing of the police, but the regime has no shame in accusing its dissidents of baseless charges. The name of the basijis whom the regime claimed were killed by protestors have never disclosed.
Green Movement or Green Revolution?
From a non-Islamist point of view, this movement may lead to a Green revolution but Islamists insist on calling it simply a movement to strip it of the revolutionary aspect (Sabzineh webzine, no. 16).
It seems that the Islamist and secularist tendencies will remain active in the movement until the day that people in a referendum decide which they prefer. Another scenario would be the domination of one group over the other by force, similar to what happened in 1979. There is no way to predict the situation in the aftermath of the Islamic regime.
The Ministry of Electricity and Energy recently decided to cut electricity use in Egypt by 50%. However, nature and "over-consumption" on the national grid system may have accelerated the cause.
High temperatures and an overload on the national grid system caused a blackout in seven Governates in Upper Egypt. Dr. Aktham Abu al Ola, First Undersecretary of the Ministry of Electricity, blamed the outage on recent temperatures of almost 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit) and an excess load on the electricity network of more than 23,000 megawatts, which is at its highest level in Egypt.
Naga Hammadi, Qena, and The New Valley Governorate all experienced power cuts. Mubarak International Airport also suffered blackouts lasting up to an hour, causing severe disruption. The Red Sea resorts of Hurghada, Sahel Hasheesh, and Safaga were affecting, with the loss of large quantities of food, affecting the tourist industry.
Experts from the Egyptian Electrcity Holding Company are calling for immediate improvements in provision of electricity and energy to the surrounding regions. There is, however, a possibility of further power cuts due to temperatures and holidays. With the holy month of Ramadan soon beginning, there is an urgency in the search for "non-traditional" methods to reduce chances of further disruptions.
When the Ministry of Electricity and Energy sought a significant reduction of energy to meet "international standards", they may have gotten more than they bargained for.
MR. GREGORY: Good morning. July is now the deadliest month for U.S. troops in the nearly nine-year war in Afghanistan. With us, our lead newsmaker interview this morning, the president's principal military adviser, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen.
Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.
ADM. MULLEN: Good morning, David.
MR. GREGORY: We just played for our viewers very strong comments by you this week about these leaks. You indicated those who are responsible for making these secret documents public may already have blood on their hands, a strong statement. What specifically do you mean?
ADM. MULLEN: These --- the, the, the scope and the volume of these leaks are unprecedented, and, and the specifics of them, and I've been through some of them, but we've still got a lot of work to do to, to really put the details together. But I think the, the leaks themselves don't look clearly at the war that we're in. There is an ability to put this kind of information together in the world that we're living in and the potential for costing us lives, I think, is significant. I said, when it first occurred, I was appalled --- I remain appalled --- and that the potential for the loss of lives of American soldiers or coalition soldiers or Afghan citizens is clearly there.
MR. GREGORY: But how can that happen based on this?
ADM. MULLEN: Well, I would speak to--actually the Taliban spokesman has come out in the last day or so and said that they're looking at the names, and I think that's evidence of what that potential is. So...
MR. GREGORY: These are Afghans that they're looking at?
ADM. MULLEN: These are --- there are Afghan names that are, that are listed in the documents and specifically the Taliban spokesman said that they're going to look at that. I think people that aren't... MR. GREGORY: They could be killed is the point.
ADM. MULLEN: They --- exactly. And people that aren't in, in a fight like this, that don't do this for a living, don't understand what the potential is for something like this in terms of the kinds of information. And a piece of information may seem very innocent in and of itself, and a lot of this is old information, but being able to net it together is--there's potential there that it could have a much bigger impact than just as is evident on the face of, of a piece of information.
MR. GREGORY: What endangers you as troops?
ADM. MULLEN: The, the fact that they would look at what our tactics are, how we report, where we're fighting, who's involved, the, the kinds of things that we do. And, and yet, there's --- the volume is such that we really haven't put it all together to be able to say this is exactly what the potential is in terms of that.
MR. GREGORY: You are looking at a suspect, a private who you believe may be responsible for obtaining this information, ultimately leaking it. What should happen to those responsible?
ADM. MULLEN: I think anybody in our --- in the, in the national security apparatus has, has got to take full cognizance of their responsibility for the safeguarding of classified information. I mean, I wouldn't go into the specific details of this investigation or of the case, the case of this private...
MR. GREGORY: But is it treason?
ADM. MULLEN: Again, I'll let the investigation run its course, and we'll see where it goes, specifically. But the concern, obviously, is for the leaking of classified information that is going to endanger people, operations and, potentially, depending on how serious it is, outcomes.
MR. GREGORY: There, there are some who have argued that the fixation about the leak perhaps is a distraction from the larger point of these documents, and that is that it goes in an unvarnished way to the core question of whether the strategy is actually working. The New York Times, as part of its reporting, made this piece of analysis --- and I'll put it up on the screen --- on Monday: "The documents --- some 92,000 reports spanning parts of two administrations from January 2004 through December 2009 --- illustrate in mosaic detail why, after the United States has spent almost $300 billion on the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001." Don't you think the public gets a look at these documents, and the bigger concern here is, not the leak, but the fact that this war may be a lost cause?
ADM. MULLEN: I don't think that the Taliban being stronger than they've been since 2001 is, is news. I mean, I've been concerned about the growing insurgency there for a number of years. We really are at a time in Afghanistan, after the president's review, where we've got the right strategy, the right leadership, and the right resources. And, and we really are in the second year of that aspect of Afghanistan. I certainly understand it is the ninth year, it is a long time, the sacrifices have been significant, and yet, at the same time, I think the strategy's right. And the release of these documents, best that I can tell, have not affected the strategy. Many of them were very, very old. That said, it's still --- I think we've got to work our way through exactly what the potential impact would be; and I think, from my perspective, we're headed in the right direction.
MR. GREGORY: But the reality is still the same, whether it's news or not, the disillusionment with the --- among the American people about the fact that the Taliban is stronger and not weaker--go back a year ago, nearly, you were on this program, and I asked you about the mission, and here's a portion of what you said.
(Videotape, August 23, 2009)
MR. GREGORY: We're rebuilding this nation?
ADM. MULLEN: To, to a certain degree, there is, there is some of that going on.
MR. GREGORY: Is that what the American people signed up for?
ADM. MULLEN: No, I'm --- right now, the American people signed up, I think, for support of getting at those who threaten us, and, and to the degree that, that the Afghan people's security and the ability to ensure that a safe haven doesn't recur in Afghanistan, there's focus on some degree of making sure security's OK, making sure governance moves in the right direction, and developing an economy which will underpin their future.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: The problem with that a year on is that, again, the Taliban is stronger and there appears no evidence that they're willing to do the core thing, which is to turn their back on al-Qaeda. Isn't that the case?
ADM. MULLEN: Well, I think, again, that is the main mission is to make sure that, that Afghanistan can't become a safe haven again. They are indeed stronger. And yet the president approved additional forces, most of which are there, but there are still additional forces yet to come this year. So we've said for many, many months this would be a very difficult year; you pointed out the, the losses that have occurred in the month of July, the highest ever. We recognize that this is a tough fight, but we think we've got the resources right, the strategy right. There's also a regional piece of this, a lot of effort gone on the Pakistan side, a significant effort on the part of Pakistani leadership, Pakistani mil to address that --- military to address that as well. But we're not there. We're at a point now where, over the course of the next 12 months, it really is going to, I think, tell the tale which, which way this is going to go.
MR. GREGORY: But another problem area, in terms of achieving the goal, is indeed Pakistan. I've talked to people who say the strategy, in effect, boils down to this, with General Petraeus on the scene: Bloody the nose of the Taliban to the point that they are willing to turn their back on al-Qaeda, Pakistan can broker a deal where there is some power-sharing in the country where the, the Taliban have a seat at the table and control some part of that geography, and in return, al-Qaeda's out of the picture. That's still a big "if," and here's one of the reasons why: Look at Pakistan's record; start with this Pew Research Center survey poll from this week: "How do Pakistanis view the U.S.?" Nearly six in 10 see the United States as an enemy. We know that the Taliban is operating from within Pakistan, from safe havens, and escalating their attacks. David Cameron, the conservative leader now of the U.K., prime minister said this, as reported by the Financial Times on Wednesday: "The U.K. prime minister used his first public appearance in Bangalore to warn Pakistan to stop `promoting terror' or face isolation in the international community." And these, these documents demonstrate what a lot of people knew, which was the intelligence service for Pakistan was helping the Afghan Taliban. Is Pakistan working against our interests there?
ADM. MULLEN: I've said for a long time, clearly the --- a, a critical key to success in the region is going to be Pakistan and our relationship with Pakistan, which was one that was broken in the late '80s and which we've worked hard to restore. That there are elements of the Pakistani intelligence agency that are connected or have had relationships with extremists is certainly known and that has to change. I just came back from, I think, my 19th trip to Pakistan since I've been in this job, spending time particularly with military leadership, General Kayani. And he has, he has actually directed his military to take on the, the insurgent threat in his own country. We--and he's made great strides. We recognize that part of that is to focus on the Haqqani network and--as well as the other Afghan Taliban.
MR. GREGORY: They operate in that tribal area?
ADM. MULLEN: They do. And they, and they have a safe haven there, and that causes us great problems in Afghanistan as well. That we are anxious to have that addressed is, is well known to him. So this isn't going to turn overnight. And you, you laid out one possible outcome. I think it's a little early to say exactly what the outcome would look like specifically. Suffice it to say, I think we have to be in a stronger position in Afghanistan vis-a-vis the insurgency overall. We have to continue to develop this relationship and evolve this relationship with Pakistan. There's a regional approach here, and certainly India, which is where Prime Minister Cameron spoke from, India is certainly more than just concerned with the overall outcome here.
MR. GREGORY: But true or untrue, the big fear is that Pakistan's working against us and not with us?
ADM. MULLEN: In many ways, Pakistan is working with us. I mean, their, their military, their intelligence agency. I mean, we've got a very strong relationship in the positive sense with, with their intelligence agency. That doesn't mean there aren't some challenges with some aspects of it.
MR. GREGORY: They are actively supporting elements killing U.S. soldiers.
ADM. MULLEN: But they have, they have shared intelligence with us, they've killed as many or more terrorists as anybody, they've captured them. And certainly, the, the focus on changing the strategic shift, if you will, in that agency so that that doesn't happen at all, is a priority for us.
MR. GREGORY: Fair to say that among the outcomes you would look at would be a scenario where the Taliban would have some power in the country?
ADM. MULLEN: I think in any of these kinds of insurgency over history, in the political solution, those who have been insurgents at some point in time have been in a position of political influence at some point down the road. But I think we're way too early to say how--what that looks like or when it might happen.
MR. GREGORY: It --- it's --- it seems to be an important point, if you look at the cover of Time magazine, which has a pretty striking photograph of a young woman whose nose was cut off by the Taliban, a--just one indication of how brutal and horrific these people are. And, and they've done this when they were in power and, indeed, even when they've been out of power. The grim reality, if that's an argument for why the U.S. should not leave, is that our central mission, the central mission of the United States is not to protect the women of Afghanistan. Is that fair?
ADM. MULLEN: I think the central mission in Afghanistan right now is to protect the people, certainly, and that would be inclusive of everybody, and that in a, in an insurgency and a counterinsurgency, that's really the center of gravity.
MR. GREGORY: But you said a year ago our central mission was to get at those who threaten us. Our central mission is not to protect the women, who could still be brutalized if the Taliban comes into power in any fashion.
ADM. MULLEN: Well, the Taliban are incredibly unpopular with the Afghan people, even as we speak, and they have--as they have been for a long period of time. The mission --- the overall mission is to dismantle and defeat and disrupt al-Qaeda. But we have to make sure there's not a safe haven that returns in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has to be stable enough, has to have enough governance, have to --- has to create enough jobs, have an economy that's good enough so that the Taliban cannot return to the brutality of the kind of regime that you just showed.
MR. GREGORY: However, the United States could still withdraw and, and do so having achieved the mission, and yet women like, like those on the cover of that magazine could still be in danger. ADM. MULLEN: Certainly, the, the, the long-term goal is to make sure that the --- with respect to the population in Afghanistan, that there's a governant --- governance structure that treats its people well. And I --- but to say exactly how that's going to look and what specifics would be involved, I think it's just way too early.
MR. GREGORY: I just want to ask you a couple of questions about Iran, another threat that this administration is facing. The consequences of Iran developing a nuclear weapon are vast, and something that the administration certainly wants to prevent. This is what you said back in April of 2010, I'll put it up on the screen, at Columbia University: "I think Iran having a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. I think attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome." Keen analysis, but my question is, which is worse?
ADM. MULLEN: Actually, when I speak to that, I talk to unintended consequences of either outcome. And it's those unintended consequences that are difficult to predict in what is a, an incredibly unstable part of the world that I worry about the most. What I try to do when I talk about that is, is identify the space between those two outcomes, which is pretty narrow, in which I think the diplomacy, the kind of sanctions, the kind of international pressure that, that is being applied, I am hopeful works. I, I, I recognize that there isn't that much space there. But, quite frankly, I am extremely concerned about both of those outcomes.
MR. GREGORY: But leaders have to make a decision. You're a leader, the president's a leader. Which is worse, Iran with a nuclear weapon or what could happen if the United States attacks?
ADM. MULLEN: Well, certainly for our country, the president would be the one making those decisions, and I wouldn't be one that would, would pick one or the other along those lines. I think they both have great downside, potentially.
MR. GREGORY: The president has said he is determined to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. He doesn't just say it's unacceptable, he says he's determined to stop it. Is force against Iran by the United States on the table in a way that it has not been even in our recent history, past six months, a year?
ADM. MULLEN: No, I, I think the military actions have been on the table and remain on the table, and certainly in that regard it's, it's one of the options that the president has. Again, I hope we don't get to that. But it's an important option, and it's one that's well understood.
MR. GREGORY: There was a concern among Israelis, among Americans, that there weren't very many good options when it came to attacking Iran, should it come to that. Is that still the case?
ADM. MULLEN: I think that's the case.
MR. GREGORY: There aren't very many good options.
ADM. MULLEN: No, no. I mean, there aren't --- it depends on what you mean by that. None of them are good in a sense that it's certainly an outcome that I don't seek, or that, that we wouldn't seek. At the same time, and for what I talked about before, is, is not just the consequences of the action itself, but the things that could result after the fact.
MR. GREGORY: But the military has a plan, should it come to that?
ADM. MULLEN: We do.
MR. GREGORY: Admiral Mullen, one final question of something I'm sure deeply troubles you, and that is the rate of suicides in the military. And the concern is not just that they have been increasing, but that commanders in the field have not been attentive enough to the, the problems that are leading to the suicides. What should be done about that?
ADM. MULLEN: Well, I, I think it was addressed this week very well by General Chiarelli, specifically. I mean, the purpose of the review, which was widely reported on, was to understand as much as we could about what the problem was. It is not a problem that exists just in the Army, because the suicide rate is up in all our services. And we don't have the answers. I'm one who believes that the pressure of these wars and the repeated deployments is a significant factor, but there's a significant population that have committed suicide that have not deployed. So it's a, it's an incredibly complex, vexing problem. I think what General Chiarelli did was, was correctly focus on leaders to be all-attentive to this in every single way and know that we certainly, we're not even close to solving it. It's an enormously complex problem nationally for us, and certainly we are a microcosm of that. But our rates now exceed the norm in the country, and it's something we absolutely have to continue to focus on.
So Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is on the Sunday talk show Meet the Press. Inevitably, after the discussion of the Wikileaks "War Diaries" and US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, host David Gregory seizes on the Iran war chatter:
MR. GREGORY: I just want to ask you a couple of questions about Iran, another threat that this administration is facing. The consequences of Iran developing a nuclear weapon are vast, and something that the administration certainly wants to prevent. This is what you said back in April of 2010, I'll put it up on the screen, at Columbia University: "I think Iran having a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. I think attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome." Keen analysis, but my question is, which is worse?
ADM. MULLEN: Actually, when I speak to that, I talk to unintended consequences of either outcome.
And it's those unintended consequences that are difficult to predict in what is a, an incredibly unstable part of the world that I worry about the most. What I try to do when I talk about that is, is identify the space between those two outcomes, which is pretty narrow, in which I think the diplomacy, the kind of sanctions, the kind of international pressure that, that is being applied, I am hopeful works. I, I, I recognize that there isn't that much space there. But, quite frankly, I am extremely concerned about both of those outcomes.
MR. GREGORY: But leaders have to make a decision. You're a leader, the president's a leader. Which is worse, Iran with a nuclear weapon or what could happen if the United States attacks?
ADM. MULLEN: Well, certainly for our country, the president would be the one making those decisions, and I wouldn't be one that would, would pick one or the other along those lines. I think they both have great downside, potentially.
MR. GREGORY: The president has said he is determined to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. He doesn't just say it's unacceptable, he says he's determined to stop it. Is force against Iran by the United States on the table in a way that it has not been even in our recent history, past six months, a year?
ADM. MULLEN: No, I, I think the military actions have been on the table and remain on the table, and certainly in that regard it's, it's one of the options that the president has. Again, I hope we don't get to that. But it's an important option, and it's one that's well understood.
MR. GREGORY: There was a concern among Israelis, among Americans, that there weren't very many good options when it came to attacking Iran, should it come to that. Is that still the case?
ADM. MULLEN: I think that's the case.
MR. GREGORY: There aren't very many good options.
ADM. MULLEN: No, no. I mean, there aren't--it depends on what you mean by that. None of them are good in a sense that it's certainly an outcome that I don't seek, or that, that we wouldn't seek. At the same time, and for what I talked about before, is, is not just the consequences of the action itself, but the things that could result after the fact.
MR. GREGORY: But the military has a plan, should it come to that?
ADM. MULLEN: We do.
Let's take it as read that Gregory, whose nose for news is the hysterical, provocative, and over-stated, would never think of asking if Iran is actually that close to nuclear military capability and certain would not countenance the possibility that Tehran may not be pursuing such an outcome.
To give Mullen credit, he tries to resist the Choice of the Absurd --- War or Iran's Nuclear Bomb? --- by calling both unacceptable. But because US Government policy relies precisely at that point on holding up the possibility of the ultimate Iranian threat, he can't escape Gregory's simple trap.
So the commander has not only to confirm, "The military actions have been on the table and remain on the table," but has to play Gregory's hyped-up game, "It's an important option."
And by the end of the interview, Gregory has his victory --- no talk left of diplomacy, no shred of the possibility of a political resolution (even though the US and Iran are closer to talks on uranium enrichment than they have been since last autumn), not even the standard recourse of sanctions. Nothing is left but "The Military Has a Plan".
You can guess the resulting headlines racing from country to country. Within minutes, Associated Press was putting out a few choice extracts, and minutes after that, Agence France Presse went even further by tacking on an exaggerated banner, "US Military Chief Admits to Iran Attack Plan". (There is no surprise admission here --- militaries always have attack plans. That's what they do as militaries.) Al Jazeera followed, "US Has 'Plan to Attack Iran'".
And minutes after that, guess what country's state media picked up and ran --- in the inevitable mirror image of US rhetoric about Iran --- with the imminent American threat? Press TV: "Mullen: US Has Plans to Attack Iran".
Monday, August 2, 2010 at 7:53 
UPDATE 0655 GMT: Israel Army Radio says between three and five explosions have hit the southern resort city of Eilat in a suspected rocket attack, Israeli army radio reports. There are no reported casualties.
