Department of defense News Briefing with Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen from the Pentagon
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
October 18, 2007
Excerpts
. . .
Q: Sir, can you clarify or elaborate on the remarks made by the president yesterday about "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them" -- meaning Iran -- "from having the knowledge necessary to make nuclear weapons." There's been some misinterpretation, I think, of those remarks suggesting that the U.S. could launch World War III. Are those helpful words from the president at this very tense time with Iran regarding --
SEC. GATES: Well, it's not my role to interpret the president. What I will say is that -- and what I believe he probably had in mind is that if Iraq -- if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it seems very probable that there will be other states in the region that decide for their own protection they will have to obtain nuclear weapons as well. And so you will have a nuclear arms -- you very likely would have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. And as those materials became available -- and perhaps weapons became available -- in states that have not had nuclear weapons to date, the risk of an accident or a miscalculation or of those weapons or materials falling into the hands of terrorists seem to me to be substantially increased.
And I think in that context, the risk of a major war in the Middle East, with who knows what consequences, comes onto the radar screen. I think it's not something that's going to happen next year or the year after that, but perhaps five or 10 years from now.
I think the worry is that it's -- and this is not to mention the fact that you've got a leader in Iran who has already publicly said that Israel ought to be destroyed. So let's just say that the leadership in Iran doesn't give us confidence, even by their public statements, that they would handle this kind of a capability with any kind of responsibility. And then when you add to that the proliferation part of the equation, it seems to me it ends up being a far more dangerous world.
Q: Did President Putin make any progress in convincing Tehran to stop its enrichment of uranium? You mentioned when you were in Russia that there was some perhaps new initiatives that Putin was putting forth.
SEC. GATES: I haven't gotten a debrief, but I hope he did.
. . .
Q: Mr. Secretary. Thank you. General McNeill reported today the interception of a convoy in Afghanistan coming from Iran on September 5th with EFP materials. Can you tell us -- or can you, Admiral -- how extensive a problem this is, how high you think the Iranian -- the level of Iranian involvement goes, what can be done about it?
And Mr. Secretary, did you ask President Putin to ask the Iranians to stop doing some of these things in Iraq and Afghanistan?
SEC. GATES: (To Admiral Mullen) Do you want go ahead take the first part?
ADM. MULLEN: The -- it's a very serious problem as far as the infiltration, and just specifically having been over there and talking with the commanders about it and actually the troops. And the troops know it's -- they're coming in as well. So from that standpoint, it's one that we're extremely concerned about and working in all manner of ways to try to stem that flow. The longer-term impact of this or as it continues to increase will certainly create a larger problem for us.
I am not aware of the higher-level connection in the Iraqi (sic) government at this particular point in time, though --
SEC. GATES: Iranian government.
ADM. MULLEN: -- the Iranian government, although it has certainly been mentioned enough as a possibility that -- I mean, it's been out there publicly. They certainly have seen the concern expressed both in the questions and in the answers to questions like this.
SEC. GATES: I did not ask President Putin to raise that.
Q: Mr. Secretary, in Moscow and then here with the Israeli Defense minister, you probably discussed Iran's nuclear program. Was there any -- is there a significant difference in the different intelligence assessments you're getting as to how far along the Iranians have gone and therefore when it's really dangerous, how many years or months?
SEC. GATES: I don't think that there are significant differences in the assessment of the Iranian nuclear program. There was clearly, in our discussions in Moscow, a difference of opinion on the rate or the pace with which Iran is developing longer-range missiles.
So the focus was mainly on the difference on the missiles and the timing. There was no disagreement that the Iranians are seeking missiles with longer ranges, but there was disagreement about how soon they thought they could get there.
Let me take one here, and then I'll come back.
Q: Mr. Secretary, some House Republicans have called on the administration to block the proposed merger of 3Com and a Chinese company linked to the Chinese military. The concerns are that this will increase Chinese cyber-warfare capabilities, and because the company sells computer prevention -- intrusion prevention systems to the Pentagon, that it will increase the vulnerabilities. Do you have a view on whether this deal should go forward or be blocked?
SEC. GATES: I don't know enough about -- in fact, I don't know anything about it, so it would be inappropriate to comment.
Q: All right. Can I ask you another question? The Afghan Defense minister was in town -- is in town, and yesterday he said that the number of foreign fighters in Afghanistan was increasing. His take on it was that perhaps they're under pressure or that there's not enough indigenous fighters. Do you have a sense of why there's more foreign fighters in Afghanistan?
SEC. GATES: I don't know that for a fact. He was my guest for lunch here and he never raised the subject. So I don't know what he was referring to.
Q: My question is actually for Admiral Mullen. I wanted to ask you about your thinking, as much as you can lay it out for us, about Iran, on several points. How mindful are you at the moment of the risk of conflict with Iran, given, of course, what the secretary says about their nuclear weapons program, about them shipping weapons into Iraq, where they're killing U.S. troops. A lot of people are asking the question, why doesn't -- why isn't it the best military advice to strike targets, if they pose a threat, inside Iran? How concerned are you that you're simply sending the message to the Iranians that the U.S. military may be stretched too thin to deal with it?
ADM. MULLEN: I would add to the secretary's concerns as he previously expressed, their support for terrorists, and all of that adds up to a huge and growing concern about Iran and where it's headed. There is a significant amount of activity right now to try to influence them diplomatically. I'm not one to take options off the table and wouldn't do that. However, I really do consider that to be one that's -- the military option -- one of the last resort, and, I guess, would only reemphasize that the concern is there, clearly their stated intentions, what their actions support.
And there are an awful lot of people that are working to try to get their attention and influence them in a way that backs -- or that moves them off of that position. But the concern that I have is very, very real.
Q: Well, what -- can I just ask you, then, what is your concern, and is the United States military stretched too thin right now and too exhausted to deal with Iran?
ADM. MULLEN: From a military standpoint, there is more than enough reserve to respond if that in fact is what the national leadership wanted to do, and so I don't think we're too stretched in that regard. There are -- I have been concerned, as many have, over the last year, year and a half with their seemingly growing intentions, their interference with what we're trying to accomplish in Iraq and the other things that have been mentioned, in addition to the potential for nuclear weapons -- all of which has potentially a very destabilizing impact on a part of the world, a region of the world which is struggling in many ways already. So they're not being helpful.
. . .