News Briefing by Admiral mICHAEL g. Mullen
cHAIRMAN, jOINT cHIEFS OF sTAFF
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
July 2, 2008
Excerpts
ADM. MULLEN: Great to see you all again and, I know, it's been a while.
As you know, I just returned from a short trip, to Europe and to Israel. Terrific engagement all around; visited with staffs also of the European and Africa Commands. Found those staffs very engaged and enthusiastic about the good work that they're doing.
. . .
We certainly talked about Iran and the degree to which the Israeli military views the Iranian regime as a threat to their security and to the security of the broader Middle East. That should come as no surprise to any of you.
I will not -- I won't discuss the details or the concerns they expressed, nor will I comment one way or any other about the speculation surrounding Israeli intentions. Those are matters for the Israeli military and the Israeli government to address.
I will say this, however: My position with regard to the Iranian regime hasn't changed. They remain a destabilizing factor in the region, and that's evident and actually more evident when one visits. But I'm convinced a solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behavior, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure. There is a need for better clarity, even dialogue at some level.
. . .
Q 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 were 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?
ADM. 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.
Now, what I said in my opening statement was really why I went. And it is the third trip, as has been pointed out, for me to visit with General Ashkenazi. I've made three trips to Pakistan. I've been in the AOR three times since I've been chairman. Part of this is style and also, obviously, seriousness of issues. And that engagement is critical. And that was really the reason that I went. I was actually in Europe on another -- to go to the changeover at NATO of the chairman of the Military Committee and extended that visit, some time ago, to visit with General Ashkenazi.
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 to 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 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.
Q But you don't want to say -- on a path by -- do you think it's possible by the end of the year, or within that sort of a period of time?
ADM. MULLEN: Which?
Q Whether Iran will indeed have surface-to-air capabilities and the ability to enrich enough uranium to fuel a nuclear bomb?
ADM. MULLEN: No, I don't want to address that.
Q Sir, if I can -- you said in your opening statement that the preference is to use other elements of national power. So can you just give us your assessment of what the consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran would be? How do you believe the Iranians would react? And what are the potential risks there?
ADM. MULLEN: Well, I try -- I think -- I don't want to speculate in that regard. Clearly, there is a very broad concern about the stability level -- the overall stability level in the Middle East. I've been pretty clear before that from the United States' perspective, the United States' military perspective 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. And that's why I think it's so important that the international piece, the financial piece, the diplomatic piece, the economic piece be brought to bear with a level of intensity that resolves this.
Q Admiral Mullen --
Q 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 to attack Iran, you're suggesting, then, that that would drag the U.S. into a confrontation -- military confrontation with Iran.
ADM. MULLEN: I'm not specifically again speculating about what the consequences of any action would be. It is a very, very broad, and what has been enduring for a while, concern about the instability in that part of the world. And destabilizing acts, destabilizing events are of great concern to me.
Q But that would be a likely scenario, that if Israel were to attack Iran, the U.S. would 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.
ADM. 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 very 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.
Q Is Israel operating on a shorter timeline than the U.S.?
ADM. MULLEN: The discussions 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, David, these things evolve, both with time and focus, to really understand over time where we are.
And again I'm not, I mean, this is 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 them to talk about that.
Q Admiral, when the Iranians say that if they're attacked, they would shut down the Strait of Hormuz, and when the commander of the U.S. Fifth Fleet says that the U.S. would not allow that to take place, is that kind of rhetoric helpful? Or does that simply ratchet up the tensions between the U.S. and Iran?
ADM. MULLEN: Well, I think -- actually, I think Admiral Cosgriff, who made that statement, is making an accurate statement. It's hard to know whether it ratchets it up or not. I haven't seen it do that per se. Certainly that is a huge strategic strait and one that we are very concerned about. And –- but it's not a concern that we just arrived at. We've had that concern for many, many year. And so I would -- I rest comfortably in what he said in terms of the abilities that we have, recognizing what the potential is there.
Q Sir, did you come away from your trip to Israel more or less convinced that the Israelis would go it alone and strike Iran?
ADM. MULLEN: Actually, neither. I mean, I didn't go with any kind of preconceived notion there. Again, it really more than anything else was 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.
Q Is that actually a bluffing game, though, that we're witnessing? If you look at the air exercises that took place, did you come away from feeling that there's a bluffing game taking place that could lead the region into a conflict?
ADM. MULLEN: The Israeli press reported fairly widely that the Israeli 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.
Q Let me just follow up to Jamie's question on the Gulf -- on the Strait of Hormuz.
ADM. MULLEN: Right.
Q Is it your assessment, though, that Iran actually has the capability and their leadership really has the intent to try and work with the IRC commander the other day to impose controls on the Gulf? Can they actually do this successfully?
ADM. MULLEN: At least, the analysis that I have certainly indicates that they have capabilities which could certainly hazard the Straits of Hormuz. But I'm back to what Admiral Cosgriff said. I believe that the ability to sustain that is not there.
Q Just one follow-up. Do you see -- is the U.S. going to be beefing up its naval forces in the next couple months to counter any potential Iranian moves in that direction?
ADM. MULLEN: Again, that's operational details I won't get into.
Q Admiral, you mentioned in your opening statement something about the idea of perhaps a need for dialogue over this issue. What did you have in mind? Are you thinking about some sort of military-to-military talks with Iran on some level?
ADM. MULLEN: No, I've -- when I talk about dialogue -- actually, I would say very broadly, across the entirety of our government and their government, but specifically that would be -- need -- that would need to be led, obviously, politically and diplomatically. And if it then resulted in a military-to-military dialogue, I think that part of it certainly could add to a better understanding about each other. But I'm really focused on the diplomatic aspect.
Q Do you think there is a lack of communication at the moment which elevates the risk of something happening here, military confrontation? Is that one of the risks that there is at the moment?
ADM. MULLEN: I -- we haven't had much of a dialogue with the Iranians for a long time, and I think if I were just to take the high stakes that were -- that we -- I just talked about a minute ago, part of the results of that engagement or lack of engagement, I think, is there. But as has been pointed out more than once, it takes two people to want to have a dialogue, not just the desire on one part.
Q Just to clarify, you're saying we need dialogue between the United States government and the Iranian government?
ADM. MULLEN: That's not -- I think it's a broad dialogue. I think it would cover the full spectrum of international -- and it could very well certainly cover the dialogue between us as well.
Q Those of us who have followed you pretty closely here in the building are well aware of your concern about opening up this third front and what that might mean for U.S. forces. I'm curious whether you have had the opportunity or have been requested to make that case at the White House or the National Security Council, if that is -- that discussion is so fresh that you've been asked to make that case on the other side of the river.
ADM. MULLEN: You know, again, not unlike my meetings with General Ashkenazi, I don't talk about what I do over at the White House. You know, the advice I give as the senior military individual is to the National Security Council and to the president. And that's advice I keep private.
Q Admiral, can you talk about the number and type of troops that are expected -- the extra troops that are expected to go to Afghanistan in 2009?
ADM. MULLEN: No decisions with respect to that. The president, at Bucharest, made a commitment. And as I recall, his phrase was "sometime in 2009." And I can't be any more specific with respect to that.
What I said in my statement is also important as a part of that calculus, which is I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq. And there -- we're on an increasingly positive path in Iraq in lots of dimensions. And so I'm hopeful, towards the end of the year, opportunities like that would be created.
Q As battalions are pulled out of western Iraq, is it more likely that the units going to Afghanistan will be Marines?
ADM. MULLEN: Again, no decisions with respect to that. Certainly, the 24 MEU has had a tremendous impact in southern Afghanistan since they've been over there; 27 MEU has had a tremendous -- and 24 from the combat standpoint -- 27 MEU has had a tremendous impact on the training piece, which, again, is my first priority for additional troops in Afghanistan. But there's no plan yet that says it's going to be the Marine Corps in terms of what might be next.
Q Admiral, on Afghanistan, given the current trends, can you say that the U.S. and its NATO allies are, in fact, winning in Afghanistan? And if not, is NATO at risk of losing Afghanistan?
ADM. MULLEN: I -- as I said in my statement, I think in the long run, you know, that we will provide the kind of support for the Afghan people that will allow them to provide for their own security, the economy, et cetera. But it's going to be a long time, for lots of reasons, and I am confident that that will be the case.
But we are going through a time right now where violence is up significantly from where it was a year ago. Some of that is more contact because we have more troops in the south. Some of that is because of the very porous border where there is much more freedom this year to move across that border than existed a year ago, and we're addressing all those concerns. And we're right in the middle of the fighting season, if you will. And we've seen the Taliban revert to the kind of violence that is tied to IEDs, suicide bombings, those kinds of things, and I think we can expect more of that. And I think it's going to be a pretty tough fight for a while.
Q And just a quick follow -- on Israel and Iran. Can you even say whether the subject of an Israeli first strike is something that came up in your discussions?
ADM. MULLEN: No, I can't. I won’t do that.
. . .
Q Sir, I want to go back to the Israeli issue. 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?
ADM. 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 need it to be more unstable.
. . .
Okay, thank you..