Former CIA director and former US Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, has given an interview to Corriere della Sera, where he warned about the dangers of the war launched by the Trump administration against Iran.
Panetta has criticized the lack of a clear strategy, emphasizing that "you can't change a regime with bombs" and that history has shown the failures of similar interventions in Yemen and Vietnam.
He has raised questions about the true objectives of this war and the ability of the US to deal with a wide-ranging regional conflict.
“The president has said: we expect four or five weeks of bombing, with the hope that ultimately this will change the regime and the people of Iran will be able to rise up and develop a better government in the future. That is the hope. The problem is that we do not have a good precedent for regime change and nation building. And we have learned that you cannot pave the way to regime change with bombs. We tried it in Yemen and it did not work, we tried it in North Vietnam. So what concerns me is: what is the objective? And do we have a strategy to achieve it and close the game? When you send your men and women in uniform to the line of danger, you owe them a clear explanation. But I am not sure that the administration has clear plans for this war,” Leon Panetta told Corriere.
Trump has talked about unlimited ammunition, is that true?
"There is no doubt that in the past there have been problems with military supply chains. We have seen it in the supply of additional weapons to Ukraine. The reality is that there are limitations in the number of missiles, in the air defense capabilities of the United States, even though we are a strong military and we have a large industrial base. But at the end of the day, no country is fully prepared for a large-scale regional war, which is what we are involved in now. It is a war that covers the Middle East and 4-5 weeks of continuous attacks require logistics, mobilization, and I have no doubt that our forces are stretched to the limit."
How long can it last?
"I hope it doesn't last more than 4-5 weeks, because I think that if the regime remains in power with a new leadership, it will be very difficult to produce the kind of change that the president wants. The hope at that point would probably be that whoever the regime appoints as new leaders will be willing to engage in negotiations that can resolve the war."
The president has not ruled out sending ground troops. Many are skeptical, some are talking about the Kurds.
“I would be very surprised if he suddenly decided to send troops on the ground for a full-scale invasion of Iran. Not only because of the cost in human lives, but because we learned in Iraq that it doesn’t necessarily produce the expected results. This country is still worried about the endless wars in the Middle East, recent polls show that at least 70-80% are worried about the direction of this war, so I don’t foresee ground troops. However, there are other types of operations possible, if necessary to develop the leadership and organization necessary in Iran to decide whether they really want to overthrow the regime. But that’s easier said than done. They are afraid now, there are bombings, there was a period when 30-35 thousand people were killed. Are they going to take to the streets and try to overthrow the regime? There has to be a plan to support the people, to provide them with the organization and the weapons that they would need to achieve that objective. I’m not sure the government "he did this."
The CIA has helped locate Khamenei, but is it working to support an alternative to the regime?
"It should. Let's put it this way: I would be surprised if it wasn't happening, but on the other hand it's hard to say exactly what's happening. It would make sense for the CIA and Mossad to be operating inside Iran to develop not only a leadership but also an organization that could be deployed if the regime were to fall."
Hasn't this happened in recent years?
"You could think so. Certainly when I was director of the CIA we were working on intelligence about what was happening inside Iran and where to find support if the regime fell, and on the possibility of finding other forms of leadership."
And what was the conclusion then?
"We worked closely with Israel, which has very good intelligence on Iran, perhaps better than the American one. We saw how they were able to hit the leaders and kill the supreme leader. But the question is: have they worked to build an internal opposition in Iran? I don't know the answer."
Trump has said he attacked because a preemptive strike from Iran was expected.
"They have said they acted on the basis of the possibility of an imminent threat, but the Pentagon briefing to Congress said there was no imminent threat. I highly doubt that Iran would have carried out a preemptive strike. I think what happened, quite frankly, is that when the intelligence indicated that there was an opportunity to hit the leaders, including the supreme leader, the president decided that it was an important target to pursue, and I think that led to the strikes."
Do you expect this war to expand?
"We are facing a war in the Middle East, involving all Arab countries, which has led to a directive for all Americans in those areas to leave. And that tells you something: that we are facing a regional conflict that could lead to escalation. Such events sometimes get out of control and lead to wider wars."
What kind of escalation?
"For example, suddenly Pakistan decides it's the right time to invade Afghanistan, or other countries decide it's the right time to take advantage... because the world's attention is distracted from what's happening in the Middle East."/ Corriere della Sera