[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: This is as close as Mr. Penetta gets to saying
anything about the Palestinians: "Israel should look for ways to bolster
this cooperation. And President Abbas must take the difficult steps to do
exactly the same thing. "

And then he goes on to say that Israel should "Just get to the damn table"
without recognizing that it is the Palestinians - not the Israelis - who
refuse to go to the "damn table".]

While we share Israel’s legitimate concerns about instability in the Sinai
Peninsula and the attack on the Israeli embassy in Cairo, the best way to
address these concerns is through increasing communication and cooperation –
increasing communication and cooperation with Egyptian authorities, not by
stepping away from it.

MR. POLLACK: And this will have to be your last question. Mr. Secretary,
you made a strong statement about Israel’s responsibility towards peace.
What steps should it take now? Withdraw the Israeli army from the
Palestinian territories? It’s a suggestion and a question. It’s a
suggestion in the form of a question.

SEC. PANETTA: Just get to the damn table. Just get to the table.
(Applause.) The problem right now is we can’t get them to the damn table to
at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences – you know, we all
know what the pieces are here for a potential agreement. We’ve talked it
out, worked through, we understand the concerns, we understand the concerns
of Israel, understand the concerns of the Palestinians. If they sit at a
table and work through those concerns, and the United States can be of
assistance in that process, then I think you have the beginning of what
could be a process that would lead to a peace agreement.

But if they aren’t there – if they aren’t at the table, this will never
happen. So first and foremost, get to the damn table. (Applause.)

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Transcript

On the Web:
http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=4937
Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131/697-5132 Public contact:
http://www.defense.gov/landing/comment.aspx
or +1 (703) 571-3343

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta December 02, 2011

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remarks by Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta at the Saban Center

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEON PANETTA: Thank you. Thank you very
much for that kind introduction and thank you to my fellow Californian.
Haim, Haim is someone who I think has really served his country by bringing
the cause of the United States and Israel together. He has served that
cause with tremendous distinction. He’s provided vision and support for
this very important conference.

But more broadly I’d like to thank you, Haim, for your
commitment to strengthening the bond between the United States and Israel –
a cause that is a key priority for me as secretary of defense. For that
reason, it is truly an honor to be here tonight and to join all of you and
so many distinguished guests in helping to open this year’s Saban Forum.

My personal connection to Israel dates back to my days as a
member of Congress. For more than 10 years I shared a house with a group of
fellow congressmen right here in the District of Columbia. If you’ve seen
the movie “Animal House,” you’ll have some idea of what this was like.
(Laughter.)

One of the members of that exclusive fraternity was Chuck
Schumer, someone that many of you know and that many of you understand has a
tremendous passion for Israel that is deep and infectious. We slept on the
bottom of this house – the living room area – and every night before we went
to sleep, he made me say the Shema. (Laughter.) I made him say the Hail
Mary. (Laughter.) He learned from my passion as an Italian, and I learned
from his passion for Israel, particularly when I think it was a little over
20 years ago he and I and some of our dearest friends had a chance to travel
to Israel together.

That visit – I believe it was in August of ’91 – left a very
deep and lasting impression on me. At a time when hundreds of thousands of
Jews from the Soviet Union were making Aliyah and fulfilling a dream to live
a free and more prosperous life in their historic homeland, that trip gave
me an even stronger appreciation for Israel’s promise as a Jewish and
democratic state. And coming just once after Saddam Hussein’s SCUD missiles
had attacked Tel Aviv and Haifa, the visit also underscored the complex
array of security threats facing Israel by virtue of geography, by virtue of
politics, and by virtue of history.

As chairman of the House Budget Committee and OMB director, I
had the opportunity to work on budget issues regarding military assistance
to Israel. And as a member of President Clinton’s cabinet, as chief of
staff, I had the opportunity to be present at that historic moment on the
South Lawn when Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin shook hands in the effort to
advance the peace process. And then, tragically, after Rabin’s death I had
the opportunity as President Clinton’s chief of staff to fly with him so
that he could pay tribute to the memory and to the dedication to peace of
Rabin.

In the years since, as director of the CIA and now as the
secretary of defense, I’ve worked closely with a number of Israeli leaders –
the prime minister, many intelligence and military leaders, one of whom I
understand is hear this evening. Meir Dagan(ph), who I often work with at
Mossad and I understand is participating in this forum. Ehud Barak is also
a friend that I’ve known for years, and we’ve already had the opportunity to
meet a number of times in our capacities and to discuss our shared efforts
to strengthen Israel’s security.

I was pleased to make my first trip to Israel as secretary of
defense just a few weeks ago, and meet with Israeli leaders including my
friend, Prime Minister Netanyahu. Over the course of my career, I have
witnessed periods of great progress in these efforts, and periods of great
challenge and uncertainty for Israel and our shared security interests in
the region.

Yet nothing I have seen compares to the dramatic events of the
past year – one of change, one of promise, one of uncertainty, one of
turmoil; a year we hope of Arab awakening, a year of setback for al Qaeda,
and a year we believe of frustration for Iran. Entrenched leaders were
overthrown by peaceful protests in Tunisia and Egypt, and by force in Libya.
In Yemen, President Saleh has agreed to step down. We believe it is a very
positive development. And yet the terrorist threats from Yemen still
persist, and extremists are seeking to gain a foothold across the region.

In Egypt, the country has held its first elections on the road
to democratic transition – another positive step. But as we all know, Egypt
will require great leadership in the weeks and months ahead if it is to
successfully transition to a fully civilian-controlled government that
respects democratic principles and maintains all of its international
commitments, including the treaty of peace with Israel.

On terrorism, repeated operations have decimated al Qaeda’s
leadership. Bin Laden, Awlaki, and many others have been successfully
targeted by military and intelligence operations. Al Qaeda remains
dangerous, make no mistake about it, but the world is safer as a result of
these successes.

These largely positive trends were also accompanied by some dark
ones. A discredited regime is still violently clinging to power in Syria,
though the pressure against it is increasing dramatically each day. I want
to condemn in the strongest possible terms the Bashar al-Assad regime’s
murder and torture of children that the U.N. reported this week in Geneva.
Assad’s conduct has deservedly brought scorn and pressure and punishing
sanctions not just by the United States and Europe, but now by the Arab
League and Turkey as well.

In addition, Iran’s continued drive to develop nuclear
capabilities, including troubling enrichment activities and past work on
weaponization that has now been documented by the IAEA, and its continued
support to groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations
make clear that the regime in Tehran remains a very grave threat to all of
us.

All this upheaval – all of this upheaval is posing new
challenges for Israel regarding its security position in the region. But in
this time of understandable anxiety, I would like to underscore one thing
that has stayed constant over the past three years of this administration:
The determination of the United States to safeguard Israel’s security. And
that commitment will not change.

I want to be clear that Israel can count on three enduring
pillars in U.S. policy in the region, all of which contribute directly to
the safety and prosperity of the Israeli people. First, our unshakable
commitment to Israel’s security. Second, our broader commitment to regional
stability. And third, our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring
nuclear weapons. (Applause.)

These are not merely rhetorical assurances. These are firm
principles – principles that are backed up by tangible action, a commitment
of resources, and demonstrable resolve. Let me explain what I mean in each
of the areas I’ve just defined.

First, this administration has pursued and achieved
unprecedented levels of defense cooperation with Israel to back up our
unshakable commitment to Israel’s security. Next year, the U.S. armed
forces and the IDF will conduct the largest joint exercises in the history
of that partnership, enhancing the ability of our militaries to operate
together and also testing our new ballistic missile and rocket defense
capabilities. Those new capabilities are themselves a product of this
unprecedented defense cooperation.

We are especially proud that above and beyond the annual foreign
military financing that we provide to Israel, the Obama administration has
provided more than $200 million for the Iron Dome rocket defense system –
support that recently enabled the fielding of a third battery. This
system – this system has already saved the lives of Israeli civilians facing
rocket barrages from Gaza.

Our work together on these defense capabilities represents only
one part of our core commitment to maintaining Israel’s qualitative military
edge – an advantage that we are determined to expand even further as we
continue to enhance our defense cooperation.

As just one example, the United States will ensure that Israel
continues to enjoy unquestioned air superiority by delivering to Israel the
advanced fifth-generation fighter aircraft, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Yet we recognize that Israel’s security cannot be achieved by
its military arsenal alone. It also depends on the security and stability
of the region, which is the second key pillar of U.S. policy. The success
of our efforts in Iran permits us to redouble the long-term commitment of
the United States to the security and stability of the Middle East. The
Middle East is a vital interest to the United States, and we will not let
our commitment to its security and stability waver. That is why we maintain
a significant military presence throughout the region to defend our
partners, to counter aggression, and to maintain the free flow of resources
and commerce that are so vital to the fragile global economy.

The United States will continue to have some 40,000 troops in
the region to support these goals. We are also implementing our long-term
strategic partnership with Iraq, including security ties between our two
militaries, facilitated by a robust Office of Security Cooperation that will
start on January 1, 2012. And we are building a wider regional security
architecture in the Gulf, forging bilateral and multilateral cooperation to
confront the common challenges of terrorism, proliferation, ballistic
missiles, maritime security, and threats to critical infrastructure.

No greater threat exists to the security and prosperity of the
Middle East than a nuclear-armed Iran. And that’s why the third pillar of
our approach to this region – this critical region is our determination to
prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and more broadly to deter its
destabilizing activities, particularly those that could threaten the free
flow of commerce throughout this vital region. That is a redline for the
United States.

Our approach to countering the threat posed by Iran is focused
on diplomacy, including organizing unprecedented sanctions and strengthening
our security partnerships with key partners in the Gulf and in the broader
Middle East.

Last September I met in New York with members of the Gulf
Cooperation Council to underscore the importance of those partnerships.
Iran must ultimately realize that its quest for nuclear weapons will make it
less, not more, secure. These efforts are increasing Tehran’s isolation and
I continue to believe that pressure – economic pressure, diplomatic
pressure – and strengthened collective defenses are the right approach.
Still, it is my department’s responsibility to plan for all contingencies
and to provide the president with a wide range of military options should
they become necessary.

That is a responsibility I take very seriously because when it
comes to the threat posed by Iran, the president has made it very clear that
we have not taken any options off the table.

Our deliberate and focused approach to Iran, our efforts to
enhance regional security and stability, and our unshakable commitment to
Israel’s security make clear that even at this time of great change, our
determination to safeguard Israel’s security is steady and sure. Indeed, it
is stronger than ever.

But in every strong relationship built on trust, built on
friendship, built on mutual security, it demands that both sides work
towards the same common goals. And Israel, too, has responsibility to
pursue our shared goals to build regional support for Israel and the United
States’ security objectives.

I believe security is dependent on a strong military, but it is
also dependent on strong diplomacy. And unfortunately, over the past year
we have seen Israel’s isolation from its traditional security partners in
the region grow, and the pursuit of a comprehensive Middle East peace has
effectively been put on hold. I want to be clear: This isolation is due to
a number of factors. Indeed, there is an international campaign underway to
isolate Israel. President Obama has stood steadfastly in the way of that
effort, especially in the United Nations. But I have never known an Israeli
government, or an Israeli for that matter, to be passive about anything, let
alone this troubling trend. And so I’ve been working with the leaders
there, Minister Barak and others, to find ways to help Israel take steps
which are profoundly in its interests.

For example, Israel can reach out and mend fences with those who
share an interest in regional stability – countries like Turkey and Egypt,
as well as Jordan. This is an important time to be able to develop and
restore those key relationships in this crucial area. This is not
impossible. If gestures are rebuked, the world will see those rebukes for
what they are. That is exactly why Israel should pursue them.

Like all of you, I’ve been deeply troubled by the direction of
the Turkish-Israeli relationship. Turkey is a key NATO ally and has proven
to be a real partner in our effort to support democratic change and stand
against authoritarian regimes that use violence against their own people.
It is in Israel’s interest, Turkey’s interest, and U.S. interest, for Israel
to reconcile with Turkey. And both Turkey and Israel need to do more to put
their relationship back on the right track. That’s a message I’ve taken to
Jerusalem, and it’s a message I’ll be taking to Ankara later this month.

Meanwhile, even as turmoil continues to rock the region, Egypt’s
current leaders, along with Jordan, have made very clear to me privately and
publicly that they are committed to their peace treaties with Israel. We
have been clear to all parties in Egypt that sustaining a peace treaty with
Israel is in the critical interests of the United States. While we share
Israel’s legitimate concerns about instability in the Sinai Peninsula and
the attack on the Israeli embassy in Cairo, the best way to address these
concerns is through increasing communication and cooperation – increasing
communication and cooperation with Egyptian authorities, not by stepping
away from it.

Diplomacy – the real essence of diplomacy is not that you have
to love one another. The essence of diplomacy is that you respect each
other so that you can talk to each other when you must.

I also remain firm in the belief that it is profoundly in Israel’s
long-term security interest to lean forward on efforts to achieve peace with
the Palestinians. I was pleased to see the Israeli government announce that
it will release the tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority, averting a
situation that would have undermined Israel’s security and damaged the
important institution-building work of Prime Minister Fayyad and
strengthened the hands of extremist Palestinian factions.

Rather than undermining the Palestinian Authority, it is in
Israel’s interest to strengthen it by contributing and continuing to
transfer Palestinian tax revenues and pursuing other avenues of cooperation.
For example, the security cooperation between Israel, the Palestinians, the
U.S. security forces led by United States security coordinator Lieutenant
General Mike Muller, has paid real dividends. Israel should look for ways
to bolster this cooperation. And President Abbas must take the difficult
steps to do exactly the same thing.

Ultimately, the dream of a secure, prosperous, Jewish and
democratic Israel can only be achieved with two states living side by side
in peace and in security with full confidence that the United States is
willing and capable of ensuring that Israel can safeguard its security as it
takes the risks needed to pursue peace. Now is the time for Israel to take
bold action and to move towards a negotiated two-state solution.

I recognize that there is a view that this is not the time to
pursue peace and that the Arab awakening further imperils the dream of a
safe and secure, Jewish and democratic Israel. But I disagree with that
view. I believe Israel will ultimately be safer when other Middle Eastern
states adopt governments that respond to their people, promote equal rights,
promote free and fair elections, uphold their international commitments, and
join the community of free and democratic nations.

I believe it is the only real long-term path to security and
prosperity and to realize the vision of Yitzhak Rabin for a sustainable
peace in the Middle East.

Peace requires some difficult steps. And, yes, it will involve
risks. But my Italian father used to say that you cannot achieve anything
worthwhile without taking risks. All Israelis should know that the United
States will always stand behind their country, providing a secure safety net
as it takes those necessary risks.

I would close by noting that last year, speaking at this forum,
my friend Ehud Barak recalled the famous statement by Winston Churchill, who
said, and I quote, “A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity.
An optimist sees opportunity in every difficulty,” unquote.

There are risks. There are risks in the changes taking place
across this critical region, but we will work with Israel to reduce and to
mitigate those risks in the effort to achieve something worthwhile in that
region. But even as we have seen the challenges across the region grow in
this past year, I would urge my Israeli and American friends to remember
these words, to see these changes as an opportunity and to take the steps
needed to secure our shared interests for peace in the long term. To secure
that peace, Israel will always have the unshakable backing of the United
States. And the United States must always have the unshakable trust of
Israel.

That bond – that bond is the fundamental key to stability and
hope in the Middle East, and it is a bond that must never be broken.

Thank you. (Applause.)

KENNETH POLLACK: Thank you very much, Secretary Panetta. We’ve
already collected a number of questions. Please feel free to continue to
provide some.

Mr. Secretary, you probably won’t be surprised to hear that a
great many questions I already have are all related to the same topic. That
said, you probably would be surprised that most of those are about the
personal life of Chuck Schumer. (Laughter.) I’ll see if I can find
something else to do here other than Chuck Schumer’s personal life.

Iran. Iran is growing more and more aggressive, encouraging
attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, threatening Israel, thumbing
their noses at sanctions in the U.N., backing Syria, and now trying to kill
the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. here in the U.S.

What level of Iranian aggressiveness should make us pick up the
military option from off the table?

SEC. PANETTA: Well, as I said, we have to approach this – as
the president said, with all options on the table. But at this point we
believe that the combination of economic and diplomatic sanctions that have
been placed upon Iran have had a serious impact. That Iran is isolating
itself from the rest of the world. It is truly becoming, particularly as a
result of the attack on the British Embassy, a pariah in that region. Their
own government is off balance in terms of really trying to establish any
kind of stability even within Iran.

The combination of that and efforts to make sure that they do
not develop a nuclear capability – all of those efforts are having an
impact. We have a common goal here. Let’s understand we have a common
goal. The common goal is an Iran that does not develop a nuclear weapon.
And working together, working with Israel, working with our allies in the
region, working with the international community to continue to isolate, to
continue to put pressure on, is an effort that we must continue. That’s the
best way to put pressure on them. It’s the best way to, I believe,
ultimately weaken this nation so that ultimately they have to make a
decision about whether they continue to be a pariah or whether they decide
to join the international community.

We always – as Prime Minister Netanyahu said, force should be
only a last resort, and if that is truly the case, then I believe it is
incumbent on us to implement all of our diplomatic and economic pressure as
possible to try to continue this effort to make clear to the world that we
are dealing with an international pariah in Iran.

MR. POLLACK: Mr. Secretary, Egypt is undergoing an historic
change, but there is no guarantee it will be a positive one. How can
America use its strong relationship with Egypt’s military to ensure a good
outcome there?

SEC. PANETTA: I think it is important to continue to work
closely with the Israeli leadership at this time in order to ensure that
they do move forward with the democratic reforms that they have promised
their people. They have in fact now implemented elections. Those elections
have taken place. We have rolling elections and they will go on for the
next few months. At some point they will establish a constitutional change
and at some point this next year they will have a presidential election.

What we should be about is to ensure that they stay on course
and that they continue the efforts to move forward to implement these
democratic reforms. In many ways – look, the Egyptians have to decide their
future, and they have to try to implement this in a way that fulfills the
promise of the revolution that took place at the time that Mubarak was
brought down.

Our best course is to continue to put pressure on them to make
sure that they stand by the promises that they made to the Egyptian people
that they will implement these changes and convert to civilian control.
That’s something we’ll do and when they do form a government, we have an
obligation to stay with them to make sure that they abide by the commitment
to respect the treaty that was signed with Israel and that they abide by the
other redlines that we’ve established with regards to Egypt.

MR. POLLACK: Mr. Secretary, the U.S. backed – intervened in
Libya to stop the regime from killing its people. Why not in Syria?

SEC. PANETTA: You know, I think I’ve been asked this question a
number of times, as do others. You can’t simply take a cookie-cutter
approach to that region and decide that – I mean, apply force in one area,
you know, makes sense in another area. I think right now my sense is that,
by virtue, again, of the economic and diplomatic sanctions the international
community has imposed, the fact that the Arab League has imposed sanctions,
the fact that Turkey is imposing sanctions – all of this I think is, again,
isolate the government in Syria.

And, you know, I can’t tell you when, but clearly it’s a matter
of time before Assad is taken off of his position of leadership in Syria.

We are – I mean, it is tragic, obviously, that there are people
who are dying, but the key right now is to continue to put pressure on him,
to continue the international unity that is continuing to make the effort to
replace Assad. That, I think, is working. It’s working effectively. Let’s
give that some time and we will always join the international community if
it’s felt that further steps are necessary.

MR. POLLACK: Because of America’s disastrous economic
situation, a lot of people and a lot of presidential candidates are talking
about cutting off all U.S. foreign aid. As secretary of defense, how do you
think this would affect American and Israeli security?

SEC. PANETTA: Well, you’re coming into a town right now in
which my greatest concern is with regards to leadership on Capitol Hill and
its ability to deal with the issues that confront this country. You know, I
served in the Congress and I’ve served in administrations. I – my time in
the Congress – I always felt that while there were always political
differences, that when it came to national issues, both parties would work
together to try to compromise and find solutions, particularly to the crises
that face this country. \

We are at a time now when for whatever reason there seems to be
an inability to be able find those essential compromises in order to govern
this country. If I had men and women who were putting their lives on the
line, who were fighting and dying for this country in battle and they had
the courage to do that, then surely our elected leaders on Capitol Hill
ought to be able to find just a little bit of courage to find the solutions
to help solve the problems in this country. (Applause.)

Now, when it comes to – I’ve indicated my concerns about this
approach on sequestration where because of the failure of the committee of
12 to be able to find the necessary deficit reduction that they were
required to do, they’ve now implemented this automatic trigger that will
take effect not now but in January of 2013. I’ve indicated, obviously, that
if it’s put into effect, it would decimate our national defense and tear a
seam in our ability to effectively defend this country.

But at the same time, I’m also concerned about what it does on
the domestic side of the question. National security is not just dependent
on military power. It’s dependent on diplomatic power. It’s dependent on
the State Department being able to provide foreign aid, being able to work
with countries, being able to provide development money, being able to
provide education money. It’s also dependent, frankly, on the quality of
life in this country – to educate our kids, to provide health care. All of
that is part of our national security. And it’s for that reason that I
think it’s essential that the leadership of the country find the solutions
to dealing with the deficit without having America have to pay a price that
it will regret in the future. (Applause.)

MR. POLLACK: Mr. Secretary, how long do you believe a military
attack on Iran would postpone it from getting a bomb?

SEC. PANETTA: Part of the problem here is the concern that at
best, I think – talking to my friends – the indication is that at best it
might postpone it maybe one, possibly two years. It depends on the ability
to truly get the targets that they’re after. Frankly, some of those targets
are very difficult to get at.

That kind of, that kind of shot would only, I think, ultimately
not destroy their ability to produce an atomic weapon, but simply delay it –
number one. Of greater concern to me are the unintended consequences, which
would be that ultimately it would have a backlash and the regime that is
weak now, a regime that is isolated would suddenly be able to reestablish
itself, suddenly be able to get support in the region, and suddenly instead
of being isolated would get the greater support in a region that right now
views it as a pariah.

Thirdly, 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. Fourthly – there are economic consequences to
that attack – severe economic consequences that could impact a very fragile
economy in Europe and a fragile economy here in the United States.

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

So we have to be careful about the unintended consequences of
that kind of an attack.

MR. POLLACK: Mr. Secretary, a quick follow-up on this comment.
Obviously – capable American policy towards an Iranian nuclear weapon –
(inaudible) – also be consequences of Iran firing a nuclear weapon. What do
you think the consequences of Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon would
be and why do you – (inaudible)?

SEC. PANETTA: Well, you know, again, as I made clear, this is a
common goal. This is something that the United States, Israel, the
international community does not want Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. Why?
Because obviously Iran’s entire effort of using the IRGC, supplying
terrorists in the world, underlining governments throughout the world,
clearly supporting terrorists in part of the world – a nuclear weapon would
be devastating if they had that capability.

In addition, once Iran gets a nuclear weapon, then they’re not –
you will have an arms race in the Middle East. What’s to stop Saudi Arabia
from getting a nuclear weapon? What’s to stop other countries from getting
nuclear weapons in that part of the world? Suddenly we have an escalation
of these horrible weapons that, you know, I think create even greater
devastation in the Middle East.

So a key for all of us – for all of us is to work together –
together – to ensure that that does not happen. We have made good progress
in these efforts. We continue to make good progress in these efforts. That’s
where we ought to continue to put our pressures, our efforts, our
diplomatic, our economic, experts working together to make sure that that
does not happen.

You always have as a last resort – as the prime minister said –
the last resort of military action, but it must be the last resort, not the
first.

MR. POLLACK: Mr. Panetta, is the chief priority of U.S. policy
toward Iran to moderate the nuclear ambitions of the Iranian regime, or to
change the Iranian regime? Will this regime be willing to change its
behavior?

SEC. PANETTA: I think the effort that we’re concerned about is
to make sure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon, first. Secondly,
we would like to have an Iran that becomes part of the international
community and that it decides that it is going to engage with the rest of
the world, as opposed to isolating itself, as opposed to supporting
terrorists, as opposed to trying to influence and support those that attack
our country and attack others in that region.

That is our fundamental goal – to try to ensure that we have an
Iran that becomes part of the international community and that understands
its obligations as part of the international community. But most
importantly – most importantly – we have to do everything we can to make
sure that they never obtain a nuclear weapon.

MR. POLLACK: Back to Egypt, Egypt just had elections, as you
discussed, obviously Islamists and particularly Salafist parties did very
well in that election. Do you believe this was – this unexpected rise of
the extreme religious right in Egypt is a threat to regional security? What
would U.S. policy towards an Egypt which is controlled – (inaudible)?

SEC. PANETTA: Well, I guess we can all jump to conclusions,
right now, but I think we need to let this play out a little bit. This is
the first part of a rolling election. Clearly we need to see what the
results are of this first part of the election. They haven’t been announced
yet. We’ll probably get a formal announcement tomorrow. And then they have
additional elections that will take place in the parliament that will occur
throughout the rest of Egypt. We then will have an election for the upper
body that will take place. We then will have, you know, as a consequence of
that, a constitution will come together and then we’ll have a presidential
election.

I mean, all of that will take place. All of that occurs. This
is a democracy. In democracies, we have to allow the Egyptian people to
express themselves in that process, and ultimately the pressures within a
democracy will have some impact as to its direction. For our purposes, when
they come to the conclusion of this process, the United States has to engage
with whatever government is established in Egypt and ensure that they abide
by their obligations, ensure that they abide by the treaty with Israel,
ensure that they abide by international standards, ensure that they continue
to be a partner to us in that part of the world.

That’s what democracy is all about. Let’s give it a chance
because they are at the beginning of this process, not at the end.

MR. POLLACK: And this will have to be your last question. Mr.
Secretary, you made a strong statement about Israel’s responsibility towards
peace. What steps should it take now? Withdraw the Israeli army from the
Palestinian territories? It’s a suggestion and a question. It’s a
suggestion in the form of a question.

SEC. PANETTA: Just get to the damn table. Just get to the
table. (Applause.) The problem right now is we can’t get them to the damn
table to at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences – you
know, we all know what the pieces are here for a potential agreement. We’ve
talked it out, worked through, we understand the concerns, we understand the
concerns of Israel, understand the concerns of the Palestinians. If they
sit at a table and work through those concerns, and the United States can be
of assistance in that process, then I think you have the beginning of what
could be a process that would lead to a peace agreement.

But if they aren’t there – if they aren’t at the table, this
will never happen. So first and foremost, get to the damn table.
(Applause.)

MR. POLLACK: Mr. Secretary, thank you so much. (Inaudible.)