Former US Defense Secretary: US administration's confusion in decision making is a grave mistake

Former US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke of the challenges facing the US administration and fears of rushing to use military force. The following are excerpts from the dialogue with Der Spiegel magazine:

Late last month, US President Donald Trump canceled a military strike against Iran at the last minute, he said, only 10 minutes before the rockets were fired. Have you ever seen anything like this before?

- No. In general, when discussing this type of military operation, there is a lot of time spent by the NSC in discussing the different options and consequences of each option. There is usually a great deal of consideration about the pros and cons of such a military strike. If so, the President will reach an early decision on whether or not to continue a particular task. According to my experience, once the president makes a decision to move forward on a mission, he does not back down.

• The President says he has learned that 150 people are likely to be victims, just 10 minutes before the raid. Do you think this account is accurate?

- If this is what happened, then it is a flawed process. I can not imagine that the Department of Defense will have plans to target certain places, not including estimating the losses that would occur if those targets were hit. This should have happened early in the discussion. If this debate was over and only 10 minutes before the strike, then there would be a serious error in the decision-making process in the White House.

• At the same time, since the resignation of James Matisse, the end of last year, the Department of Defense under the leadership of acting-acting without the consent of the Senate. To what extent does this affect the president's ability to respond to crises or make important decisions about the army?

- If you are dealing with a proxy minister, by the nature of that title, this official is in a weak position, not only in dealing with the military, but also in dealing with the White House. It is a situation that undermines the leadership of the Ministry of Defense.

How dangerous is the situation in the Gulf now? Is war a real possibility?

- It's a dangerous situation. I think there is no doubt that tensions are growing on both sides. The United States is stepping up sanctions, while Iran is clearly ready not only to drop drones, but also to launch attacks on tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. The risk, of course, is that the more these tensions, the greater the likelihood of misjudgment or human error on the part of one or the other may lead to a military confrontation.

What would happen if the United States struck targets in Iran? Even if such strikes are limited, will the greatest conflict become inevitable?

- It was always our assessment when I was in the Pentagon that if you hit targets in Iran or rocket sites, installations or other targets, Iran would certainly respond, either by firing rockets at our military bases in the Gulf or at Israel. They have a very effective missile system.

• Many believe that allied militias with Iran will attack US installations or allies in other countries as well. Is this a realistic scenario?

- I think Iran will use several methods. It has the ability to direct agents, such as Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and others to launch attacks in other parts of the region. So they really have a number of options for revenge. The situation will not be where the United States can simply bombard targets and get away without paying a price.

• I do not imagine that the Department of Defense will have plans to target certain places, not including the estimate of losses that will occur if hit those targets.