Former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta said Israel is an important ally of the United States, but the U.S. must preserve its legitimacy as a neutral intermediary in the Middle East. “We have not been in the pocket of Israel. We have not been in the pocket of other Arab republics,” he said. “We have always tried to operate as an intermediary, because our goal has been to try to negotiate some kind of long-term peaceful solution to the fundamental problems of the Middle East.” “Namely to ultimately establish some kind of Palestinian state and try to develop what I think the administration did do in the right direction, develop the Abraham Accords to have other countries recognize Israel and try to develop the kind of security and economic relationships that can produce peace in the Middle East,” Panetta said. “That’s what the United States ought to be about. You cannot just be a puppet for Israel. You have to be a country that operates on what is in the best interest for achieving peace in the Middle East.” “Every few years, Israel has gone after an adversary of one kind or another… defeats it, and then within a few years is back at war,” he warned. “I think there’s a danger right now that we’re going to repeat that same cycle.”

DASHA BURNS: Knowing the military capability that you all had – and forgetting the conflict that we’re in now, but the 12-day war that a lot of Democrats ultimately weren’t supportive of as well – that very targeted attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, is there any part of you that wishes you guys had done something like that under Obama? LEON PANETTA: I think when you use your military capabilities, you have to do it based on the best intelligence that you have. You can’t just send a B-1 bomber in there. You can’t just send a fighter plane in there and blow up things unless you know exactly what you’re blowing up and you know exactly what the targets are. “The best policy of the United States dealing with Israel has been to support Israel,” Panetta said during an appearance on Dasha Burns’s Politico podcast. I think we were handling it much better in the Obama administration because we were dealing with what we were concerned about, which was their ability to ultimately develop a nuclear weapon. And so we dealt with enrichment. We were limiting enrichment. There was no need to just go in and blow them up, because if we did, very frankly, we’d be in the same place that Donald Trump is right now, which is he’s stuck in a stalemate with Iran in which we don’t know whether this war will ever end. BURNS: This conflict has raised a conversation nationally about the U.S. relationship with Israel, and people’s views on this are changing. And it’s not even a party-line issue anymore. At this point, eight in 10 Democrats have an unfavorable view of Israel, up nearly 30% since 2022. Forty Democratic senators recently voted against selling arms to Israel. What do you make of the evolution of the Democratic Party on this issue? And does whoever Democrats put up in ’28 need to keep their distance from Israel? Where do you see this issue in the party right now? PANETTA: Look, I don’t look at it from a Democratic point of view. I look at it in terms of what is the best policy for the United States when it comes to dealing with Israel. And the best policy of the United States dealing with Israel has been to support Israel. Israel is an important ally in that part of the world. We’ve provided them weapon systems. We’ve supported them. They are a democracy, and that’s important. But the United States has always maintained the role of intermediary. We have not been in the pocket of Israel. We have not been in the pocket of other Arab republics. We have always tried to operate as an intermediary, because our goal has been to try to negotiate some kind of long-term peaceful solution to the fundamental problems of the Middle East, namely to ultimately establish some kind of Palestinian state and try to develop what I think the administration did do in the right direction, develop the Abraham Accords to have other countries recognize Israel and try to develop the kind of security and economic relationships that can produce peace in the Middle East. That’s what the United States ought to be about. You cannot just be a puppet for Israel. You have to be a country that operates on what is in the best interest for achieving peace in the Middle East. BURNS: A lot of this sentiment among American voters does stem from Israel’s actions in Gaza. And I’m curious, looking back, how did the Biden administration handle this? Do you think that the Biden administration should have more forcefully pushed back against Israel in Gaza? PANETTA: No. Look, as I said, I think the United States always had to be able to stand back and be able to look at the situation and try to urge the right steps when it came to trying to ultimately resolve the war with Gaza. I think that the Biden administration was trying to do that, and to some extent, the Trump administration was trying to do that and actually did achieve some kind of ceasefire, to their credit, in that area. So the role of the United States has to be: What is in the best interest of achieving a peaceful solution that can ultimately promote an approach in the Middle East that will avoid war? One of the problems with the Iran war is that if we do not arrive at a meaningful agreement with Iran, there’s no question, considering the fact that the regime is what it is, that in four or five years we may have to go back to war with Iran. That’s the reality. And that only repeats what we’ve seen over 80 years in the Middle East. Every few years, Israel has gone after an adversary of one kind or another, whether it’s Lebanon, whether it’s Hezbollah, whether it’s Hamas, whatever, defeats it, and then within a few years is back at war. And I think there’s a danger right now that we’re going to repeat that same cycle. BURNS: Speaking of the U.S. role in the world, I do want to end by talking a bit more big picture, because we have witnessed over the course of the last couple of years, the president has upended decades of U.S. foreign policy and alliances and is threatening to leave NATO. How much of an impact, and how long-term do you think is the impact, of this sort of shaking up of the world order under this administration? PANETTA: I think we’re going to have to go back to the same principles that have guided foreign policy in America going back to World War II. For 80 years since World War II, whether it was a Republican president or whether it was a Democratic president, regardless of their political differences, they believed in the same principles when it came to foreign policy. They believed that America had to be a world leader. They believed that America had to support strong alliances, particularly NATO. They believed that we had to have a strong military. They also believed we had to have a strong diplomatic capability as well. And they believed that they had to stand up to tyrants. Those are all principles that both Democratic and Republican presidents believed in. This president has basically turned a lot of that on its head. He’s really not a strong believer that America should provide world leadership in the sense that it’s not just about power, it’s about democratic values as well. He’s basically backed off of that. Stephen Miller basically said it’s all about power. It’s not about values. He’s wrong. It’s about power, but it’s also about our values. He’s then walked away from a lot of our allies. He’s threatening to leave NATO. Our allies, frankly, do not trust the United States right now, and that’s hurting us in terms of our ability to deal with danger points in the world. And I think diplomacy, frankly, has been undercut a great deal at the State Department. We don’t have the experienced diplomats that we should have in order to be able to deal with issues in the world, from China to the Middle East. And lastly, this president has not been willing to stand up to Vladimir Putin when it comes to Ukraine. Putin invaded a sovereign democracy. It was clear we had to draw a line on Putin and that he could not be allowed to succeed. That’s why we joined with NATO in making sure that Ukraine would be able to defend itself. The president keeps talking about, you know, he might be able to work out some kind of peace, but he’s never willing to really draw a line on Putin and say, “If you don’t agree to some kind of ceasefire, we are going to do everything we can to help Ukraine succeed in this war.” BURNS: That story has now completely fallen out of the headlines, given what’s going on in Iran. PANETTA: That’s right. And it’s sad, because frankly, Ukraine is extremely important to our national security, because Ukraine represents democratic values and Putin represents exactly the opposite. He represents a tyrant who believes that the people of Ukraine do not have the right to govern themselves. BURNS: Do you think that there’s something that the Biden administration could have or should have done differently on Ukraine when Biden was in office? PANETTA: I think Biden should have been much tougher in providing the weapons that Ukraine needed. They were asking for missiles. They were asking for all kinds of sophisticated weaponry. Frankly, we should have given them much more sophisticated weaponry in order to be able to go after Russia. I give Zelensky and Ukraine a lot of credit because we have seen drone warfare, and they have learned how to use drones very effectively. And that’s what that war is all about. It’s really told us that in the wars of the future, drones are going to be the military weapon of choice. BURNS: The world order has changed. I don’t think there’s any denying that at this point. The next president, whether that’s a Democrat or a Republican or independent, or who knows what the future may hold by 2028. But how does the next leader of the United States pick this up? Where should that next leader take our role on the world stage? PANETTA: Whoever that leader is, that leader is commander in chief and has the responsibility to make sure that the United States protects our national security. And to protect our national security, it is very important that we remain the strongest military power on the face of the earth. It’s also incredibly important that we strengthen our alliances in the world. We live in a dangerous world, and once we get past this administration, it’s still going to be a dangerous world. We’re dealing with China. We’re dealing with Russia. We’re dealing with Iran. We’re dealing with North Korea. We’re dealing with terrorism. If we’re going to effectively deal with all of those danger points, we have to build strong alliances with other countries in order to provide for our security. So, in essence, the next president of the United States has to return America not just to military power, but to protecting our values as a democracy.

RealClearPolitics Videos