http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/17/leon_panetta_interview FP: I'm sure you know exactly which ones I mean. Should we have one? Do we need them?

And what do you think about your friend Prime Minster [Benjamin] Netanyahu , who I know you visited with and I'm sure this subject must have come up in you r conversation? PANETTA: Look, the fundamental issue is whether or not we agree that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. And the United States, Israel, the international com munity, I think, is pretty firm that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. The issue then becomes -- if the world community is unified on that position, as I'm sure Israel is, in that sense, unified with us in opposing that -- then the issue becomes, all right, what are the factors that would tell us whether or no t they've made the decision to go ahead and build a nuclear weapon? And to that extent, you know, intelligence, my whole shop, basically looks at a number of fa ctors to try to determine whether or not Iran has in fact made that decision. No w what intelligence basically tells us now is that they have not made that decis ion. And that while they continue to do enrichment, they have not made a decisio n to proceed with a nuclear weapon. And I have to tell you that I think the inte lligence community, whether it's Israeli intelligence or United States intellige nce, has pretty much the same view. And they also have the same view that if we got intelligence that they made a decision, that there's a timeline here that in volves anywhere from a year or a year and a half, depending on who you talk to, before they would in fact be able to accomplish that. So, if what I said is the case, then the question becomes how can we continue to make sure that we are paying attention to the intelligence, that we continue to look at Iran to determine what they're up to, and yet at the same time, you kno w, use our capability and the unity in the international community to bring as m uch pressure as possible on Iran to not move in that direction, but move in a di rection that would allow them to be able to abide by international rules when it comes to enrichment? That, I think, is how we view the challenge here: Make very clear to them what t hey can't do, make very clear that this is not about containment it's about prev ention, but at the same time, give them a door so that we ultimately could hope to resolve this peacefully as opposed to having to take military action. FP: But, sir, a decision and the one-year timeline that everybody says to agree on -- that sure sounds like a threshold, if not a red line. Isn't that a point o f no return? PANETTA: But the fact is -- the fact is, look, presidents of the United States, prime ministers of Israel or any other country -- leaders of these countries don 't have, you know, a bunch of little red lines that determine their decisions. W hat they have are facts that are presented to them about what a country is up to , and then they weigh what kind of action has to be taken in order to deal with that situation. I mean, that's the real world. Red lines are kind of political a rguments that are used to try to put people in a corner. FP: Well that's what I was going to ask, if you feel that that's what's going on this week, if for whatever reason, that there has been a serious rift in the re lationship between Israel and the United States, or that there is politics being used to put you and -PANETTA: Let's just say, when you have friends like Israel, you engage in vigoro us debates about how you confront these issues, and that's what's going on. FP: An unusually public version of that. PANETTA: [chuckles] It sometimes, in democracies, plays out in the public.