Panetta: Iran War a ‘Terrible Mistake’ and Hegseth Is a ‘Disaster’

Leon Panetta is arguably the last of the elders who served with great distinction in several high-ranking government positions in government and actually know what the hell they’re talking about. Born in Monterey, California in 1938, Panetta became an officer in the U.S.Army in the early 1960s and began his political career working for a Republican senator and in the Nixon Administration, where he defied Nixon by enforcing anti-discrimination laws as director of the Office of Civil Rights. Panetta was a widely-respected eight-term Democratic congressman from northern California and his son, Jimmy Panetta, now holds his seat. After Congress, he became President Clinton’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, then Clinton’s White House chief of staff. Under President Obama, he served as director of the CIA and later Secretary of Defense. In 1997, Panetta and his wife Sylvia founded the Panetta Institute for Public Policy at California State University, Monterey.

For the last few years, I’ve been part of a regular Zoom call with a couple dozen former Carter Administration officials, plus a few journalists and others. Started by Les Francis, a former senior White House aide to Carter, it’s called Carter Old Farts Amiable Discussions, or COFAD. Earlier this month, Panetta was the COFAD guest and the following are excerpts from his remarks.

***

I think this country is going in one of two directions:

We can have an American Renaissance with strong leadership in a very dangerous world. Or we could become a country in decline if we allow fears, hatred, prejudice, discrimination, and division to consume us, as they are today.

We could very easily go the way of past empires. The path we take will depend on leadership. What I tell the students at the Panetta Institute is that in a democracy, we govern either by leadership or by crisis. If leadership is willing to take smart risks, we can avoid a crisis. But if that leadership isn’t there, we largely govern by crisis. And that’s pretty much what we’re doing today.

I think that’s probably true for foreign policy as well. It takes real leadership to provide good foreign policy.

Let me just say: for 80 years after World War II, whether the president was Republican or Democrat, despite their political differences, they broadly believed in the same foreign-policy principles:

• America must lead in a dangerous world.

• We must build and maintain strong alliances.

• We must maintain a strong military.

• We must maintain strong diplomacy around the world.

• Democracy is central to American strength.

• Tyrants and autocracies must be confronted, not accommodated.

They also believed in process. They had smart advisors and a functioning National Security Council, where people debated issues, developed options, examined consequences, and tried to define the objective, the strategy, and ultimately the endgame.

The Trump era has basically turned 80 years of American foreign policy on its head.

During his first term, there were guardrails. He had people like Mike Pompeo, Jim Mattis, John Kelly, Mark Esper, and H.R. McMaster, who largely performed that role. But in the second term, those guardrails are gone.

The people Trump has picked this time were chosen not for experience, knowledge, or understanding of the job, but for loyalty. There are some exceptions. Rubio is probably one. CIA Director John Ratcliffe is another. And certainly Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, fits that category.

In a democracy, we govern either by leadership or by crisis.

But overall, it reflects what Stephen Miller told Jake Tapper: It’s about the exercise of power. It’s not about values. That’s fundamentally wrong. Of course, foreign policy is about power. But it also has to be about democratic values.

Policy in this term has been largely defined by Trump. He operates by the seat of his pants. He looks for simple solutions and quick exercises of power. There is no diplomacy. There’s no real effort to sit down, work through these issues, and truly negotiate.

He’s reached the point where he thinks that if he says something loudly enough, it will happen. And if it doesn’t, he resorts to threats and bullying tactics to get there.

The War in Iran

All of that, I think, is true with regard to the war in Iran.

In many ways, Trump missed an opportunity. The 12-day war [last June] did damage Iran and its nuclear capabilities. The Supreme Leader was weak. He was old. He was likely to move on. Iran’s economy was doing terribly. Protesters were in the streets. And the president said help was on the way, but help never came.

There was an opportunity at that point, certainly using the CIA and some of our other capabilities, to help develop leadership among the protestors and give them the assistance they needed. I think there was a good chance the regime could very well have changed.

Look, you’re not going to bomb your way to regime change. We’ve learned that lesson too many times. It has to happen from the bottom up. But there was an opportunity to build on what was underway there, and obviously, that did not happen.

They [Trump people] tried to negotiate, particularly on the nuclear issue, but their negotiators don’t understand what negotiating is all about. I actually think Iran made some pretty good offers at one point regarding the nuclear issue. They virtually ignored them.

In the meantime, Israel argued that it had good intelligence on where the leadership was, that it could essentially wipe them out, and that within days the regime would collapse. U.S. intelligence said there was no way that was going to happen. But Trump was looking for a simple solution. He likes to exercise power quickly and believed he could get it done in a matter of days.

It was a gross miscalculation. A terrible mistake.

Not only did he fail to do any real planning or think through the consequences, he also didn’t talk to Congress, our allies, or the American people.

Although the military campaign hit some 15,000 targets and undoubtedly damaged Iran, in the end, they underestimated the regime’s ability to survive, maintain its missiles and drones, and use them effectively—not just against Israel, but in ways that threaten Arab countries across the Middle East.

The administration had one objective. The president said it on the night of the attack: regime change. That did not happen.

So the president started shifting rationales. First, there was an imminent threat. Then intelligence said there wasn’t. Then he talked about unconditional surrender. Then, about appointing a new leader in Iran. The rationale kept changing. We’re now at a stage where both sides are exhausted.

You’re not going to bomb your way to regime change. We’ve learned that lesson too many times.

The problem is this: even though much of Iran’s top leadership was wiped out, intelligence indicates that the IRGC and the military remain firmly in control. The new Ayatollah is more of a symbol. The real power now rests with the Revolutionary Guard and the military.

They’re obviously hurting financially because of what’s happened to the country. But they have stood up to both Israel and the United States. They’ve survived repeated attacks. They still possess roughly a third of their missiles and drones, and they continue to hold enriched nuclear fuel.

And in addition to all of that, they closed the Strait of Hormuz.

Every plan we ever discussed for dealing with a possible Iran conflict made clear that one of the first things Iran would do was close the Strait of Hormuz. So it astonishes me that the president and others claimed to be surprised by it. It was an obvious result.

And closing the Strait of Hormuz has given Iran enormous leverage because of the economic impact not only on the United States, but on economies around the world.

The United States did go after military targets, and you have to give credit to the military, working alongside Israel, for its ability to hit those targets.

But the problem now is that the force is stretched. As The New York Times has reported, munitions are being depleted. We’ve used large numbers of Tomahawks and Patriot missiles. Those stockpiles have gone down significantly.

Don’t forget, many of these forces have effectively been deployed for more than four months, going back to Venezuela before they were moved to Iran. They’re really stretching the military.

And it’s clear that America doesn’t support this war. The polling makes that clear. And people are obviously blaming high prices on the war and on Trump.

Under the War Powers Act, we’re [past] the 60-day mark. And I think there’s a real possibility that both the House and Senate could pass some kind of War Powers resolution, particularly if the war is not resolved.

And lastly, on the Strait of Hormuz, the United States has now imposed a blockade on top of Iran’s blockade to make damn sure nothing gets through the strait. And it’s clearly having an economic impact.

The IMF has warned that if the fuel disruption continues, the world could face not only slower growth but a global recession. I think that’s true.

In many ways, Trump has boxed himself in. We’re now in a stalemate. Both sides are jockeying for position. There are no real talks underway.

The United States says to continue the blockade and, if necessary, fire on boats laying mines. So the threat of military action continues. Iran has seized ships, closed the strait, and laid mines. And the U.S. says it could take six months to clear those mines once the decision is made to reopen the waterway.

So the problem right now is that the United States is very boxed in. It’s dealing with a regime that is, frankly, worse than the previous one. They’re deeply entrenched. They clearly don’t trust the United States, and given the current leadership, they probably shouldn’t.

And the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz will cause serious economic damage.

The Nuclear Threat

The problem is that the president has never really taken the time to understand the complexities of the nuclear issue.

The Obama administration did. It took two years to negotiate that agreement. Whether you agreed with every part of it or not, the reality is that it was effective in limiting Iran’s ability to enrich uranium.

And this isn’t simple. Even if enrichment is delayed, you still need the IAEA to inspect, monitor, and verify compliance.

Some of these facilities may now be buried, but intelligence also suggests there may be other enrichment sites. The only way to deal with that is through continued IAEA access and monitoring.

So this is complicated. It’s going to take real work to resolve these issues. You can’t just say, “We’ll postpone enrichment for five years or 20 years.” It requires much more than that.

And if the United States resorts to further military action or puts boots on the ground, it won’t just run into War Powers issues. It will run into growing anger from the American people.

Republicans are already in trouble heading into the midterms. Even they acknowledge that. And there are increasing signs that Democrats could retake not only the House, but possibly the Senate as well.

We also have to remain concerned about Israel. Israel wants regime change and always has. They are unlikely to stop pursuing it. And there’s still the Hezbollah situation in Lebanon.

So Israel remains another major factor that has to be dealt with.

What Happens Next in the Middle East

My sense is that both sides do want to end the war. But at best, it’s going to happen in stages.

The first step would be to reopen the Strait of Hormuz: end the blockade, clear the mines, and restore shipping. It would make sense to create a joint international force with our allies to help secure the strait going forward. That would likely require an indefinite ceasefire, along with at least some sanctions relief for Iran to help stabilize the country after the war.

The nuclear issue will take much longer. So will dealing with missiles and drones, and creating any meaningful monitoring system. And there will also need to be a longer-term relief fund for countries affected by the conflict.

But the bottom line is this: there is no trust here, and there shouldn’t be.

And unless something fundamentally changes, I think that within four or five years Iran will rebuild its military capabilities and we’ll be back at war. That has been the cycle in the Middle East for almost 80 years. Israel defeats an enemy, and within a few years faces that enemy, or some version of it, emerges again—whether Egypt, Hamas, or other forces in the region.

So what continues is the cycle of violence.

With a different president and a different administration, this could actually become an opportunity for a broader peace effort in the Middle East.

One constructive thing the Trump administration did was move forward with the Abraham Accords. Those accords could serve as the basis for a more unified regional framework that recognizes Israel while also providing security and economic support across the region.

You could build a regional development fund. You could work to reduce the influence of proxy forces. You would need Israel’s cooperation. And most importantly, you would need movement toward a Palestinian state.

If you truly want to address the root causes of instability in the Middle East, those are the larger issues that have to be confronted. But I don’t believe this administration will do that.

So while they may eventually find a way to end this war in the short term, I think we’ll ultimately be back at war within four or five years.

It’s not a good projection, but it’s what I believe.

Threats to Democracy

Frankly, I don’t trust the president to accept the results of the midterms. We should have learned that lesson from January 6th. And he continues to signal it.

The administration continues to target ballot access and build what I think could become a rationale for an emergency declaration.

The best way to confront that threat is to build a strong coalition among the states, because the Constitution makes clear that states control elections. Republican and Democratic governors alike have to stand up and say: we are not going to allow the federal government to take over the election process. And ultimately, they are the ones who will have to stand up to Trump.

But I think the real key is the governors. Republican and Democratic governors have to come together and make clear to the president of the United States: We are not going to allow the federal government to interfere with the election process.

Some governors are every bit as bad as Trump, and you won’t get them on board. But if a majority of governors are willing to stand up and say clearly that the Constitution gives states control over elections, that matters.

No matter what kind of intimidation is used or what legal tactics are deployed, the states must be prepared to fight back—including in court. That means having a strong legal operation ready to go if the president tries something like this.

NATO and the Collapse of Trust

Many of our allies have already concluded that it’s only a matter of time before Trump walks away from NATO. And it’s clear they no longer fully trust the United States.

You saw the same thing in discussions with Iran. Iranian officials essentially said: Why should we enter another nuclear agreement if a future administration can simply tear it up the way Trump did?

So the bottom line is that there is now deep distrust of American leadership.

But there is also a positive side to what’s happening. Europe is beginning to pull itself together on security and defense, and I think that’s a good thing.

Europe has stepped in to help fill the vacuum around Ukraine. With Orbán gone, they’ve been able to release badly needed support for Ukraine and strengthen cooperation within NATO.

And I think there’s real value in Europe developing a greater independent capacity for security and coordination.

A future American president could help encourage that effort while also restoring the United States as a more reliable partner in NATO and other alliances.

I’ve always believed that in a dangerous world, the best way to maintain stability is through alliances—whether in NATO, the Middle East, the Pacific, or Latin and Central America.

I’m not sure the future will be built around U.S.-dominated alliances. But we can help countries in these regions work together to develop their own security structures and stronger economic cooperation.

I’ve often thought that in Southeast Asia, where many countries are growing stronger economically, the United States should have been helping build regional security cooperation to send a clear message to China that these nations can collectively represent a meaningful military and strategic force.

If a future president can help strengthen regional partnerships—on security, economics, and broader cooperation—that may ultimately be the key to stability.

And a future president will have to recognize that reality. If we simply try to return to the old way of doing business, we’re going to run into enormous distrust.

The United States will have to help allies and regional partners build the capacity they need to provide security for themselves and for the future.

The Future of the Democratic Party

I think Democrats can only win in 2028 with a Clinton-type candidate: probably a governor from the Midwest, someone who understands the frustrations that drove much of Trump’s support, but who also knows how to speak in terms of unity.

If a Democrat can win in a red state, they understand the kind of politics required to reach people beyond the base. If Democrats nominate someone from the far left, I think they’ll lose.

You need somebody who understands outreach and knows how to communicate with the American people.

Clinton had his faults, but he had real political strengths. He could put himself in other people’s shoes and speak in a language they understood. Clinton and Obama were both intellectually strong and able to explain complicated issues effectively.

That’s the kind of leader Democrats will need, because people are angry. They’re angry about Iran, and they’re angry about what’s happened to the country more broadly.

It’s going to take a healer as president—someone capable of reaching out and helping repair some of these divisions.

In many ways, Lincoln understood that. Even in the middle of the war, he continued talking about unity and about building the country together. And he had a remarkable ability to speak to the American people in a way they understood.

So yes, it’s going to take an unusual person to win the presidency. But I think that’s the only way Democrats can win, and the only way the country begins to heal.

It has to be someone who can not only speak to both sides but also work with both sides. I still believe democracy cannot be governed by one side alone. You govern by reaching out to others, bringing them into the process, and working together.

We don’t send people to Congress to sit in trenches and scream at each other. We elect them to govern.

The presidents I’ve worked for who were successful understood how to do that kind of outreach and bring people together around major issues. That’s why I keep coming back to the idea that it’s either leadership or crisis.

We’re going to need extraordinary leadership in the White House and on Capitol Hill. We need leaders in both parties who are willing to put governing first and solving problems ahead of politics. That’s what has made this country strong for more than 250 years.

Will that kind of leader anger parts of his own party? Of course. Good presidents often do, because they’re focused on doing what’s right for the country.

And if people believe that’s what you’re trying to do, you have a chance to bring the country together. But ultimately, I think it comes down to the quality of the person who runs for president.

AI and America’s Future

The administration has basically gone AWOL on AI. Their attitude is: give the industry free rein and let the tech companies do whatever they want. But AI carries real risks, and there’s no reason we shouldn’t already be putting policies in place to address them and reduce the danger of worst-case outcomes.

This administration isn’t going to do that. And I’m not convinced Congress is capable of doing it right now either.

So if anything meaningful happens, it may have to come from the business leaders themselves—people in the industry who understand the stakes and recognize that some safeguards and standards are necessary before AI outruns our ability to manage it responsibly.

That’s a lot to ask of the business community, especially since many business leaders have been reluctant to challenge Trump publicly. But some of them do understand what’s at stake.

America already needs to do much better on cybersecurity. And we’re going to need that same seriousness when it comes to AI.

Hegseth and the Military

One thing I learned as Secretary of Defense is that our military leadership represents some of the very best people this country has. These are experienced leaders, many of them veterans of war, who understand both the military and the proper use of military force.

And I think General Caine, despite some of the orders that may be coming down, is trying to make sure the military continues to operate professionally.

But Hegseth has done real damage. He’s consumed with fighting “woke” culture wars instead of focusing on what it takes to lead the military effectively during a dangerous time.

So he’s a disaster.

There are still good people beneath him on the civilian side, trying to keep things on track. But the turnover at the top is deeply damaging. It creates confusion, instability, and a loss of experienced leadership. He’s pushed out many highly qualified commanders, in some cases because of their ties to previous administrations, and in other cases because he’s fixated on issues involving race and gender.

Hegseth has done real damage. He’s consumed with fighting “woke” culture wars instead of focusing on what it takes to lead the military effectively during a dangerous time.

I’ve always believed one of the strengths of the U.S. military is that it opened opportunities to everyone willing to serve. Weakening that principle weakens the military itself. And when leaders signal that the rules of war and standards of accountability don’t matter, it sends a dangerous message to people on the front lines.

So yes, I think he’s doing real damage. Everyone I talk to at the Pentagon describes a high level of concern.

That said, I still believe the military institution itself is strong enough to hold together. But it’s putting enormous pressure on military leaders, because the message from above is clear: if you don’t do what they want, they’ll come after you.

Can Democracy Still Work?

I’ve always believed that political leaders have to remember why we elect them. We don’t send people to Congress to sit in trenches and scream at each other. We elect them to govern.

But that’s increasingly what Washington has become: trench warfare. And as a result, very little gets done. This may be one of the least functional Congresses in modern history.

So yes, it’s going to take somebody willing to unify the country. I understand that every politician depends heavily on their party base. That’s reality. But if all we do is elect people to fight ideological wars, we’re going to continue failing. We need leaders who are willing to reach out, build coalitions, and govern.

My son Jimmy has seen what Congress used to be like when Republicans and Democrats actually worked together. We traveled together, had dinner together, and built real relationships across party lines.

There are still members trying to preserve some of that spirit. Jimmy is part of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, where Republicans and Democrats are genuinely working together. It’s difficult, and leadership often doesn’t give them much room, but they’ve had some success. Many of the newer members involved are veterans who didn’t come to Washington just to sit in partisan trenches and accomplish nothing.

There are senators trying to build similar bipartisan coalitions as well.

But ultimately, it’s going to take a president willing to bring both parties into the room and say: I need your help. We have to solve this together. Historically, presidents who were willing to do that kind of outreach were able to get things done. You can’t govern Washington without reaching out across the aisle.

There hasn’t been enough of that kind of outreach in recent administrations—not enough effort to unify the country and work across party lines to actually get things done. And look, if a president truly governs that way today, he may end up being a one-term president. That’s possible. But the country would still be better off if meaningful progress were made.

I’ve always believed that when government actually delivers results, politics eventually changes. Democrats and Republicans alike begin to recognize that the country is moving in the right direction.

But it’s going to take a different kind of leadership. Right now, the country is deeply divided—red states, blue states, ideological camps everywhere. That’s why I keep saying the next president has to be a healer. Democracy ultimately depends on human relationships. It depends on whether people are willing to respect each other, even when they disagree.

I come from the Tip O’Neill and Bob Michel era. They had major political differences, but they also understood that on the biggest issues, you had to work together.

In those days, committees functioned. Bills went through hearings, markups, and debate. Republicans, even in the minority, still had a role and a voice in the process. We’ve largely lost that system. “Regular order” has become more of a slogan than a reality.

Today, it’s easier for leadership to write legislation behind closed doors, push it through the Rules Committee, and send it straight to the floor. But Congress works better when members actually participate and feel invested in the process. That’s how we used to govern, and frankly, we got a lot more done.

So yes, it’s going to take a new generation of leadership to restore the way democracy is supposed to function.