MS. MITCHELL: Joining us now, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, joining us from Washington.
So much on the president's plate and, of course, yours as well. We had Moammar Gadhafi delivering an hour and 36 minute speech; his first to the U.N. in 40 years. Ahmadinejad will come later tonight.
What does the U.S. do about Iran especially because we have repeated warnings, including from the Israeli defense minister at the Pentagon this week that Israel will not back down and if diplomacy with Iran does not work, that, in fact, Israel would consider unilateral military action?
SEN. KERRY: Well, we need to proceed the way we are proceeding with our allies, our close allies. And we particularly need to engage Russia and China in this effort. I think I just heard you read something about a Russian communique with respect to their attitude on it. And the key is to proceed forward.
I believe there is a possibility of an engagement on this issue that, ultimately, could find a way out of this confrontation.
But elections and the process in Iran have significantly complicated our ability to get at that.
I still believe we will get at it, and hopefully, we'll be able to make some progress there.
MS. MITCHELL: What if Israel would proceed with military action without a green light from the U.S.? Clearly, we would be blamed anyway throughout the world, particularly in the Arab world.
But what would be the damage to U.S. national security and the possibility of retaliation from Iran against U.S. interests, not only Israel, but also our own forces?
SEN. KERRY: Well, Andrea, there are enormous questions with respect to any kind of military option, not just for Israel, but for anybody. Those of us who have seen those plans and this has been discussed publicly before without getting into anything classified, everybody understands it's not a fantastic option though it is an option.
Israel's efforts to do it unilaterally, first of all, require some resolution of overflight issues. But in addition to that, there is no way possible to the best of my understanding for Israel to do more than temporarily, and the question is even how temporarily disrupt some aspects of a program. It cannot terminate it. So, inevitably, yes, we would brought into that one way or the other. And there are serious interests in the region that would be very, very significantly affected by it.
I think there are a lot of reasons to hope that diplomacy and restraint will win out here so that that option is never exercised.
MS. MITCHELL: The president is engaged in a rather messy public debate, one that he did not welcome, but which resulted from Bob Woodward getting a hold of McChrystal, General McChrystal's report.
How do you view the decisions that are now on the table publicly about whether to increase troops?
SEN. KERRY: Personally, Andrea, I'm very glad that that debate is out in the open. That's where it belongs. The American people need to be part of this debate and it is the most important foreign policy debate of immediacy on the table. The fact is that General McChrystal, if I were General McChrystal, if I were in his shoes given the mission that he has been given in the current context, I'd probably draw many of the same conclusions, if not all of them.
But the question is really whether or not the analysis goes to all of the options and, in fact, examines all of the underlying assumptions with respect to Afghanistan.
He has examined the mission, given the mission that he's been given. But is it right mission? Have we properly made the right assumptions about Afghanistan?
You know the original mission the president defined was a mission that was counterterrorism. It required us to disrupt, dismantle, terminate the al Qaeda presence there and to prevent the destabilization of Pakistan. The question that has not been properly vetted, I think is to what degree is counterinsurgency either necessary or an essential ingredient of the effort to achieve the counterterrorism and destabilization goals?
I don't think that that has been properly examined yet.
We're looking at that within the Foreign Relations Committee and the hearings that we're holding. I'm planning to go to Afghanistan and Pakistan in a few weeks in order to really dig into that further.
We may well decide that, indeed, you have to have more troops to accomplish the very raw basics of the mission the president has set. But we need to make that decision in full daylight with a full examination of all of the assumptions and of all of the possibilities.
One final comment. We don't know today what the government of Afghanistan is either going to look like or what it's capable of.
And one thing is for certain, none of our goals can be achieved without governance changing in Afghanistan.
MS. MITCHELL: Of all points that I'm glad you've been covering today. One political note because Paul Kirk, our old fri Paul Kirk, former Democratic National Chairman is reported to be the choice of the Kennedy sons to be the interim Senator, the appointee and your new colleague, of course.
What do you think of that possibility? He, of course, has been the head of the Kennedy Library.
SEN. KERRY: Sure. Well, I know Paul very, very well and admire greatly. He's a friend and I've known him for many, many years.
But I don't want to comment on any sort of rumors or reports or speculation about who or who may not be in the running for that.
That's the governor's appointment. The legislature has not yet finished its work up in Massachusetts. So let's take first steps first and we'll all learn about this, I'm sure, in short order.
MS. MITCHELL: Okay. John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
SEN. KERRY: Thank you.
MS. MITCHELL: Thank you very much.