syria, and as much as you said, correctly, they've pushed back on syria, they're more worried about iran. >> at the same time, do you get the sense from interviewing secretary panetta and from your reporting that they think that there is a military option, because they clearly were telling prime minister netanyahu that if israel were to strike, they can slow down, but not completely eliminate the threat. that the best option would be to persuade iran to follow the lead of south africa and brazil and india and give up its nuclear ambitions. >> it was interesting. in talking to panetta today, one of the points he made is that an israeli strike would have an impact. the hint being that it would be a small impact, and his typically colorful way, he said that an american strike would have a hell of a bigger impact. so there's no recognition here that if israel struck, as it might, as you said, to push it back one year, two years, three years, unspoken is the implication that if america struck, it could do significantly more damage and knock it back more than just one