51st: Genuine intelligence from a man who knows
June 3, 2011, 3:54 pm
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
Meir Dagan, the recently retired head of Israeli intelligence, Mossad: “The man who ran Israel’s Mossad spy agency until January contends that Israel’s top leaders lack judgment and that anticipated pressures of international isolation as the Palestinians campaign for statehood could lead to rash decisions — like an airstrike on Iran.” Whole story here: NYTimes
And from Ha’aretz implications for the U.S.: “The conclusion is that between the end of June and Gates’ retirement, and the end of September and Mullen’s retirement, the danger that Netanyahu and Barak will aim at a surprise in Iran is especially great, especially since this would divert attention from the Palestinian issue.”
Is it your opinion that a successful, surgical strike on Iranian nuclear weapons faciities by Israel, such as have already been carried our in Iraq and Syria…is a BAD thing?
To the point: If you read Mr. Dagan’s speech at Tel Aviv University (as reported in the story), he certainly thinks it’s a BAD thing. He also predicts it would lead to a regional war, that would seem to make it a foolish move as well.
Of course, the prior question to your challenge: Is there an Iranian nuclear weapons facility to attack? surgically or otherwise? The U.S. NIE doesn’t think Iranian nuclear facilities are building bombs.
” He also predicts it would lead to a regional war, that would seem to make it a foolish move as well. ”
Did not happen in the previous two instances. What’s different now?
” The U.S. NIE doesn’t think Iranian nuclear facilities are building bombs. ”
You’re kidding me. You think the Iranian nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only?
Um-hmm. Well…(brightens)…I guess that means there will be no Israeli preemptive strike!
“Did not happen in the previous two instances. What’s different now?”
Thousands of US soldiers in a predominantly Shiite country.
“You’re kidding me. You think the Iranian nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only?”
You think the Israeli nuclear program is?
Well P Flanagan and I may not see eye to eye on much, but I would have to say that in 2007 the US NIE’s “PUBLIC” position was that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program. What is its current 2011 position, foru years later, and what is the classified assessment? I don’t think we know. Security Council sanctions would seem to lean toward a belief that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
Deployment of the stuxnet virus also seems to comfirm both the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program and U.S. willignenss to “attack” it by “plausibly deniable” means–at least so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
On the other hand, I don’t see how anybody could object to a sucessful attack. I do object to any attack that is not guaranteed to be 100% sucessful. Such an unsucessful attack (because there is either no program or becasue the attack ddin’t completely eradicate any program that does exist) would seem to make a very bad situation much worse.
“You think the Israeli nuclear program is?”
There’s a reason why it’s called the “Samson Option.” If Israel is attacked I do not believe it will choose to only “return fire” with nuclear weapons. The entire temple will be brought down.
[Regarding the difference between previous Israeli strikes and now]: “Thousands of US soldiers in a predominantly Shiite country.”
The Israeli attack on Syria occurred in 2007. There were thousands of US solders then, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard
Attacks on Muslim countries will have long term consequences. [1967 anyone?]US, England, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, No Korea, So Africa, Israel [others?] have nuclear weapons. The one and a half billion Muslims will surely get more nuclear weapons, so get used to it. Someone needs to tell US and Israel ‘live with it’ And Someone needs to tell jingo cons ‘live with it’.
Don’t we have to distinguish:
1) having plans to make WMDs
2) implementing the plans
3) being close to producing WMDs
4) having them
5) threatening to use them imminently
Each would call for different responses depending on circumstances.
The NIE current (2011) assessment provided by DNI Director James Clapper in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee (March 10, 2011):
“We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”
http://www.dni.gov/testimonies.htm
Sounds much like the NIE’s previous assessment.
.
An unflattering story on Dagan from Haaretz earlier this year:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/dagan-brought-a-possible-attack-on-iran-closer-1.338045
“Senior officials in the United States, Britain and France this week castigated Dagan for his utterances. The White House and Capitol Hill expressed shock and anger. Major allies of Israel saw the former Mossad chief’s briefing as incomprehensible and irresponsible. ”
.
“The Israeli attack on Syria occurred in 2007. There were thousands of US solders then, too.”
If you think that a “pre-emptive” strike is going to be a couple of jets bombing some factory, you’re wrong. Iranian sites are scattered in hardened shelters. This wouldn’t be a surgical strike; it would be an air invasion. And the Israelis would have to overfly Iraq to get there, which means that we would have to let them through. So it would be our war too. Except that it would be our troops on the front line, not Israel’s.
If Israel does this, they should be treated as a pariah.
.
Unagidon (8:55) writes:
“If Israel does this, they should be treated as a pariah.”
If the US government gives them permission to fly over Iraq, should it be treated as a pariah, too?
If Israel were to do this and succeed, should it still be treated as a pariah?
.
“If the US government gives them permission to fly over Iraq, should it be treated as a pariah, too?
If Israel were to do this and succeed, should it still be treated as a pariah?”
Yes. We can’t allow Israel to overfly Iraq on this kind of mission and then claim that technically we are not at war with Iran. And Israel would not succeed, even if they somehow did eliminate all the nuclear sites, because they would be starting a war that the US would primarily be blamed for.
There is no one site that Israel could bomb, surgically or otherwise. As Unagidon points out and many sources confirm nuclear research in Iran is dispersed in hardened sites. Months ago there was talk of the U.S. “lending” Israel bunker busters if such an attack was carried out. Why should we cooperate in such a reckless policy. (The next thing the War Party will propose is that we do it ourselves and save the Israelis the trouble.)
The Syria “plant” was still under construction when attacked, hence no radioactive fall-out. That would not be the case in Iran where they are producing low-levels of enriched uranium as attested by the IAE, and that Iran has the right to do under treaty.
We are no longer masters of Iraq; we have no authority to give Israel fly-over rights; and if we did, you can be sure that attacks on the remaining U.S. military would soon follow. Furthermore, though Iran and Pakistan are not close allies, the reaction there to an attack on Iran would sink whatever chances there are of a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan.
David Smith: On Dagan’s remarks from January: “Senior officials in the United States, Britain and France this week castigated Dagan for his utterances. The White House and Capitol Hill expressed shock and anger. Major allies of Israel saw the former Mossad chief’s briefing as incomprehensible and irresponsible. ”
Yes, what else could we expect from Israeli leaders as well as everyone else when a man reports what everyone else thinks should be kept under wraps? No surprise there.
So long as the Arabs keep selling us oil, I see no reason for our presence in the ME. Yes, we have an interest in Israel, mainly due to our acknowledgement that the Jews deserve a homeland after their historically horrid treatment, especially by the Nazis. But the Holocaust should have required giving them the Black Forrest or Bavaria or Prussia or some other large part of Germany..
Some say we should defend the Holy Land on religious grounds. But why? Yes, God promises the Jews a homeland. But did He say Palestine? This literalization of the Bible has no more claim in diplomacy than it does in Sunday sermons.
The Palestinians have been made to pay for the Nazis crimes, and now this current, duly elected Israeli government is not acting in its own best interests or fairly to the Palestinians. Its in-your-face-diplomacy certifies it as a government acting on might-makes-right principles. Netanyahu’s attitude is: if we can get away with it, then it’s right (we after all are the chosen ones). That’s what the Nazis thought.
Yes, the Palestinians are partly at fault in the situation, but not nearly as at fault as the Israelis who continue to vote in the likes of Netanyahu and his ilk. Maybe it’s time for a revolution in Israel.
“Pariah” is a strong word. Not one used here or most places. The usual muddying of the waters.
The Netanyahu government has complained of the delegitimization of Israel by economic boycotts and criticisms of certain of its policies; for example, the use of the word “apartheid” to describe its policies in the West Bank..a word used by Jimmy Carter in reference to the creation of separation barriers between Palestinians and settlers and Palestinians and their own agricultural land. The question is where does the “delegitimization” start? With the policies or the criticism of the policies?
““Pariah” is a strong word. Not one used here or most places. The usual muddying of the waters.”
I was pretty serious when I used it. If Israel does the kind of sneak attack that has been proposed, without an UN or at least European and American sanction before hand, then it deserves to be treated like the rogue state that it will have become. It may have a right to survive. It does not have a right to plunge the region and us into a war that it has no intention of fighting alone.
” We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”
Um, that might work as diplomatic bureaucratese skirting the truth. But anyone who really believes that Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons is a fool. Sorry to be so blunt, but there’s no skirting THAT truth.
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/opinion/03brooks.html
.
Given the attitude of Iran’s president about Israel and the many nuclear facilities there and the devistation one bomb could produce in Israel, I think it’s unrealisitic not to expect Israel to want to destroy those facilities. Is that immoral? I’m not sure.
I’m pretty sure it’s stupid!
.
Depends on your point of view. If a neighbor’s erected a large artillery piece on his front lawn and is pointing it into your living room, you can politely request that he remove it or you can call the police and ask them to remove it for you or you can remove it yourself.
You’ve tried polite, and while you and the neighbor were talking, the neighbor’s son was installing a second artillery piece in the back yard, pointed into your kitchen.
You’ve called the police, but when they came, the neighbor showed them the permit he had to install the weapons as lawn ornaments, and the police went away. As the police left, you noticed that there was now a machine gun emplacement on the neighbor’s roof.
What to do? Tough decision.
.
“Depends on your point of view.”
Hey, can I play?
The neighbor three houses over started building a room addition in his basement, and you are pretty sure that he is building a howitzer down there because you have one in your basement. You’re afraid, of course, which according to Natural Law gives you certain additional rights. So you’re thinking about hitting his house with some mortar fire from your backyard. But all of these unreasonable people keep pointing out that to do this you are going to have to fire over two other people’s houses. And what if your mortar fire burns that house down and it catches the houses next door to it on fire?
But these fears are just silly and anyone who expresses them must be an enemy of yours too. Stands to reason.
.
Your hypothetical neighbor sounds like a nut case. Mine just wants to be left in peace.
.
I don’t really know much about this – have been trying to read up at the Institute for Science and International Security site – http://www.isis-online.org
.
Crystal, I don’t know that this is a scientific problem. If one is capable of understanding that sort of thing, it certainly can’t hurt to know at least a little, of course. I’m not a very good reader and student, though, so I have to try to stick to basics and general principles, and it seems to me that the nub of the problem here is political.
It’s not even historical, although, of course, it’s essential to understand the factual history. But history, as we’ve discussed elsewhere, is multiple and always controversial, at least as concerns the psychological and political coloration of the factual stuff.
What we have here is a reality: Israel is an internationally recognized state. It’s been an internationally recognized state for generations. It has a vibrant economy and an equally vibrant political climate.
The Islamic world has taken a violent dislike to Israel, and several Islamic states have tried several times to destroy it militarily.
Perhaps the essential question is: Is it legitimate for a group of states to vote another state out of existence – or, at least, to force it to change its government to suit their interests?
That’s been done in the past, of course, by wars. Killing machines have been set against killing machines and the nations with the stronger machines have had their way. The legitimacy of these wars has been de facto: what happened happened, and nobody can call it back.
The problem here seems to be to try to avoid what’s likely to be the world’s first nuclear war, which would probably pit the Islamic world against the most powerful nations of the West. That’s a horrible spectre, and no doubt an outcome that few people want. It seems to me likely that the Islamic states are using this threat of all-out war as a tool to blackmail the supporters of Israel into forcing it to do what the Islamic states want, but without war.
Ordinarily, I suppose, when someone wants X very badly and someone else wants Y very badly and X and Y can’t exist simultaneously, bargaining is essential – at least, if force is to be avoided. But in this case, what Israel very much wants is to be left alone – to be left in peace. That’s all. And what the Islamic states want is for Israel to be destroyed – or, at least, for it to change its government completely so that it can no longer exist as a Jewish state. There would seem to be no room for bargaining. Israel can hardly accept those conditions. On the other side, the Islamic states have so often declared their antipathy for Israel that they can hardly back down without losing face.
Perhaps what’s needed is some face-saving device so that Israel is left alone to live in peace while the Islamic states are seen to have gotten a large part of what they demand. Bring in the diplomats, close the doors behind them, and pray.
.
David,
Yes, I think you’re right that it’s not a scientific poblem. Maybe the only way the problem can be solved is for one side to accept losing what they want, because it seems impossibe that both sides can win.
Tonight I was watching a news video about the shootings at the Golan Heights border. The reporter asked an Israeli official if the IDF soldiers were told to shoot people and he said no, they were asked to do the least possible damage. Then she asked why then they hd shot people. He said because the protesters had been warned, had been threatened, but kept coming over the border anyway into his country. The she changed the argument by saying that it (the Golan Heights) really wasn’t his country, was it. The whole interview was pointless, from either pov.
Sometimes I think people have feelings about which side is right, deep feelings, and that they then notice information that will support those feelings and ignore information that contradicts it. No reasoned arguments will really fix things because there is no overwhelmingly convincing argument for either side, and no argument seems to resolve the feelings.
CW: “Tonight I was watching a news video about the shootings at the Golan Heights border. The reporter asked an Israeli official if the IDF soldiers were told to shoot people and he said no, they were asked to do the least possible damage. Then she asked why then they hd shot people. He said because the protesters had been warned, had been threatened, but kept coming over the border anyway into his country. The she changed the argument by saying that it (the Golan Heights) really wasn’t his country, was it. The whole interview was pointless, from either pov.”
Was it pointless? The reporter was asking obvious questions. The Israeli army is capable of controlling unarmed protesters without killing them. So the soldiers either had orders to shoot (and perchance to kill)–they had live ammunition. Or they didn’t have orders to shoot and they shot on their own–not a good thing for an army. No story or picture that I’ve seen show the protesters breaching the “border”; they came to a trench before the “border” and were shot there.
And Crystal, the reporter was right to call attention to the fact that the Golan Heights is not Israel; it is part of Syria illegally occupied by Israel since 1967. The whole interview wasn’t pointless. The reporter asked obvious questions. The Israeli official evaded her questions. Of course, you can make of that what you want. Why not consider it part of your ongoing education?
Both the Palestinians and the Israelis have precisely the same rights to precisely the same land. One side is not “right” and the other “wrong”. Both sides seem to have an interest in perpetuating a black and white dichotomy. But one side will never defeat the other and turn them out.
I think that any understanding of the situation comes from this basic fact.
“But one side will never defeat the other and turn them out.”
That reminds us that the real solution is the two-state solution, which is steadily diminishing in the face of continuing the Israeli settlement policy in the West Bank.
.
unagidon (what does that mean? I always have to check the spelling.) writes (06/06/2011 – 10:53 am):
“Both the Palestinians and the Israelis have precisely the same rights to precisely the same land.”
Well, no. One nation has been in control of it for half a century.
We live in the real world, where physical facts matter most. If you start looking into who has the right to this or that, and start trying to enforce the hundreds of thousands of answers you get to your questions, you’ll have much worse than a small nuclear war on your hands.
Reality is what’s there, in front of you. You can verify its existence with your five senses. Demands of “rights” are – for all the importance people give them – purely political constructs, existing only in the mind.
I know, that sounds *so* capitalist, *so* colonialist :O)
.
.
Margaret writes (06/06/2011 – 12:44 pm):
“the real solution is the two-state solution”
That’s got to be a very big part of it. Absolutely. Would that implementing it were as easy as saying it. The Devil is cavorting joyously among the details.
.
.
Crystal writes (06/06/2011 – 3:41 am) :
“Maybe the only way the problem can be solved is for one side to accept losing what they want, because it seems impossibe that both sides can win.”
Sometimes problems become more tractable over time. Perhaps part of a good solution to all this is simply to keep talking. The danger, of course, is that the place continues to be a military flash point and could explode out of anyone’s control at any time.
Unfortunately, hatred can be kept hot over generations. Perhaps that’s particularly easy to do when the target population is extremely poor and living in oppressive conditions. Maybe another thing that could profitably be done, besides talking, is for the West to try very hard to alleviate the oppressive living conditions of the Palestinians. Unfortunately, the forces pressing for Palestinian rights have a strong interest in keeping them oppressed, so making their lives better could be an impossible task. But the West really ought, I think, to try. Anything done to reduce the pressure caused by those living conditions can only be for the good.
.
Margaret,
I guess this is an example of why it’s all so messed up and confusing to me:
The reporter asking the questions was asking about the topic of how to restrain protestors from a neighboring hostile state who are crtossing a border, but then changed the subject to the border itself, whether it was valid …. the question originally asked (both by her and then by the Israeli back at her) was never answered by her but instead she changed the subject.
Maybe this point seems trifling, but I think it’s an example of why nothing gets solved – the problem is not that the Israelis used too much force in protecting their border, but that they aren’t thought to deserve to be there at all, so no answer they give on the border shootings will be seen as adequate justification.
And when you start to think that that’s because the real problem – does Israel deserve to be there – is what defines whether they are good guys or bad guys, I think you’re not judging fairly. By that I mean that because we’re talking about the Israelis, we don’t give them the benefit of the doubt. A similar situation …. the British in Ireland, the British shooting unarmed civilians in the back on Bloddy Sunday (and not civilians from a hostile neighboring state but citizens), the British in a country separate from their own, occupying land not won in defense of their own country (like the Israelis against not just Syria but a number of other countries too) but land just taken to exand their power …. why don’t we hate the British, why don’t we make them get out of Ireland, why aren’t they seen as bad when the Israelis are?
I think the reason is that people hate the Israelis and they like the British, and that informs the information they process amd all the judgements they make (I’m not saying I don’t do this too).
“Well, no. One nation has been in control of it for half a century.
We live in the real world, where physical facts matter most. If you start looking into who has the right to this or that, and start trying to enforce the hundreds of thousands of answers you get to your questions, you’ll have much worse than a small nuclear war on your hands.”
Your ancestors fought for the South in the Civil War, didn’t they.
Seriously, though, what an utter load of nonsense. By your thinking the Russians should still be occupying the various republics plus Eastern Europe. Greece should still be a part of Turkey as should the rest of the Middle East including Palestine. England should still be occupying Russia. France should still be in Algeria. The list goes on.
It is your kind of “logic” that’s the problem. If the “facts on the ground” are paramount, then everyone who sides with Palestine has all the reason in the world to try to destroy Israel and change the “facts on the ground”.
I hope you’re not trying to pass yourself off as some kind of conservative.
.
Unagidon, do you feel that all nations should be obliged continually to defend themselves against territorial claims? If so, in what forum – or forums? Who might best empowered to make the final judgements?
.
David, it is Israel that keeps arguing that the world forum should just let them have Palestine because they already occupy most of it anyway.
The real facts on the ground are that, yes, all nations ARE be obliged continually to defend themselves against territorial claims. Israel has failed because the Palestinians have a good claim and most of the rest of the world knows it. Israel knows it too, in fact, which is why they spend so much time and money crafting different reasons why the Palestinians don’t really exist.
Crystal Watson, you keep saying you’re confused. And I agree with you. Why don’t you do a lot more reading and come back in a couple of months when I’m sure we’ll still be here.
.
Margaret, I can’t speak for Crystal, but “I’m confused” is one way I sometimes say, in effect, “Please help me understand”.
.
David Smith you may be right…So I advised further reading on her part. On the other hand, I have met people who are confused, know they are confused, and just don’t seem to want to get beyond their confusion. What will Crystal Watson do? Stay tuned.
What confuses me the most is that you guys don’t understand what I’m saying :) I give up.
.
Crystal, I understand your point about filters – that people filter reality so that what’s perceived is what was expected. I suppose we all do that every day, partly as a matter of necessity – so that we’re not constantly being overwhelmed with unfamiliar experiences – and partly out of social convenience – we want to stay in sync with our companion groups, we want not to be excluded because we’re saying the wrong things, and if we *perceive* the wrong things, we’re likely to say them.
So far as I can tell, this filtering isn’t related to intelligence or knowledge or political or religious or philosophical orientation or culture. One might think that since it’s so prevalent, people would be aware of it and work to correct it, but, at least in my very limited experience, denial is the usual reaction. It’s a puzzle.
.
.
Quick additional thought. Whatever the cause, people generally seem to be unwilling to put themselves in others’ places, to try to see the world through eyes other than their own. If they did, it should be much easier – one would think – for them to agree on solutions for living together in peace.
Tangentially, it occurs to me that – at least in America – there’s a great interest in psychotherapy, in self-help material – videos, books, seminars. It looks – at least at first glance – as though a great many people have a strong desire to understand themselves and other humans in their environment. Yet, at the same time, there’s this clear evidence of heavy filtering – of people determining what they’re going to experience before they experience it. Different people – or the same?
.