Having read the entire NYT article by the Israeli journalist, Ronen Bergman, discussed by BooMan here, I was struck by his report of the extraordinary comments the outgoing head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, made to a group of Israeli journalists in Late 2010 or early 2011 (Mr. Bergman is unclear on the exact date), just prior to Dagan being forced out by Netenhyahu and Barak, as well as the comments of another prominent Mossad official and former Israeli Cabinet Minister, Rafi Eitan:
“The use of state violence has intolerable costs,” he said. “The working assumption that it is possible to totally halt the Iranian nuclear project by means of a military attack is incorrect. There is no such military capability. It is possible to cause a delay, but even that would only be for a limited period of time.” […]
In the audience at that lecture was Rafi Eitan, 85, one of the Mossad’s most seasoned and well-known operatives. Eitan agreed with Dagan that Israel lacked the capabilities to attack Iran. When I spoke with him in October, Eitan said: “As early as 2006 (when Eitan was a senior cabinet minister), I told the cabinet that Israel couldn’t afford to attack Iran. First of all, because the home front is not ready. I told anyone who wanted and still wants to attack, they should just think about two missiles a day, no more than that, falling on Tel Aviv. And what will you do then? Beyond that, our attack won’t cause them significant damage. I was told during one of the discussions that it would delay them for three years, and I replied, ‘Not even three months.’ After all, they have scattered their facilities all over the country and under the ground. ‘What harm can you do to them?’ I asked. ‘You’ll manage to hit the entrances, and they’ll have them rebuilt in three months.’ ”
Asked if it was possible to stop a determined Iran from becoming a nuclear power, Eitan replied: “No. In the end they’ll get their bomb. The way to fight it is by changing the regime there. This is where we have really failed. We should encourage the opposition groups who turn to us over and over to ask for our help, and instead, we send them away empty-handed.”
This is extraordinary for several reasons. One, it is analogous to a counterfactual hypothetical where the head of the CIA in 2002, George Tenet publicly gave an interview to prominent numerous important US reporters denouncing the plans of the Bush administration to invade Iraq. Imagine the sh*tstorm in Washington and across the US that would have resulted if Tenet and other high placed CIA officials had taken that action, i.e., that war with Iraq would be futile and cause our country more harm than good by a large measure.
Of course Tenet was no Dagan. He failed to stand against President Bush and Vice President Cheney, and went along with their plans to invade Iraq in order to preserve his job. It was only after he retired form his position as Bush’s CIA Director that he wrote a book, attempting to justify his actions and lay the blame for the mistakes made in the run-up to the Iraq war at the feet of senior White House officials.
Yet that is exactly what the former Mossad Chief, Meir Dagan did with respect to the Israeli government’s leadership in order to avert what he considers a risky and futile plan to attack Iran by his country’s military forces. He clearly believes that Israel cannot and should not attack Iran, despite the evidence of the Iranian nuclear program. And this comes from a man who was not known for being a pacifist. He was a twice wounded veteran and the leader of the Mossad program to disrupt the Iranian nuclear program, including the use of assassination of Iran’s top nuclear physicists. He was also likely the person behind the mysterious air crashes of three planes carrying senior officials of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in 2006-2007. Mossad is also suspected of carrying out a plot that resulted in a massive explosion at an Iranian Revolutionary Guard base just west of Teheran in November 2011, which resulted in the deaths of 16 Iranian Guards including the base commander. Dagan was clearly not adverse to using military force and state violence to achieve a slow down of the Iranian nuclear program. Yet he felt the need to tell Israeli reporters that Netanyahu and Barak were pursuing a dangerous course in laying the groundwork for a war with Iran instigated by an initial Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
There seems to be a serious disagreement between the Israeli Intelligence Service and the current conservative government regarding the wisdom of its policy to promote an attack on Iran, much like the internal disagreement over the necessity for an attack on Iraq between the CIA and the Bush administration in 2002. And the end game seems to be playing out in a similar manner, with the politicians ignoring the advice of the senior Mossad officials, and removing them from office (as was the case with Dagan) or deliberately ignoring their counsel, and seeking to influence public opinion against their views.
From the beginning of their terms (Barak as defense minister in June 2007, Netanyahu as prime minister in March 2009), they have held the opinion that Israel must have a military option ready in case covert efforts fail. Barak ordered extensive military preparations for an attack on Iran that continue to this day and have become more frequent in recent months. He was not alone in fearing that the Mossad’s covert operations, combined with sanctions, would not be sufficient. The I.D.F. and military intelligence have also experienced waning enthusiasm. Three very senior military intelligence officers, one who is still serving and two who retired recently, told me that with all due respect for Dagan’s success in slowing down the Iranian nuclear project, Iran was still making progress.
This seems to deliberately obscure the point of Dagan and Eitan’s criticism of Barak and Netanyahu’s plans for war with Iran. Dagan is clearly stating that neither Israel or the US can effectively slow down Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons via a conventional attack on Iran’s nuclear sites if that is their goal. Implicit in Dagan’s argument is that only a pre-emptive nuclear attack would be adequate to possibly accomplish this objective, and no one I know, outside of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and a few of their neo-con minions has ever been serious about using nukes to attack Iran.
One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.
The public and highly politicized criticisms of Dagan’s statements about the futility of an attack on Iran, also ignore Dagan’s warnings that Israel is not prepared for the consequences of such a use of its military forces, with or without US military help or the tacit approval of the Obama administration. Dagan’s warnings of missile attacks on Israel proper by by Iranian allies Hezbullah, Hamas and possibly Syria, as well as the potential attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz, which would have worldwide consequences for the global economy and Israel’s relationship with its major ally and supporter, the United States, are also ignored. It seems from their public statements that Barak and Netanyahu are determined to proceed with their prepared plans for a military attack against Iran regardless of the fallout from such an action.
As an observer with little inside information as to the true nature of Netanyahu’s strategy, I admit that much of what I conclude is mere speculation, but I think it is informed speculation. I get the impression that Barak and Netanyahu are holding this threat of an Israeli attack on Iran over Barack Obama’s head and the head of Europe’s leaders. This would explain much of the recent belligerent actions taken by the Obama administration and the deployment of US Naval forces in the Straits of Hormuz over the past month.
I get the sense that we are drifting toward a war that no sane person wants. A war in which, much like WWI, political factors, alliances, and mistrust and suspicion on all sides is creating the perfect storm. This is a war that can be avoided, but which no one appears willing to avoid for reasons of both internal and international politics, the threat of an arms race and paranoia among the various political leaders involved.
Remember this: In 2003 President Bush had the opportunity to strike a grand deal with Iran’s far more moderate leadership under President Khatami, one which Cheney and his senior aides rejected out of hand on Bush;ls behalf. That deal would have addressed the issue of Iran’s nuclear program according to Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, then Secretary of State Colin Powell’s principal aide.
As a result, Khatami was replaced by the more extreme radical fundamentalist, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as Iran’s President in 2005, and our best chance for a more favorable diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear problem was “taken off the table.” Now look wher we are, again. Rumors of war with Iran again have taken center stage, only this time a Democratic President sits in office. Will he be able to prevent Israel, itself under the more radical regime of President Netanyahu, from setting off another Middle eastern conflict, one with the real possibility of causing great harm to Israel, the United States and the rest of the world? I wish I had the answer. We lucked out that Cheney’s monomania about attacking Iran during the second term of George Bush was avoided by the courageous actions of a few high level generals and good fortune. We may not be so lucky again.
