Posted By Orly Halpern Share

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

In February 2005 I sat in an intelligence briefing for Israeli Middle East and diplomatic affairs correspondents at the headquarters of the Israel Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem. There were probably 15 of us around a long table. At the head, various researchers took turns speaking about the threat levels coming from different parts of the Muslim world. 

When it came to Iran, the intelligence researcher told us in the most foreboding tone that Iran was very close to building a nuclear weapon. It was the same ‘and-that-will-be-the-end-of-us' tone that numerous Israeli politicians had been using in the media to warn Israelis following the Iranian announcement to develop nuclear energy.

At the time, I was serving as the Middle East correspondent for The Jerusalem Post and was a member of the Gulf/2000 Project, a group led by former National Security Council member and presidential advisor Gary Sick and made up mainly of academics, journalists, diplomats and intelligence people from East and West with a professional interest in the Persian Gulf.  It exposed me to a wealth of information about Iran, including the problems it faces, its own security fears and the question of the nuclear threat. And it became clear to me that the Iranian regime was not crazy enough to push a would-be red button on Israel.

But I wanted to know how the Israeli intelligence people would answer the question:"So do you think that if the Iranian regime were to develop nuclear weapons some crazy mullah would press the red button?" So, I asked.

Before they could respond, Ayala Hasson, Israeli Channel One's diplomatic affairs correspondent, shouted across the table, "But of course they'll press the button!"

Harry Kney-Tal, director of the Foreign Ministry's Center for Diplomatic Research, paused before answering: "No, we don't think there is some crazy Iranian who is going to press the button." Nuclear weapons were a form of "insurance" against being attacked, he said.

For years now, official Israel has been scaring its people into believing Iran is near the ‘point of no return' and the day it reaches it will be doomsday for Israel (of course, Israel's estimated ‘point of no return' dates continuously pass, prompting it to make new ones). But the Israeli establishment knows that there is no existential threat, that the Iranian regime is radical, but not suicidal; that if it is building weapons of mass destruction (WMD), it is in self-defense.

So why all the hype?  Why the deception?  The reasons are many, but they come down to money, politics, and security.

After the briefing Kney-Tal shared with me that if Iran were to have nuclear weapons Israel would lose its role as the regional superpower. "We are afraid that it will give Iran more leverage to empower its clients, "he said, referring to Hizbullah and Syria.

In other words, Iranian nukes would prevent Israel from acting as the neighborhood bully and Israel would have to think twice before it attacked its neighbors.

Yet it wasn't until last month that a senior Israeli official, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, acknowledged that Israel did not fear an Iranian attack. The Iranian regime was "radical", he said in a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, but not meshugeneh (the Yiddish word for crazy).

As retired Brigadier General Uzi Eilam describes in his recently published book, "Eilam's Arc", money and politics--not security--are the key reasons for the scare.  The "defense establishment is sending out false alarms in order to grab a bigger budget," said the former Director-General of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission.

Moreover, some Israeli politicians are using Iran to divert attention away from problems at home. Not only does it make them more popular among the population--Israelis understandably feel more at home in the role of victims--but it also focuses the attention away from the country's internal problems which are not being solved: poverty, racial strife, and lack of peace with its neighbors. Finally, the ‘Holocaust-is-around-the-corner' doomsday prophecy, putting Israel in the traditional Jewish role of the oppressed, gives Israeli leaders more clout when pushing for gestures from friendly countries abroad.

Interestingly, Netanyahu has tempered his own doomsday prophecies. At the recent AIPAC conference he said that Iran "might be tempted" to use nuclear weapons. It is possible that if the Israeli Foreign Ministry intelligence department is aware that Iran does not pose an existential threat, then the US and European countries have come to the same conclusion. That would take the punch out of Israel's prophecies.

Now Israel is warning that Iran could share WMD knowledge with non-state actors who will use it against Israel and other countries: "Our world would never be the same," said Netanyahu at AIPAC.

If Israel really does fear this prospect it needs the help of its allies, either to pressure or persuade Iran. So when Vice President Biden comes to town it is best not to embarrass him with the announcement of settlement expansions and then insist on making more announcements that deepen the rift; when Turkish television broadcasts a television series depicting Israel in anugly manner, best not to humiliate the Turkish ambassador on Israeli television; when the Secretary General of the UN visits, best to send someone to greet him at the airport, and not just the security guards; and when Israel wants to make a revenge assassination for the killing of Israeli soldiers, best to let it go, rather than use fake passports of your allies (or don't get caught).

Israel's recent behavior is not conducive to achieving its stated goals. It must reassess its priorities and decide whether a settlement in the West Bank, the humiliation of diplomats, and the killing of an arms smuggler are more important than its security.

At the end of the day, Israel needs help if it wants to remain the only kid on the block with a big stick.  

Orly Halpern is a freelance journalist and Middle East analyst based in Jerusalem.

AFP/Getty Images

 

DEPETRIS@WORDPRESS.COM

7:24 PM ET

March 25, 2010

Duh

I'm glad this article speaks a truth that many people in the west refuse to believe. The main rationale for Iran's nuclear policy is two-fold; the ayatollahs and the IRGC want to preserve their power within the government, and Tehran desperately wants to increase its influence in the Persian Gulf and greater Middle East.

Anyone who knows anything about Iranian politics understands that these two goals (self-preservation and international power) are major factors in the equation. This is precisely why Tehran lends logistical and monetary support to terrorist groups and Islamic insurgent groups throughout the region, whether in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Palestinian Territories. This is why Iran is so hated by policymakers in the United States and Western Europe. In fact, this is why traditional Arab powerhouses like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are so worried about a growing Iranian force to the west. With the world's most destructive weapons under its belt, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (and his ilk in the IRGC) are assured that the interests of the "Iranian nation" are pursued.

My only fear is that Israel will still do whatever it takes to squelch this challenge before it surfaces. Let's hope this is not the case, because such a strike would be devastating for all of those involved in Middle Eastern affairs.

http://www.depetris.wordpress.com

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

12:19 PM ET

March 26, 2010

Thank you sir. May I suggest

Thank you sir.

May I suggest you send in an OpEd to the NYT along these lines? Also pls forward this post to AIPAC members and the AIPAC kow-towing congress. You are doing a great service to the nation.

 

SMITHBRIE

2:35 PM ET

March 26, 2010

Thanks, FP, but this is kind of sophmoric analysis

Of course they won't use it when the regime/republic is not in danger of cracking up. But once it looks bad, that's when apocalyptic religious tendencies and/or megalomania can tempt leaders toward putting their country in a murder-suicide scenario. See Hitler for a good example, and Camus' discussion of fascism in The Rebel.

What Ms. Halpern doesn't examine is how the bomb could serve as an insurance policy. If she is arguing that Iranians know they will get destroyed for using it, so they'll never use it, what kind of "insurance" could it provide?

The only "insurance" a nuclear bomb is actually good for is an insurance against a nuclear first strike by Israel -- which of course won't likely happen if Iran or its proxies are only using regular rockets against Israel.

So Halpern's logic is incomplete, her analysis sadly lacking (she's not an expert in anything military, just an activist) and this line of her article is most unfortunate: "Iranian nukes would prevent Israel from acting as the neighborhood bully and Israel would have to think twice before it attacked its neighbors. "

Dylan might recommend his the song "Neighborhood Bully" to Ms. Halpern; she doesn't deserve "Blowing in the Wind."

 

SMITHBRIE

4:34 AM ET

March 27, 2010

My questions for Halpern are based on M.A.D.

If DESTRUCTION would not be mutual, but only damage would be mutually assured in a conflict between two countries, then M.A.D. doesn't apply. It doesn't frighten off strikes by either side that are not hugely severe (like a first nuclear strike).

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

3:59 PM ET

March 26, 2010

Yeah Smithbrie, why should

Yeah Smithbrie, why should only one country have nukes in the middle east?

Anyway, why should we lookout for Israel? Why should AMericans die for Israel and why should Americans send billions of dollars to Israelis each year?

The 1% of US population that are right wing Likudniks have co-opted our FP.

Thank God the tipping point is approaching due to Bibi's own idiocy....and people like Smithbrie.

Go pay for your own cluster bombs to use on women and children, Israel!

 

BUDAHH

7:37 AM ET

March 27, 2010

What all you dummies in the west don't understand( Orly)

Iran is posing a threat to the world, not just to israel, people who build stuff for the dissappearing Imam while their country is having some hard financial problems are not normal, people who belive in the end of days scenerio and think it will help the imam come faster are not normal, how many poeple died in the Iran Iraq war, you think that is not suicidal? How many iranians were sacrificed by the mullahs. Rafsangani said that if israel will be hit they will loose 3 million and that will be the end of israel, he said that iran will be hit and they will loose 20 million but it will be worth it. It might not be an immediate existencial threat but it sure is a possible one.
what wil happen in the gulf with a nuclear iran, do you remember the kidnapings in lebanon, even right now (the british sailors, american hikers)? the blackmail of all nations by the use of force, you think that europe will sustain the blackmail once iran is armed with nukes and misslies to deliver them ? which can reach Europe, What about our buddy hugo chaves? how happy would he be to have a little nuke in his arsenal? How about dirty little bombs at your home in the U.S.? How about a nuclear armed middle east, you think that the technology will never get to any rouge elements, Yes it will shift the balance of power in the middle east and Iran will become more aggressive than it already is, Israel is the neighboorhood bully? right it started all the wars in the middle east, 1948, 1967, 1973, gaza, lebanon, if israel was never attacked, none of these wars would have taken place.
How would you like to have Saddam around with nuclear weapons now,. the us and the world were all against it and we see where everyone stands now. Our Turkish friends are making a series that is a complete lie, what if the canadians made a T.V series about how the U.S kills babies in Iraq for fun?
How the heck do the settlements have to do with Iranian nuclear weapons, you complain when we hit civilians fighitng terrorists, and now you complain whenwe just hit the terror head clean, what should we do you tell me Orly. Instead of being critical why don't you give us a solution.

 

BUDAHH

11:27 AM ET

March 27, 2010

Base

Iraq was never a threat to any U.S interests is that why the first gulf war happened, Iraq was a threat to the world with Saddam Hussein ruling it he was a madman and the U.S has liberated it. It might not have been the right decision for the U.S, Saddam invaded other countries and he was a terror supporter.
Iran is actively killing U.S soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, this is without a nuke, imagine how much braver they will be with one. Any time they won't be happy they will make gas prices hike up to more than 200$ and blackmail the world for more power.
You are forgetting the little sunna, shia problem we have going on in the world, Iran is the biggest destabilizing element in the middle east and they are meddling in everyone's business.
Why do you think the whole 5th fleet of the u.s navy is in the gulf, not because they are bored and the weather is nice. they are protecting oil, if you want to pay 10$ a gallon than lets do nothing if you want more wars in the middle east lets do nothing, you don't believe that Iran is suicidal, people didn't believe Hitler was crazy either

 

The Middle East Channel offers unique analysis and insights on this diverse and vital region of more than 400 million.

Read More

Enter your email address to get twice-weekly updates from the Mideast Channel:

Delivered by Constant Contact