One of the standard themes of those who claim there is no need to take action to halt Iran’s progress toward nuclear capability is that intelligence experts dispute the notion that this program poses a threat to Israel or the West. The star of this campaign is former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, who will be featured on CBS’ “60 Minutes” this Sunday. The interview is being hailed by some as debunking what they consider to be the alarmism expressed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, therefore giving cover to those who wish to table the entire subject rather than to ramp up the pressure on Tehran.
But as with many previous statements by Dagan, the excerpts of the interview that have been released are bound to disappoint Iran’s apologists. Though Dagan is fiercely antagonistic to both Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak and opposed to an air strike on Iran now, he clearly views Iran’s nuclear program as a threat to Israel and believes it must be stopped. His differences with Israel’s government center on how much time we have before it is too late and what measures would be most effective in doing the job.
Those who are promoting Dagan as a counterpoint to Netanyahu should remember a few key facts about his unprecedented public advocacy on the Iran issue that are not well known in the United States. Far from being an entirely dispassionate intelligence professional, Dagan’s anger at Netanyahu and Barak stems in no small part from the fact that the pair are the ones responsible for his being fired from his job. This happened after a series of intelligence failures–the most public of which was the disastrous hit on a Hamas official in Dubai.
Second, though interviewer Leslie Stahl focuses her attention on Dagan’s opposition to a strike on Iran now, the subtext to his position is that he spent much of his time at the head of the Mossad working on efforts to spike the ayatollah’s nuclear ambition. Under his leadership, Israeli intelligence concentrated much of its resources on covert activities whose purpose was to slow or stop progress toward an Iranian bomb. Although he says he considers the Iranian regime “rational” (though he added “not exactly our [idea of] rational”), that doesn’t mean he thinks containing a nuclear Iran (something President Obama has now specifically rejected) is a good idea.
Instead, as one might expect from a veteran spook, Dagan wants more emphasis on covert activities and other efforts that are aimed at an even more ambitious project than a mere surgical taking out of Iran’s nuclear facilities: regime change. In the sense that a democratic Iran, or at least one not ruled by Islamist fanatics, would be much safer for Israel and the rest of the world, he is, of course, right. But to say his opinions on this subject are somehow more realistic than the less grandiose intentions of Netanyahu and Barak, who only wish to make sure Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei doesn’t get his hands on a nuke, is obviously a stretch.
The question of how much time Israel has before it is too late to do anything about an Iranian nuclear weapon is not unimportant. Dagan is clearly of the opinion the situation is not yet critical. But, as he was careful to point out to Stahl, “I never said a lot of time. [There is] more time.”
All of which paints a picture of a difference of opinion within the top levels of Israeli intelligence which is more about tactics and timing than, as Netanyahu’s critics as well as Israel-haters seem to imply, about the critical nature of the threat itself. Meir Dagan’s opinions deserve to be heard and considered, but they should be understood as coming from within a consensus that views Iranian nukes as a deadly threat, not outside of it.
What galls me is that the appeasers insist that Iran doesn't have nuclear capability yet. So, what does that mean — that we're supposed to wait until yet? They also claim the Iranians are showing signs that they want to return to negotiations. The Iranians are developing nukes, we have said this is "unacceptable". What, for G-d's sake, is there to negotiate???
Yes, I agree, "negotiate" for what purpose? My opinion is to strike the nuclear sites and ALSO go for regime change and do not stop until we achieve it. Regime change is the best possible outcome. I have a feeling that the majority of Iranians (or at least a substantial proportion) are very tired of living under the fanatical/corrupt regime they have had since 1979.
60 Minutes doing a story that seeks to paint Israelis as imperious and bellicose? Quelle surprise! Remember Bob Simon's hit piece on Jewish settlements in 2009? Like the NYT, 60 Minutes is institutionally left-wing and pathologically anti-Israel. n nIsraeli is a country with more opinions than people. For every Dagan, there are 10 defense and intelligence analysts who recognize that sanctions and stuxnets will not prevent Iran from getting the bomb. n nFor balance, why doesn't 60 Minutes interview one of their favorite Israeli lefties: Ehud Barak? His only disagreement with Netanyahu on Iran is whether Israel ought to accede to a Palestinian state after the bombing.
If you think that American politics is a snake pit, it is, but compared to Israeli politics, American politics is a sun drenched Carribean Island. nIsraeli politics is the Seventh Circle of Hell, and worse, a lot of the issues are personal, not political. Look, a lot of Israeli Knesset members and political elite are actually related by blood or marriage, and you can imagine the kind of filth that brings to politics here. nThe simple fact is that every Israel knows that Iran is planning a second Holocaust of the Jewish People and the only question is when the Iranians will try to pull it off. The only question is how long Israel should wait before preempting the Iranian genocide.
Opinions are divided in Israel as to whether the Iranian intention is to directly use nukes to exterminate Jews or use nukes as strategic threat to throttle Israeli conventional options and strangle the Jewish state incrementally. For those who don't get Jewish irony option two is not a blessing either. The majority of Israeli citizens in the last poll publicized actually do not want Israel to attack Iran without American support.
Jonathan Tobin’s point with respect to the debate in Israel, amongst different political factions being used by enemies of Israel is in place. Intelligent viewers of Sixty Minutes will figure this one out.
In order for Israel’s enemies to justify their disdain for Israel in general and it’s competent defense of itself, in particular;the most valuable raw organic propaganda is farmed directly from The Israelis, themselves. However it usually boomerangs back.
As if Haaretz is not a sufficent sacrifice to the enemy’s perverted spin, now it ‘would appear’ we have a spurned Mossad Director with the loose lips, no less. Actually I believe there are alternate reasons for Dagen’s public statements. If one thinks about it, it is smart. Free publicity on the dangers of a nuclearized Iran and the debate amongst defense experts in Israel, on prime time. It shows Israel is not a war monger but extremely prudent.I do not think this prime time spot cost Israel one red cent. Very cost effective advertising Bibi, BRAVO. Nice performance Meir. Care to host The Tonight Show?
Regime change makes a lot of sense, but certainly not as an alternative to preventing Iran from developing nukes.
What does one have to do with the other? I ask you Jonathan Tobin.
I guess with that logic, Israel should be less concerned with preventing Hamas from importing more sophisticated weapons systems, like generic Stinger missiles and more focused upon a regime change. Like Israel would be any safer if Mazen Abbas Arafat in Suit were voted in. AraFat Chance.
“…Maybe I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one…”
say those who are holding their breaths for the obvious solution to this entire conundrum, may I for your entertainment; WELL IF ONLY ISRAEL WOULD DO THE RIGHT THING AND ACCEPT AN AMERICAN MEDIATED SWAP; POLLARD FOR MARHWIN BARGOUTI. BARGOUTI IS THE LAY IN WAIT NEW LEADER FOR THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE WHO WILL BOUND OVER HIS STEPS TO SIGN A PERMANANT PEACE…
Dennis Ross, you are a genius. The funny thing is the Samantha Power crowd who are pushing for a US/NATO invasion of Israel to protect Palestine from crimes against humanity/genocide think this should be seriously considered, oh…except for one tiny detail, almost forgot;they demand Pollard be deceased, as a prerequisite.