Military Intelligence
As I write, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of mainly young Iranians are deciding whether or not to risk going out into the streets. There is little someone like myself can add regarding the poignancy of their decision. Yet one thing seems obvious: a generation of Iranians has been changed by these rallies--changed in roughly the opposite way they would have been had Israeli military intelligence got its way, and won American and IDF agreement to an aerial strike on Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this year.
Even in the face of mass protest, not only did Mossad chief Meir Dagan refuse to admit the obvious--that an attack would have caused widespread carnage, put Iran on a war footing, and preempted its twittering liberalism--but he's had the audacity to predict to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee what nobody could possibly know at this point, that the protests will peter out; that, anyway, a Mousavi government would be worse than Ahmadinejad's regime, for it would give Iran's nuclear program a prettier face. ("To hell with those students; the PowerPoint is done.")
Still, it is not military planners like Dagan who seem reprehensible to me. It is the politicians and writers who channel them. We pay people like Dagan to sum the weapons of potential enemies and come up with ways to foil them. (The only reason we'll be able to live with a nuclear Iran, should this become necessary, is because military planners will have figured out how to position Israel's own nuclear deterrent.) And Dagan's main job is to think like a "made man," turning worst case contingencies into scenarios, and scenarios into "predictions." Mossad people say they also look at motive, not just capability. But who doesn't know how easily military people assume that capability translates into motive, much the way economists assume big money translates into investment. Motive? We are not talking about James Joyce here.
On the other hand, nothing seems more irresponsible to me than politicians and political analysts who lack the poise to stand up to military intelligence when important policy decisions are taking shape; politicians so eager to prove that they are not still trusting children that they remain forever sophomoric, defining the world as a test of wills, fearing (as Orwell did in "Shooting an Elephant") looking like a fool; writers so eager to prove that they are not just brainy wimps that they hang out with, and flaunt being respected by, officers.
So before the moment passes, we should give thanks that, owing (among other things) to McCain's defeat, this was one attack that never took place--and now never will, since it is obvious, even to the mullahs, I suspect, how the regime can simply be waited out, much the way Communist regimes were waited out; how they have lost the young.
And before the next moment of crisis, we should not fail to note some of the most irresponsible journalism of the last couple of years: Benny Morris' call for a limited nuclear strike last July, and, more recently, Jeffery Goldberg's implied endorsement of some kind of attack. (Both were given enormous space in, of all places, the New York Times op-ed section, so the editors should probably be remembered, too.) And who can forget Haaretz's Arie Shavit, who is silent about Iran this week, but is already taking credit instead for Netanyhu's policy of a demilitarized Palestine?
This accounting may seem small of me, but the celebrity culture being what it is, the periodic violence of extremists being what it is--and the fears summoned by ordinary neurosis being what they are--these writers will no doubt hang on nicely, cultivating their reputation for toughness (though Goldberg, to his credit, is repulsed by Dagan's statements, and seems to have come around to the idea that warning against the reckless use of force is not the same as weakness). Anyway, there is often credit for talking tough, while warning against violence is thankless. Just not at this moment, surely, and not in this case.
You say this
but then follow with
which invalidates any resemblance between you and a person actually able to reason.
June 20, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you talking about?
The logic of this piece is perfectly clear, as is the morally and intellectually bankrupt "reasoning" of a whole generation of American and Israeli Right wingers.
June 20, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I'm saying is that nobody can predict the future, especially in a situation as fluid as the one current in Iran.
Avishai agrees with that only when it is politically convenient for him, or because he simply can't reason.
Get it? Or is reason also an enemy of the people?
June 20, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reason appears to be a stranger to you, I'm sorry to say. Your explanation made no sense whatsoever.
June 20, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If nobody can predict the future why is it obvious that the regime can be waited out but not obvious that the protests will peter out? In an uncertain world the opposite could easily happen...bitterly disappointing a lot of dim-witted, irrational liberals.
June 20, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, we dim-witted, irrational liberals are so stupid that we belive that statements like "nobody can predict the future" are inherently fraudulent.
When you hyper-intelligent wing-nuts get down to our level you may discover that everyone can predict the future to a high degree of confidence in some circumstances. For example, even I, the dimmest of bulbs, is fairly likely to be correct in predicting that the sun will not rise in the south tomorrow. Other persons might know that, for another example, you will feel ashamed and foolish when you read how silly you are being.
And political experts might be able to know that Rush Limbaugh will expell nonsense every time Snerdley turns on his microphones, or that you would greet him with "megadittos" inasmuch as you are unable to construct logic independently.
But keep coming back. You are a constant source of amusement to us undereducated, overpaid liberals.
June 20, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're talking about the outcome of the current unrest in Iran, not where the sun will rise tomorrow. But, you're right, you are the dimmest of bulbs.
June 20, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good. At least one of us is right about something. That's progress.
June 21, 2009 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
When, and why did Iran become Israel's declared enemy? In 1986 acting as middlemen in the Iran-Contra scandal, Israel sold its (old) weapons to Iran - some so old that Iran refused to buy them, by the way. What happened between '86 and today is my question.
That said, fairly recently a journalist listed the various speeches, proclamations, reports etc. given through the years by the US and Israel in which various countries were charged with being enemies, potential or actual, of the US and, sometimes, Israel. The journalist chalked it all up as an excuse to increase our (and Israel's) military budget.
True or not, one has to ask how they would be received. In '02 Bush gave his infamous 'Axis of Evil' speech, followed in the same year by 'Beyond the Axis of Evil' (Cuba, Libya, Syria.) In '05 a report came out naming the 'Outposts of Tyranny' (Cuba, Belarus, Zimbabwe, Myanmar.) In '06 Israel identified the 'Axis of Terror' (Iran, Syria, Hamas-run Palestine.) Three months later Israel added 'hate' to the 'Axis of Terror.'
If not the rationale for increasing military budgets, what was the rationale - anybody?
June 20, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rationale was to increase military budgets, just as most of the "communist menace" was for the same reason.
June 20, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Avishai says:
I know that Avishai splits his time between the United States and Israel, but as far as I know TPM is published out of Manhattan, which is, last I checked, still in the United States. So who is the "we" in this sentence? We (the Americans) don't pay Dagan a damn thing. Until the supposed honest brokers can at least figure out who to identify with, the U.S. will have trouble staying out of this mess.
June 20, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing you skipped right over the words "people like." See? People like Dagan. Dagan and people like him. Get it?
June 20, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you don't use English in the normal way? This sentence clearly includes the payment of Dagan. The "people like" are his colleagues in the IDF. You are just making excuses for Avishai, whose allegiance (and by implication of "we" the other principles at this site) is to Israel, not to the United States.
June 21, 2009 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
*principals.
June 21, 2009 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, boys and girls! How many fallacies can you find in this statement? Bonus for more than five.
June 21, 2009 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
When exposed for your excuses you move to mocking. Is Tankard also your name at Red State?
June 21, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mocking is really the only language you understand, but certainly you would be the one know if there is a "Tankard" at a right-wing site, not I. I am far more liberal than anyone you know or have ever voted for.
Just because it's Father's Day and you are obviously the kind of person that is used to being referred to as "Mother-something-or-other," let me help you understand a few points that most third-graders would grasp without needing an explanation.
I pointed out to you what Mr. Avashi actually said after you put your own wing-nut interpretation on it. You responded that you found your own mis-reading of his piece as being superior to my non-normal-English literal reading. Now, I understand that you needed to do this to compensate for the embarrassment that you must feel for taking an untenable position, but at this point a reasonable person -- and perhaps even you -- would have to agree that a certain amount of mocking was called for.
Almost as important, I challenge your somewhat absurd claim that my mocking was any mockier than the original post that I responded to. Funnier, certainly. Wittier, certainly. Far more effective, certainly. But more mocking than you? Not to an intelligent human.
Mocking, in fact, was the kinder, gentler way to shred your extremely flawed premise. My original post could have been straight-forward and devastating to you. Kind of like this one is.
Finally, wise up. Don't pick on people who can make rhetorical mince meat of you, unless you care to spend the remainder of the day in a pie.
June 21, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your childish response. I will not engage with you any further.
June 22, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey guys. Did you hear the wind blowing? Random noises, but I thought it sounded like "engage." Silly me.
June 22, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The threat from a nuclearized Iran is cataclysmic. The probability the cataclysm will materialize is unknown. It may not be high, but is significantly greater than zero. For these reasons, an attack designed to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program, if it could be conducted successfully, would be a viable, even a desirable option, if other methods fail to deter the development of nuclear weapons.
The main reason for not proceeding is that such an attack is likely either to fail completely, or at best, delay Iran's nuclear program for a few years, while at the same time precipitating a crisis in the Mideast that would threaten to engulf the entire civilized world in one form or another.
In essence, the U.S., Israel, and other democratic societies are faced with two highly unpalatable options, with uncertain probabilities attached to each. This is ground for some pessimism, but in any case, it implies that dogmatic statements about what will or will not work are unjustified.
At the moment, prudence, patience, and effective diplomacy backed by economic pressures are warranted, but this may change within a few years.
June 20, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please, they are no more or less a threat than Pakistan, India, North Korea, China, Russia, or for that matter France.
There is nothing that elevates them to the top of the "can't be allowed to have nukes" pile.
June 20, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an unrealistic assessment, in my view. None of the other nations, except for North Korea, is more than a trivial threat. North Korea is not considered a serious military threat, but rather a potentially dangerous source of nuclear weapons supplies it might wish to sell to other states, and that is now being monitored by the U.N.
Iran poses a threat far more severe than any of the others because of its location in an extremely volatile region, its professed hostility to Israel to the point of advocating Israel's destruction, the fanaticism of its leaders (who see martyrdom as a virtue), and the realistic expectation that a nuclear-armed Iran will spark a nuclear arms race among other nations in the region that are now nuclear-free.
I believe that an argument dismissing Iran as no more dangerous than other nuclear powers implies an ideological perspective rather one based on an unsparingly objective analysis.
June 20, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here are a few more unsparingly objective points that you missed:
Who is the only rogue nuclear power in the Middle East? Israel.
Who is refusing to comply with the NPT? Israel.
Who is currently advocating using tactical nukes to pre-emptively attack Iran? Israel.
Who has unilaterally attacked its neighboring countries during the past 3 years? Israel.
Who is in terminal violation of the Geneva Conventions for its treatment of its minority, captive population? Israel.
Who are the Kahanists? Who's foreign minister has ties to the Kahanists? Israel.
Who has started a nuclear arms race in the ME by illegally building its own nuclear program? Israel.
Nice try Fred, but you're objectively non-objective.
June 20, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dave - Thanks for your input. Your response, like Annie's earlier one, strikes me as both intemperate and ideological. However, these arguments can become interminable. At this point, I would be content for readers without an ideological agenda to review what each of us wrote, so as to form their own judgments. I'm satisfied that the result will be a reasonable one.
June 20, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your repetition of unproven talkingpoints about Iran's supposed threats to Israel is pure ideological cant.
FYI, some of the analysts who have opined that Iran doesn't pose a threat have held top positions in the IDF, Israel's Military Intelligence and the Mossad.
They have spent their professional lives in the service of Israel's security and therefore look at the situation from a military/intelligence perspective and have little use for the overheated nonsense political/ideological types prattle on about.
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.
June 20, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, thanks for your concern. I am amused at the irony inherent in your position, and yet, am content to let people draw their own conclusions. Hard for you to claim to be objective, I must say, when the intelligence that supports your view has been officially denigrated by the Pentagon.
Also, did you feel the same way about Iraq in 2002? I know my position is consistent, and if you're looking for objectivity, I would suggest the International Atomic Energy Agency. Of course, they were right about Iraq, and they have inspected Iran's nuclear facilities many times, but never Israel's. Why is that?
June 21, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 20, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend toward optimism, Ordinary, about the objectivity of most readers, while acknowledging that we each bring our own perspective to bear on an issue. I'm confident that unbiased readers reviewing this exchange will agree that a nuclear weapon-armed Iran would pose a grave threat to Middle East peace. Although unanimity may be unachieavable, few knowledgeable analysts disagree, and therefore for most, the uncertainties reside in how close the Iranian regime is to acquiring weapons capability rather than whether their acquisition would be threatening. That's a legitimate source of uncertainty, and one reason among many to avoid premature judgments or actions.
Probably most of us will agree that we need to proceed cautiously, and that a military option would be foolhardy in the current circumstances. It may never be a viable option, no matter how severe the threat, if the weapons are hidden or shielded so thoroughly as to be insusceptible to destruction. I hope the need to consider that scenario never arises, but we would delude ourselves to consider it inconceivable.
June 20, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be a decent, pleasant, reasonable, fairy well informed person; qualities which certainly disqualify you from understanding what is happening.
June 20, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
(The only reason we'll be able to live with a nuclear Iran, should this become necessary, is because military planners will have figured out how to position Israel's own nuclear deterrent.) And Dagan's main job is to think like a "made man," turning worst case contingencies into scenarios, and scenarios into "predictions." Mossad people say they also look at motive, not just capability. But who doesn't know how easily military people assume that capability translates into motive.
Why would you assume that Israel's planners haven't already figured out how to position Israel's nuclear deterrent?
Israel's military planners know full well that it's rockets and missiles that pose the greatest threats to Israel's population whether or not the remote possibility that a nuclear -armed warhead can be successfully mounted on a delivery vehicle with the range to hit Israel. That's a huge bridge to cross in technological terms.
The positioning of US X-band radar at the first American base in Israel situated in the southern Negev is part of the deal the bushies struck in order to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran. That's only one example of American efforts to provide Israel with more defensive capabilities, the recent approval of funding the next generation of the Arrow (III) missile defense system is another.
(I have actually seen some wishful musings that if Israel attacks Iran or Syria or Lebanon and a retalitory missle lands on the US base, that would constitute an "act of war" and force America to participate in the military action as a consequence. )
Meir Dagan got in hot water from political types for moving back the Israeli asessment of Iran's timeline for nuclear/missile capability to 2014. That is what is of import from his testimony in the Knesset.
It was bad timing on Dagan's part as Lieberman's visiting entourage included Israeli security officials from the Mossad, the Israel Defense Forces, and Israel's atomic energy agency holding meetings with all sorts of Americans at about the same time. Dagan's statements about Iran's readiness estimate undercut their message.
BTW, the settlements issue was, as Avigdor has said, not the primary agenda for his visit:
Lieberman said that during his private meeting with Clinton, as well as in broader forums, the subject of Israel's settlements was not central. Most of the time, he said,the discussion revolved around the new challenges facing the administration, including Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, Iraq and also Russia.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1094234.html
June 20, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lally, not sure of your point at the end here...re settlements, etc.
June 20, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peter.
Avigdor's and my points are that the only news that was generated about his visit here was focused on the disagreements over the settlements. This was the case here and in Israel.
The real agenda was to push the Israeli picture re Iran's nuclear readiness as opposed to what our own intelligence estimates conclude. We say 2015, before Dagan opened his mouth the Israeli estimate was 2010/2011. Dagan's claim of 2014 is closer to the US version that the Israelis have been striving to debunk.
The Haaretz quote from Avigdor about the "challenges" posed by Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, Iraq and Russia is indicative that Iran is still the #1 issue as far as the current Israeli leadership is concerned. Syria and Hezbollah are connected to it in a warfighting scenario as is the Russian agreement(?) to sell Iran the advanced S-300 air defense system. The S-300 would endanger IAF (and USAF) jets attacking Iran. Seeking US permission to transit Iraq on the way to Iran would explain why it was on Avigdor's list.
The cast of characters accompanying Lieberman; Israeli security officials from the Mossad, the Israel Defense Forces, and Israel's atomic energy agency are exactly the people who would be enlisted to sell the Israeli POVs.
"security officials" from the IDF=Military Intelligence.
June 20, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the clarification, Lally
June 20, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink