January 24, 2007
Israel’s world view
Before leaving Israel yesterday, I and some colleagues had the chance to talk to various members of the Israeli military and foreign policy establishment. Obviously, they were well aware they were talking to journalists, so one must discount for spin. But here, briefly, is how they see the world:
Iran: The Israelis are obsessed with the development of an Iranian bomb. They say it will be the first time an "enemy state" has the capacity to exterminate Israel. They think the Iranians are 12-18 months away from crossing the technical threshold and three years away from having the bomb itself. They acknowledge that the Americans seem to think that Iran is further away than that - perhaps five years. There is time for diplomacy to work, and they think President Ahmadinejad is not in a secure position. But they clearly think that it is most likely that Israel and the United States will soon be faced by the decision over whether to take military action. They hope the US will do it. But the strong implication is that Israel will take action alone if necessary. But they are far from sanguine about the potential regional consequences, in terms of a wider war, terrorism and so on.
Lebanon: They see Hizbollah as a branch of the Iranian state. They say that Hizbollah has substantially rebuilt its military capacity, although it is inhibited to some extent by the presence of the UN. Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister, has been a pleasant surprise to the Israelis. They regard him as a tough, courageous patriot - but they also think he is very vulnerable. Long-term the Israelis are gloomy about the prospects for Lebanon, because they believe a talented and mobile Christian community will emigrate in large numbers.
Syria: They see Syria as an active member of an Iranian-led radical camp. But they confirm newspaper reports in Israel of informal, "back-channel" talks on a peace deal with Syria - and they reckon President Assad may be interested in a deal. They seem pretty contemptuous of Assad. One gets the impression that while the Iranians scare them, the Syrians do not.
Iraq: They are worried by an implosion of Iraq after the Americans leave. Possible consequences include Iraq becoming a new centre for "global jihad", and the destabilisation and implosion of Jordan, under a wave of Iraqi refugees.
The Saudis: The Israelis seems to love the Saudis at the moment - and they think the Saudis are increasingly warm to them, since both sides have a mutual interest in containing Iran. But the Israelis are also worried by a nuclear arms race in the region. The Saudis could go nuclear quite quickly, possibly because they have an arrangement with Pakistan. Other countries that are thinking of going nuclear, in response to the Iranian programme, are Egypt and Turkey.
On a personal note, I have now left Israel and am in Davos.
This is beginning to have a summer of 1914 feeling about it, isn’t it?
But, one has to ask, does Israel have the intelligence, and does it have the capabilities? The experts at the Atlantic Monthly war game conducted by Colonel Sam Gardiner in 2004 were deeply sceptical. Details at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows
So too were the former Pentagon Middle East intelligence chief Colonel W. Patrick Lang and the former CIA analyst Larry Johnson in their article Contemplating the Ifs in last spring’s issue of The National Interest. An excerpt from their section on ‘The Israeli Mirage’:
“Faced with these questions, some are advocating an Israeli solution to the Iranian threat – that is, to stand aside and let Israel launch air action or commando strikes. Those proposals are hardly viable. The 1981 Israeli air attack against Iraqi nuclear facilities in Osirak involved a target much closer to Israel, one set of above-ground and essentially unguarded buildings, and half a dozen aircraft. The 1976 Israeli commando raid at Entebbe, Uganda, involved one aircraft-load of troops in a very primitive setting. The differences in scale and distance between those operations and what would have to be done in Iran are impressive. Analysts that propose the Israeli option seem to be envisioning imaginary assets. Their air force lacks the strength, range, tanker capability and targeting capability to conduct such massive and distant operations. The Iranian target set would require numerous waves of restrike missions after bomb damage assessments were made.”
The whole article is available at:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2006/12/iran_revisited.html
Posted by: David Habakkuk | January 24th, 2007 at 11:24 am | Report this commentI am glad that Mr. Rachman points out that the Israelis were aware of talking to journalists and they were spinning.
I wonder if any of the journalists present asked the Israelis to put themselves in the shoes of the Iranians and see how it feels like to have an enemy state in the neighbourhood with nukes that it daily threatens to use against them?
Why aren’t the peace-loving Israelis supporting calls for a nuclear-free Middle East, including a banning of US nuclear presence in the area?
In any case, the stated aim and track record of action of the NeoCon-Zionists is their desire to break up the larger Muslim states of the Middle East to lessen strategic competition against the small nation of Israel which refuses to grow in population of Jews as the Diaspora Jews find it an unpleasant place to live and there are only so many poor Russians that they can pay to convert to Judaism and move to Israel!
The policy of breaking up was implemented against Iraq, supported by a tissue of lies told by Bush, B Liar and other puppets. Now they are updating the same lies, replacing Q with N on their spell-checkers and try to get the American behemoth to have a go at Iran.
Seeing the Hezbollah as a branch of the Iranian state is clearly another bit of fantasy and spin. Would the Lebanese Shia die for Iran?! Heck NO!
Lebanon is another artificial state, created when the British-French colonialists were dividing the Levant amongst themselves. Its constitution is outdated and disenfranchises the Shia who are the biggest single grouping. What is wrong with one-man one -vote and the offices of state going to whoever gets the most votes?
Why is it OK for US and Europe and not for the Lebanese?!!
As usual, the West’s support for democracy in the Middle East does not stand up to actual democratic elections which threaten their colonial interests.. This was most recently demonstrated by the treatment of Hamas, but we Iranians saw it as far back as 1953 when the Americans, with the support of the British, deposed Iran’s democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq and supported the tyranny of the Shah’s regimes for the next quarter of a century with disastrous consequences that we are suffering even today.
As for the Israelis’ open love-in with Saudi / Jordanian / UAE / Egyptian governments that are now part of Condi Rice’s “axis of moderation”, they are, and have always been, part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The lack of democracy in the Middle East is due to the presence of these Western-sponsored tyrants that have stunted any political growth and maturity in their nations.
Posted by: Pacifist | January 24th, 2007 at 11:41 am | Report this commentin response to the comments made by the so called “pacifist”… controlling Iran’s nuclear power is essential for the world’s future and to maintain peace, how you can question that is beyond me..
The jews in the diaspora would love to return to Israel, however with the rise in support for middle eastern anti -zionism it is not safe for them to do so and while people like you continue to oppose a country tyring to protect itself the situation will never improve.
Posted by: sv | January 24th, 2007 at 1:13 pm | Report this commentIn response to the comments made by sv.
It is no good saying that controlling Iran’s nuclear power is ‘essential’. The question is whether there exists an effective strategy to achieve this end, whose risks are less than those of accepting an Iranian bomb. This question has to be decided in the light of a hard-headed assessment of the military, political, and economic realities.
What is not required are the kind of fantasies of easy military options which were purveyed, prior to the invasion of Iraq, by precisely the same people who are urging an attack on Iran: particularly as it is these people who are responsible for leaving American (and British) troops as hostage to Iranian counteraction. Moreover, optimistic assessments by Israeli Air Force generals clearly need to be treated with suspicion, since the attempt to destroy Hezbollah by bombing. This, as you will recall, left the myth of the invincibility of the Israeli military in shreds, and also degenerated into a campaign of indiscriminate terror bombing, which did untold damage to the credibility both of Israel and the United States.
As to the suggestion that jews in the diaspora would ‘love to return to Israel’ were it safe to do so, this is precisely what anti-semites have always said: that no jew’s first loyalty could ever be to the state in which he lived. As a non-jew very conscious of the great contributions by jews to the life of this country — also one much of whose own culture comes from secular jewish sources — I have never believed it. If I did believe it, obviously, I would be asking myself whether jews should be regarded as being as fit to play leading political roles as other inhabitants of these islands; or indeed, to be principal commentators on matters concerned with foreign affairs on leading British newspapers!
Posted by: David Habakkuk | January 24th, 2007 at 2:09 pm | Report this commentThe feedback on strategic thinking amongst Israeli experts may be reasonable in the limited context of SV’s worldview. Is it not too much to ask Israel et al to demonstrate leadership, vision and good nuclear citizenship on their own part?
Too many thoughtful people are just burned out and pray that they are far enough away to not be burned when these agendas of Tel Aviv, Washington, Tehran and Riyadh fail.
Posted by: C | January 24th, 2007 at 4:41 pm | Report this commentIn response to SV:
Controlling Israel’s continuous aggressiveness against its neighbots is what is essential for world peace.
The incredible one way attitude of Israel never does any wrong, is always the victim, etc etc…is sickening. How long do you people think you can play the only victims in the world? How many more people must die or live in slums to keep you exclusively safe?
ow you can question that or even deny it is beyond me..
Posted by: Armand | January 25th, 2007 at 7:48 am | Report this commentTo sv:
- We all did notice that you skipped the very basic question contained in the second paragraph of my post.
The answer, as you say, is beyond you because you take a one-sided,view of the world.
The following is a quote from Uri Lubrani, Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion’s special adviser, as mentioned in the book, “The Arabs in Israel” by Sabri Jiryas:-
“We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters.”
I think, since the days of Mr. Lubrani, the “project” has been widened to encompass the whole of the Middle East.
After all, how else can you justify the brazen insistence of the EU3 and the USrael (who pulled the security council’s strings) that Iran should not be allowed to do research in nuclear physics?
Presumably this is because they like to think that Iranians are only good-enough to be woodcutters and waiters too, whilst their oil and gas resources are taken cheaply.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 25th, 2007 at 8:57 am | Report this commentPacifist, while the Shia are the largest single group in Lebanon they are not a majority while the Siniora government is representative of the majority of Lebanese.
Shia are roughly a third, all the Christian factions about a third as well, Sunni about 20% and Druze 5%. Considering the higly fractured nature of Lebanese society any democratic government would look like the one they currently have. Western support for the Lebanese government is support for majority rule and democracy. Iranian/Syrian support for Hezbollah isn’t.
As for Iran, I’m not sure you appreciate the threat; Iran is shipping parts for IED bombs that kill US servicemen in Iraq, they armed Hezbollah in flagrant disregand of the wishes of the majority of Lebanese, they support the most radical and uncompromising Palestinian groups. Hopefully the Montazeri faction can steer them away from the brink.
Posted by: jvd70 | January 26th, 2007 at 11:50 am | Report this commentDear jvd70,
As you probably know, the Lebanese constitution dispenses the offices of state according to a faith-based formula that gives the presidency and the premiership to Christians and Sunni Muslims respectively and the ceremonial office of the speaker of the parliament to the Shia. In other words, the largest group get the least influence.
This is not just a case of yearning for office. The political structure meant that the economic resources were also very disproportionately allocated.
I think it was Robert Fisk who pointed out that only 1 percent of the Lebanese national budget was being allocated to the (mainly Shia) South of Lebanon in all the years between independence and 1979!
Despite their portrayal as fanatics, the Lebanese Shia and the Palestinians’ grievances are mainly economic. It is just more convenient for the colonialists and exploiters to paint everything in religious and confessional colours to avoid the real issues.
My argument is that Lebanon’s constitutional architecture was placed by the colonialists and why shouldn’t the Lebanese have a one-man, one-vote system like North America or Europe and the people with the largest vote get the highest offices?
This would not mean a Shia dominance, but that the Shia are brought to the fold and given their fair dues. Surely, for any state, a just and fair treatment of the citizens is the only correct way of ensuring long term stability and Lebanon is no exception.
Therefore, contrary to what you say, Western support for Seniora’s discredited government is simply a means of enforcing a colonial status quo whose time has passed. Furthermore, Iran and Syria’s support is not just for the Hezbollah. Have you forgotten that the most popular Christian faction is headed by Michel Aoun who is in alliance with Hezbollah and against the Seniora administration?
The fiction of Iranian-made IED’s in Iraq was first spun by the British more than a year ago. They could not prove it and subsequently shut up about it. Now the NeoCons have picked up the same unsubstantiated lies again.
And why is wrong for Iran to arm the Hezbollah, but not wrong for the US to arm Israel? Do you remember that the US rushed bunker-buster bombs to Israel right in the middle of the summer conflict last year (using British airports)?
You say arming the Hezbollah was in flagrant disregard of the wishes of the majority of the Lebanese. Again, what we saw last summer was that the Hezbollah were hailed as a Lebanese resistance to Israeli aggression by the majority of the Lebanese. The bitching came later when the Saudi and American Dollars started working their way to the right people’s bank accounts.
As for Palestine, if you are referring to Hamas as the “most radical and uncompromising group”, may I gently remind you that Hamas actually won a very convincing democratic majority. Surely, it is the West that has shown its true hostility to representative government in the Middle East by its treatment of Hamas?
Why is that the outright racist Avigdor Lieberman can join the Israeli cabinet, without the faintest disapproval of the West, but Hamas cannot govern, despite having won
handsomely?
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 26th, 2007 at 12:44 pm | Report this commentPacifist,
Your argument is that the west is ‘enforcing’ a ‘discredited’ ‘colonial status quo’ in the Siniora government. Those are subjective qualifications. Your entire argument hinges on your assumption that the Lebanese political constitution is both colonialist and that Lebanon is not a representative democracy (”one man one vote system”).
It isn’t colonialist since the Taif agreement of 1989 at which the Maronites lost their special status. It isn’t discredited (it’s a majority government supported by the UN), it isn’t enforced by the west (or Hezbollah would be disarmed per UN resolution). It isn’t a one man one vote system because political parties in Lebanon are mostly organized along ethnic lines and the Taif agreement was agreed upon to avoid further civil war; Taif is a carefully drafted agreement between all Lebanese minorities. It’s not an optimal democracy but letting go of the Taif agreement under pressure from antidemocratic forces would be anathema to Lebanese democracy.
You write “why shouldn’t the Lebanese have a one-man, one-vote system … and the people with the largest vote get the highest offices?”
If 33% of the population would vote for one party then that does not give that party a mandate to govern if the other 66% smaller parties were to form a coalition government. Lebanese democracy would ideally be a Dutch (not English) style democracy with direct representation in which a majority of parties would form a coalition governments; ‘people with the largest vote’ would not necessarily dominate.
Since Hezbollah’s war with Israel was not in the Shia let alone the Lebanese interest it is impossible to consider Hezbollah a responsible and democratic representative of the interests of the Lebanese Shia. Moreover, considering the timing of their attack, their funding and the weapons used, it is more realistic to consider Hezbollah a mostly Iranian proxy army that has built a support base with foreign funds, foreign ideology and with force of arms. Perhaps Hezbollah thought a war against Israel would rally the majority of the nation behind them. They were wrong and now they are trying to rally the nation behind them by staging a PR copy of the Georgian / Ukrainian revolution (tents and all). It appears to me they want to bury Lebanese democracy and after last summer this current attempt appears thoroughly disingenuous.
You write: if you are referring to Hamas as the “most radical and uncompromising group”, may I gently remind you that Hamas actually won a very convincing democratic majority.
So did the NSDAP/DNVP coalition during the March, 1933 German reichstag elections. Being a radical and uncompromising group doesn’t mean one cannot win elections and it certainly doesn’t mean it brings international legitimacy to a racist agenda.
You write: “The fiction of Iranian-made IED’s in Iraq was first spun by the British more than a year ago. They could not prove it and subsequently shut up about it. Now the NeoCons have picked up the same unsubstantiated lies again.”
Incorrect, the UK continues to state this (search google news). The information is disseminated by US Army intelligence and taken very seriously by the leadership of the democratic party as well. I’m not sure why you want to rethorically dismiss intelligence against Iran as being neoconservative but you certainly tend to spin it that way.
Posted by: jvd70 | January 30th, 2007 at 4:43 pm | Report this comment