It seems that the Israeli government has finally decided to
educate its own population. About time!
When the words of Moshe Ya’alon sound as if they were part of my blog it
means things are moving fast…
It is interesting to note that even Ari Shavit,
whom I respect very much, does not seem to understand why Iran is so different from the USSR during the
Cold War. And Ari Shavit is not alone. Most of US and Israeli journalists just do not get it.
They do not get it for the simple reason because they have not done their
homework on Islam in general and Shia eschatology in particular. Fortunately
for Israel
and the world, the Israeli government has.
Excerpts:
Moshe
“Bogie” Ya’alon, could a war erupt this year?
“I hope not. I hope that in regard to Iran it will be possible to say, as
the old saw goes, that the work of the just is done by others. But obviously we
are preparing for every possibility. If I am not for myself, who will be for
me?”
If you had to provide a comprehensive intelligence assessment
today, would you say that the probability of a war in the year ahead is
negligible, low, middling or high?
“The probability of an initiated attack on Israel is low.
I do not see an Arab coalition armed from head to foot deploying on our borders
− not this year, not in the year after and not in the foreseeable future.
Despite the trend toward Islamization in the Middle East,
we enjoy security and relative quiet along the borders. But the No. 1 challenge
is that of Iran.
If anyone attacks Iran, it’s
clear that Iran
will take action against us. If anyone, no matter who, decides to take military
action against Iran’s
nuclear project, there is a high probability that Iran
will react against us, too, and will fire missiles at Israel. There
is also a high probability that Hezbollah and Islamist elements in the Gaza
Strip will operate against us. That possibility exists, and it’s with a view to
that possibility that we have to deploy.”
What the vice premier is telling me is that we are close to
the moment of truth regarding Iran.
“Definitely. When I was director of Military Intelligence, in the
1990s, Iran
did not possess one kilogram of enriched uranium. Today it has 6,300 kilograms of
uranium enriched to a level of 3.5 percent and about 150 kilograms
enriched to a level of 20 percent. When I was chief of staff, in the first
decade of this century, Iran
had a few hundred centrifuges, most of which were substandard.
“At present there are about 10,000 centrifuges in Natanz and in
Kom, which are enriching about eight kilograms of uranium a day. Since this
government took office in 2009, the number of centrifuges in Iran has almost
doubled and the amount of enriched uranium has increased sixfold. The meaning
of these data is that Iran
already today has enough enriched uranium to manufacture five atomic bombs. If Iran is not
stopped, within a year it will have enough uranium for seven or eight atomic
bombs.
“In addition, the Iranians apparently possess a weapons development
system which they are hiding from the international supervisory apparatus. The
Iranians also have 400 missiles of different types, which can reach the whole area
of Israel and certain parts
of Europe. Those missiles were built from the
outset with the ability to carry nuclear warheads. So the picture is clear.
Five years ago, even three years ago, Iran was not within the zone of the
nuclear threshold. Today it is. Before our eyes Iran is becoming a
nuclear-threshold power.”
But to build a nuclear bomb Iran needs uranium enriched to a
level of 90 percent and above. At the moment it is still not there.
“True, but if Iran
goes confrontational and goes nuclear, it has the capability to enrich uranium
to above 90 percent within two or three months. Even if it does not build a
standard nuclear bomb, within less than six months it will be in possession of
at least one primitive nuclear device: a dirty bomb.”
If so, maybe it’s already too late. The Iranians won and we
lost and we have to resign ourselves to Iran’s being in possession of
nuclear weapons in the near future.
“Absolutely not. It will be disastrous if we or the
international community become resigned to the idea of a nuclear Iran. The regime of the ayatollahs is
apocalyptic-messianic in character. It poses a
challenge to Western culture and to the world order. Its scale of values and
its religious beliefs are different, and its ambition is to foist them on everyone. Accordingly, it is an obligation to
prevent this nonconventional regime from acquiring nonconventional weapons.
Neither we nor the West is at liberty to accept an Iranian nuclear bomb. What I am telling you is not rhetoric and
it is not propaganda. A nuclear Iran
is a true threat to world peace.”
But you yourself are telling me that the Iranians have
already crossed most of the red lines. They have swept past the points of no
return. Doesn’t that mean that we are now facing the cruel dilemma of bomb or be bombed? [The Ha'aretz English translation has 'bomb or bombing' which is confusing]
“We are not there yet. I hope we will not get there. The
international community can still act aggressively and with determination.
Other developments are also feasible. But if the question is bomb or be bombed,
the answer is clear: bomb. [The Ha'aretz English translation has 'bomb or bombing' which is confusing]
The answer is clear to you but not to me. We survived the
Cold War. We also
survived the nuclearization of Pakistan
and North Korea.
Israel is said to possess strategic capability that is able to
create decisive deterrence against Iran. Would it not be right to say
that just as Europe lived with the Soviet bomb, we will be able to live in the
future with the Shiite bomb?
“No and no and again no. The first answer to your question is that
if Iran goes nuclear, four
or five more countries in the Middle East are
liable to go nuclear, too. Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, Turkey, Jordan
and other Arab states will say that if Iran has a bomb they also need a
bomb. The result will be a nuclear Middle East.
A nuclear Middle East will not be stable and
therefore the world will not be stable. Iranian nuclearization will bring in
its wake nuclear chaos.
“The second answer to your question is that a nuclear umbrella will
allow Iran
to achieve regional hegemony. The Gulf states,
finding themselves under that umbrella, will ask themselves which they prefer:
distant Washington or nearby Tehran. In my view, they will opt for nearby Tehran. A nuclear Iran is liable to take control of the energy
sources in the Persian Gulf and of a very
large slice of the world’s oil supply. That will have far-reaching
international implications. But a nuclear Iran
will also challenge Israel
and bring about a series of brutal conventional confrontations on our borders.
That will have serious consequences for Israel.
“The third answer
to your question is that one day the Iranian regime is liable to use its
nuclear capability. That does
not mean that the day after the Iranians acquire a bomb they will load it on a
plane or a missile and drop it on a Western city. But there is a danger of the
use of nuclear weapons by means of proxies. A terrorist organization could
smuggle a dirty bomb into the port of New York or the port
of London or the port of Haifa.
I also do not rule out the possibility of the direct use of nuclear weapons by
means of missiles. That risk is low, but it exists. That extreme scenario is
not impossible.”
But the Iranians are rational, and the use of nuclear weapons
is an irrational act. Like the Soviets, they will never do that.
“A Western individual observing the fantastic ambitions of the
Iranian leadership scoffs: ‘What do they think, that they will Islamize us?’
The surprising answer is: Yes, they think they will Islamize us: The ambition
of the present regime in Tehran
is for the Western world to become Muslim at the end of a lengthy process. Accordingly, we have to understand that
their rationality is completely different from our rationality. Their concepts
are different and their considerations are different. They are completely
unlike the former Soviet Union. They are not
even like Pakistan or North Korea. If Iran enjoys a nuclear umbrella and
the feeling of strength of a nuclear power, there is no knowing how it will
behave. It will be impossible to accommodate a nuclear Iran and it
will be impossible to attain stability. The consequences of a nuclear Iran will be catastrophic.”
Bombing too will have catastrophic consequences: a regional
war, a religious war, thousands of civilians killed.
“Anyone who has experienced war, as I have, does not want war. War
is a dire event. But the question is: What is the alternative? What is the
other option to war? I told you once and will tell you again: If it is bomb or
bombing, from my point of view it is bombing. True, bombing will have a price.
We must not underestimate or overestimate that price. We have to assume that Israel will be
attacked by Iranian missiles, many of which will be intercepted by the Arrow
system. We have to assume that Hezbollah will join the confrontation and fire
thousands of rockets at us. Rockets will also be fired from the Gaza Strip. The
probability of Syria
entering the fray is low, but we have to deploy for that possibility, too. I am
not saying it will be easy. But when you pit all of that against the
alternative of a nuclear Iran,
there is no hesitation at all. It is preferable to pay the steep price of war
than to allow Iran
to acquire military nuclear capability. That’s as clear as day, as far as I am
concerned.”
How many casualties will we have? Hundreds? Thousands?
“I cannot estimate how many will be killed, but I suggest that we
not terrify ourselves. Every person killed is great sorrow. But we have to be
ready to pay the price that is required so that Iran does not go nuclear. Again: I
hope it does not come to that. I hope that it will be done by others. In the
Iranians’ eyes, Israel is
only the Little Satan, and the United
States is the Great Satan. But as I told
you: If I am not for myself, who will be for me? “
Hezbollah can hit every place in Israel today: population
centers, army bases, strategic targets. Doesn’t the scenario of a massive
missile attack make you lose sleep?
“My assessment is that Hezbollah will enter the fray. But what
happened in the Second Lebanon War will not be repeated. The way to stop the
rockets is to exact from the other side a price that will oblige it to ask for
a cease-fire. We have the ability to hit Hezbollah with 150 times the
explosives that it can hit us with. We can also do it a lot more accurately. If
we are attacked from inside Lebanon,
the government of Lebanon
will bear very great responsibility.”
You answered my question about the home front. But what about
the argument that bombing will spark a permanent religious war and will unify
the Iranian people around the regime? What about the argument that bombing will
in fact cause the collapse of the sanctions and allow Iran to go
confrontational and hurtle openly toward nuclear capability?
“First things first and last things last. In regard to a religious
war, isn’t the regime in Iran
waging a religious war against us today? In regard to the people unifying
behind the regime: I do not accept that. I think that an operation could even
destabilize the regime. In my estimation, 70 percent of the Iranians will be
happy to be rid of the regime of the ayatollahs.
“Let me reply in greater detail to the argument that Iran will
hurtle toward nuclearization on the day after the bombing. Those who focus the
debate on the narrow technological aspect of the problem can argue that all that
will be achieved is a delay of a year or two, not much more. If so, they will
say, ‘What did we accomplish? What did we gain?’ But the question is far
broader. One of the important elements here is to convince the Iranian regime
that the West is determined to prevent its acquisition of nuclear capability.
And what demonstrates greater determination than the use of force?
“Therefore, it is wrong for us to view a military operation and its
results only from an engineering point of view. I want to remind you that in
the discussions of the security cabinet before the Israeli attack on [the
nuclear reactor in] Iraq,
the experts claimed that Saddam Hussein would acquire a new reactor with a
year. They were right from the engineering aspect but mistaken historically. If
Iran
does go confrontational and tries openly to manufacture nuclear weapons, it
will find itself in a head-on confrontation with the international community.
The president of the United States
has undertaken that Iran
will not be a nuclear power. If Iran
defies him directly, it will have to deal with him and will embark upon a
collision course with the West.”
But the Americans are with us. The Americans will rescue us.
Why jump in head-first?
“There is agreement between the United States and us on the goal,
and agreement on intelligence and close cooperation. But we are in disagreement about the red
line. For the Americans, the red line is an order by [Ayatollah] Khamenei to
build a nuclear bomb. For us, the red line is Iranian ability to build a nuclear
bomb.
“We do not accept the American approach for three reasons. First,
because it implies that Iran
can be a threshold-power which, as long as it does not manufacture nuclear
weapons in practice is allowed to possess the ability to manufacture them.
Second, because in our assessment there is no certainty that it will be
possible to intercept in time the precious report that Khamenei finally gave
the order to build a bomb . Third, there is a disparity between the sense of
threat and urgency in Jerusalem and the sense of
threat and urgency in Washington.”
Yet, Israel
is not believed either internationally or domestically. The feeling is that Israel is
crying wolf and playing a sophisticated game of ‘Hold me back.’
“Let me say one thing to you in English, because it is very
important for English speakers to understand it: ‘We are not bluffing.’ If the political-economic pressure is played out and the other
alternatives are played out, and Iran continues to hurtle toward a
bomb, decisions will have to be made.”
Is there a danger that the Iranian crisis will reach its peak
already in the year ahead?
“There was a time when we talked about a decade. Afterward we
talked about years. Now we are
talking about months. It is
possible that the sanctions will suddenly work. But presently we are in a
situation that necessitates a daily check. I am not exaggerating: daily. From
our point of view, Iranian ability to manufacture nuclear weapons is a sword
held over our throat. The sword is getting closer and closer. Under no
circumstances will Israel
agree to let the sword touch its throat.”
