‘We are defeating ISIS, but leaving Iran, Russia and their friends in stronger position’.
WASHINGTON – Israel should be allowed to buy bunker-buster bombs – with certain restrictions – to deter Iran, former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden told The Jerusalem Post.
“I’ve talked about that thought…I can imagine circumstances where the US might want to take steps to convince Iran of its seriousness,” he said in a recent interview in his Washington office, in which he did not reject the idea out of hand when questioned. “Allowing Israel to purchase them [bunker-busters] in gradations, training on them, but keeping them here” in the US.
In a worst-case scenario – to prevent Iran bringing out a nuclear weapon – giving Israel bunker-buster bombs could allow it to take out underground aspects of the program and perhaps deter Iran from trying to break out with such a weapon.
Hayden’s statement on the issue displayed significant nuance.
On one hand, his qualified support of selling Israel the game-changing weapons – which can destroy even deep underground bunkers and which the US has refused to sell Israel to date – is a substantial statement.
It is an acknowledgment by one of the US’s top former intelligence officials, one who has sized up the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon, post-nuclear deal, and who thinks that at some point the US may want Israel to have an ability it thought too risky to provide until now.
On the other hand, the former CIA director still wanted to maintain a check on Israeli use, by not yet physically delivering the weapons to Israel.
He explained that Israel might otherwise “be more aggressive and pull us into something we do not want to be pulled into.” His plan would maintain US control over the weapon’s use, even as it would signal the reality to Iran of a potential Israeli air strike.
By no means does this forward thinking mean Hayden has no opinion about US President Donald Trump’s approach in decertifying the Iran nuclear deal or other decisions of his that affect the Middle East.
To help visualize Trump’s decertification strategy, Hayden drew a diagram of three boxes summarizing three Iran-related threats, labeling them “nuclear now,” “nuclear tomorrow” and “all else.”
The former spy chief said that Trump’s decertification might risk “making a big deal about the nuclear now, but missing the boat about the other two things.”
In other words, if Trump were not so stuck on the “nuclear now,” then “maybe Europe might be more serious about nuclear tomorrow,” and the West could avoid “freeing up Iran about everything else” – particularly its terrorism across the Middle East.
Hayden’s perspective on the Iran nuclear agreement is highly nuanced.
“Leave it there. It is what you’ve got.
I was never a fan of the deal, but we’ve got the deal. It has had some positive effects. But there are a whole bunch of other things Iran is doing that we have quite legitimate concerns about.
I do criticize Obama for not pushing back harder about other issues,” he said.
Hayden was concerned that Trump would completely scrap the accord, but said it appeared, ultimately, that Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, along with US armed forces chief Gen.
Joseph Dunford Jr., convinced him to “leave the nuclear deal alone” and pass the issue on to Congress.
“But the president wanted to make a speech – so he made a speech,” said Hayden, a glimmer in his eye in his typical satirical manner.
One risk of Trump’s decertification that he noted: “The president may set in motion events giving more control to Congress, Europe or even Iran, which might lead to dynamics where US interests are in a less good place.”
Connecting some of his comments to Mattis, Hayden said another longer- term risk if Trump or Congress were to completely scrap the deal is that it would hurt the ability of the US to reach complex deals in the future.
“The word of the US must mean something. If Iran is not in material breach… and Iran is not in material breach… I agree with [ex-IDF intelligence chief] Amos Yadlin that the deal is so good, why would the Iranians cheat?… then we should stay in the deal,” while simultaneously trying to raise global pressure on Iran’s ballistic missile and terrorist activities in parallel.
Hayden complimented Trump, saying it was “quite remarkable that he got [US Sen.] Tom Cotton’s agreement not to do anything dramatic for a while” in Congress so that the accord is not in immediate danger.
He also reiterated his support for pressuring Iran on a variety of nuclear and nonnuclear issues, as well as strengthening the nuclear inspections regime to have more “anytime, anywhere” authority, including the inspection of Iranian military facilities to which the International Atomic Energy Agency has had little access.
Hayden responded to comments made to the Post by former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton, in which he said that as soon as the deal expires – or even before – Iran can simply get Pyongyang to transfer its ICBM-ready nuclear technology, thereby giving Iran the wherewithal to leap forward in its nuclear abilities.
Hayden said, “This is all true, but it is not a prima facie case to walk out of the deal. I get Bolton’s argument, but he is very skilled at painting the darkest picture.”
Regarding Syria, Hayden said the victory over ISIS in Raqqa was good, but that Hezbollah-Iranian-Alawite- Russian forces were piggybacking on wins by the US and its allies “to fill space in east Syria, and we seem to be indifferent to that.”
Echoing warnings by top Israeli officials about Trump’s Syria policy, he said the US administration’s indifference seemed to be “allowing not just a Shi’a arc metaphorically, but also physically on the ground [to develop from Iran through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon],” adding, “This is very important.”
Hayden elaborated: “As Raqqa falls, two American-trained armies are fighting each other in Kirkuk [the Kurds against the Shi’ites]. One of them has a very strong Iranian mobile presence. Not that this is easy [to deal with]. There are no good options. But I do not see an adequate sense of concern about those developments. We are defeating ISIS, but leaving Iran, Russia and friends in a much stronger position.”
Honing in on the intelligence community debate about whether new cyber and data mining tools or traditional human spying is more important in the new technology age, he said, “there are different intelligence inputs. All of it is important. The best intelligence is almost always produced by a combination of all of them.”
He added, “I am fearful we will become captives to big data, rather than its masters. Somethings that are important cannot be counted. I recommend to the intelligence community to master big data, but do not forget that history, culture and context really matter.”
Regarding US and Israeli intelligence cooperation, he said, “different countries have different strengths in the enterprise. The US technology is very strong. Our Israeli friends have other strengths, that in combination, make us better off.”
Wanting to show respect to a fellow CIA director, Hayden did not want to make many comments about debates relating to current CIA Director Mike Pompeo’s running of the CIA.
However, he did say that, “the agency kind of exhaled when Pompeo was selected. One element they are very happy about is that he has secured a seat at the table for the agency in Trump administration deliberations.”
@ Bear Klein:
“Offense is the best weapon”………The Romans used to say that “If you want peace, prepare for war..” Just as true today as thousands of years ago.
@ Bear Klein:
BINGO…In another post somewhere yesterday, I asked what had happened to the Israeli talent for preemptive strikes…
@ Edgar G.:
Lots of ways to attack Hezis from the ground, sea, air.
Israeli air power for example can shoot ten different missiles to ten targets simultaneously. If you fly in a formation of 24 fighter jets that is 240 targets at one time. You can do wave after of accurate firing. We also now have GPS targeted artillery, so it is as accurate as the planes and can shoot fairly long distances.
I would advocate not waiting for them to start military action but do a preemptive attack. Offense is the best defense.
@ Bear Klein:
Because of your post I just now read about it. It’s the most complicated piece of reading I’ve ever done, and not being a physicist or even an electrical engineer, although I understood much of the concept, the grasp of the whole geschichte was straining my comprehension. So I understand your post much better now. Thanks.
I agree
with your add; about Hezbollah. Especially if they really go to war. if they were likely to cower in their bunkers they could be contained with a holding force, until their turn came around..
Just a thing that’s always puzzled me. Why would the IDF not gather at night at Kiryat Shemona and cut across to the Sea taking the Hez. fortifications in the rear and easily roll them up towards the boderr..well, more easily.
@ Edgar G.:
EMP have been discussed in theory in various publications. Whether Israel has a large scale non-nuclear EMP device I do not know and if Israel did it would be a state secret.
A single nuclear EMP over Iran would fry all electronics and electrical grids that are turned in all of Iran and some of the Persian Gulf Region. Might not be much to mop up afterwards. If Israel planned on doing this it would make sense to destroy the Hezis military capabilities first.
@ Bear Klein:
Maybe they could casually drop a couple of EMP bombs to soften the Iranians up. and then their bunker busters would work better, because the mamzerim would not be able to guard against them and their massive underground hardened steel anti-blast doors wouldn’t close.(assuming they were open).
Israel should have the exact location of many or all of the unmentioned Military Installations where the real nuclear work is going on, and a pinpoint aim through an entrance might give them a hearty Mazel Tov. They could do the same against the Iranian Govt, shelters. And the mountain top that their Grand Hoojah sits on.
Maybe just a dream……
Israel has its own designed bunker busting bombs. They are not as good as the USA’s. Israel has acquired bunker busting bombs from the USA in the past and are in inventory unless somehow they were resold (unlikely).
There are weapons at Israel’s disposal that could make significant deterrence to Iran. They must believe Israel would use these weapons. Then Israel also keeps a secret weapon or two around without it being known to anyone.
@ ArnoldHarris:
I totally agree with you, but….. Israel is well known for procrastination, and I’m afraid the original spirit of the first Israelis has not come down to their successors. They could have-should have already built 10 bunker busters of their own design, and better than the American model for specially needed conditions….but every so often, a massive lack of the simplest vital item or procedure is found, and they they start wangling over the budget to pay for it, trying to shove it off to another govt. dept. The knife has to be at their throat before the contentious parties stop playing politics, and become deathly serious.
If Israel does not already have some top quality bunker busters, and have the targets already outlined in red on the maps, I’m afraid it will be too late. What will they do if Hezbollah in Lebanon suddenly releases 10-20-30-40-50,000 rockets at the same time, and Iran fires 5 ballistic missiles. I believe in pre-emptive strikes…at least for Israel, which cannot, must never suffer a first strike.
The facts at hand impel me to suggest that Israel should design and build their own deep-penetration bunker buster bombs. I recall that 50 years ago, Israel’s growing military-industrial complex designed and built their own concrete runway dibber bombs, which they used to destroy on the ground the fighters and bombers of the air forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq.
Now, more than 50 years later, Israel must be assumed to have available all the wherewithal to build for the military forces of the Jewish state all the specialized weaponry needed to put out of business any targets such as those which threaten Israel with nuclear destruction.
In such situations, he who shoots first survives he who does not.
Arnold Harris, Outspeaker
After taking over Iraq and Syria, I expect the Turks and Iranians to be so big-headed that they will not be able to resist attacking Israel. They do not need nuclear weapons for this. Let me see…
Population:
Iran 78,200,000; Turkey 79,800,000; Syria 17,100,000
Israel 8,200,000
Nuclear weapons:
Iran, etc.: unknown (Turkey still has 60 US nukes at its base)
Israel: 200 warheads
Military budget ($billion):
Iran 12.3; Turkey 18.2; Syria 3.3
Israel: 17.8
Available personnel:
Iran 23,600,000; Turkey 21,100,000; Syria 11,600,000
Israel: 1,800,000
Tanks:
Iran 2,570; Turkey 2,400; Syria 4,600
Israel: 4,170
Aircraft:
Iran: 883; Turkey: 1,351; Syria: 706
Israel: 789
Warships:
Iran: 406; Turkey: 145; Syria: 64
Israel: 74
That’s just a little snapshot. Of course, there is more involved than these numbers. Even so, Iran and Turkey have a large enough numerical advantage that,mixed with a false sense of invincibility, political and economic trouble at home and endless rhetoric, will make it virtually impossible for them NOT to attack.
When should Israel strike? When the Turkish and/or Iranian tanks are poised to take the Golan? When they really, really, really suspect the Iranians have nuclear tipped rockets? This business is getting down to the wire.
This stood out for me..” The deal is so good so why should Iran want to cheat”…. This sounds like a simpleton, or some Laurel and Hardy double-talk.
The inspection teams are NOT ALLOWED into any of the Military Installations, have to give 27 days notice before inspection, and can only go wherever they are brought. Not to forget the ample evidence being uncovered all the time about other Iranian behaviour which is totally against the Agreement. They truthfully have NO IDEA what the Iranians are, or are not soing as regards the Agreement.
No I made a mistake mentioning Laurel and Hardy..I was wrong, they are far more sensible in their most foolish skit than this .”…chacham…….”,
This stood out for me..” The deal is so good so why should Iran want to cheat”…. THis sounds like a hlf with talkng or some Laurel and Hardy double-talk.
The inspection teams are NOT ALLOWED into any of the Military Installations, have to give 27 days notice before inspection, and can only go wherever they are brought. Not to forget the ample evidence being uncovered all the time about other Iranian behaviour which is totally against the Agreement.
No I made a mistake mentioning Laurel and Hardy..I was wrong, they are far more sensible in their most foolish skit than this .”…chacham…….”,