“There is no existential threat to Israel from anybody in the world, including the Iranians, as it has adequate responses to any threat that the Iranians pose,” a former director of Israel’s national intelligence agency said on Wednesday, asserting that the Jewish state’s existence is “assured for the next 1,000 years.”
Ex-Mossad chief Efraim Halevy made this claim during an interview with Al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan, who asked him whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other members of the government were “lying” when they repeatedly suggested that the nuclear deal with Tehran imperiled Israel’s survival.
“They’re not lying,” Halevy answered. “They think differently than I think.”
When Hasan challenged him, saying, “Yours is a minority view,” Halevy shot back: “I’m not sure whether it’s a minority or a majority view. I know many people in the establishment who believe what I’m saying – that we have sufficient capability to assure our existence. But why is fear being used as a tool to assure Israel’s support of one side or another? This, unfortunately, goes back to our recent history of the last 100 years, because those who quote the existential threat also go back to the Holocaust, and I believe there is no comparison between the Holocaust and what is happening now. Because in the Holocaust, we were defenseless. And today, we are the strongest military power in the Middle East.”
Halevy agreed “to some extent” with the suggestion that vociferous opposition to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was for internal political consumption. Since the deal was signed, he said, “Look how silent most of the Israeli leaders are on Iran. Suddenly, it’s almost a deafening silence. Whereas before the deal was signed, almost every day, people were railing against it and so forth, suddenly, the tone has changed. And suddenly, it’s possible for the Israeli prime minister to go to Moscow, and to talk to the Russian president, at the same time that the Iranians are coming to Moscow. And they are now probably one of the biggest allies of the Russians in the Middle East.”
Grilled about Israel’s own nuclear program, and whether it is fair for Israel to have nuclear weapons, but not for Iran to have them, Halevy remained tight-lipped. “If you are asking me whether Israel has nuclear weapons, my answer is that I don’t know.”
Hasan was incredulous and continued to belabor the point – questioning whether it was possible that someone who headed the Mossad would not have been informed about whether his country possessed nukes.
“First of all, I don’t have to disclose [what I was told]. Secondly, in order to be head of Mossad, I don’t have to be a person who knows whether we have nukes or not,” Halevy said.
“Do you believe Israel has nukes?” Hasan asked, to which Halevy replied: “It’s not a question of belief. I don’t deal in beliefs. I believe that the question of whether Israel does or does not have nuclear capabilities is a question which Israel has decided not to address. And I think we are in our rights not to address it.”
Hasan then pressed Halevy about what he would think if a former chief of Iranian intelligence said something similar about his country’s nuclear ambitions, and whether it would be his right not to address the question.
“Yes, it’s his right,” said Halevy, “because we know now that Iran does have it and it’s a matter of public knowledge. We don’t have to ask him the question.”
“It’s a matter of public knowledge about Israel’s nuclear program,” Hasan said.
“I don’t think that the same applies to Israel and Iran,” Halevy responded, adding that “if there is a government which threatens the destruction of a state in the world, then I think it is incumbent upon the world to take that state to task, and see to it that it does not have the capability to destroy Israel.”
Halevy, who was born in London and immigrated to Israel in 1948, was the ninth director of the Mossad, during the 1960s. He is credited with being instrumental in the Israel-Jordan peace treaty, signed in 1994.
In July 2015, after the JCPOA was announced, Halevy told Israel’s Channel 2: “In this deal there are a number of elements that are very good for the state of Israel. There are less good elements, but it is not an agreement that is entirely bad. There are problems with the inspections. There is the problem that after 10-15 years, there is the option for Iran to make a nuclear bomb… But in a situation where it is impossible to separate Iran from a nuclear weapon, inasmuch as Iran refuses to give up on all of its capabilities, they reached an agreement that facilitates other kinds of options, that yielded a period of time in which it is possible to create a different atmosphere in the Middle East.”
While Iranian leaders and much of her population may dream of Israel vanishing in a puff of smoke, Israel and her supporters must act according the principles that Iran is long-term, intelligent and disciplined.
First this means that in the near term Iran and her proxies will not embark on serious aggression against Israel, as Iran is not yet ready to take on Israel. If Iran “behaves” itself for the next 5-10 to years this is not proof of Iranian moderation or the benefits of the Iran sellout, as unfortunately leftist parties in Israel and the Diaspora will claim, but simply the Iranians carefully and patiently building up their ability to damage Israel as well as protect itself from retaliation. [One possible exception is that Hizbollah provokes a war with Israel to cause a Security Council resolution forcing Israel to surrender Yehuda and Shomron, that the Obama administration will not veto. The purpose of this war is not to seriously harm Israel but to force Israel out of Yehuda and Shomron – see point three, below.]
Second that periodically Iran, through her terrorist proxies, will attempt to soften up Israel and demoralize the Israeli population, though following point one, the Iranians will not seriously pursue this avenue for a number of years.
Third, it is absolutely essential that Israel retain Yehuda and Shomron. Yehuda and Shomron, towering over most of Israel’s population and industry, is the very best place for Iran (through its proxies) to launch missiles at Israel as the missiles will need limited range and sophistication and thus will be cheap to provide in super massive quantities. It is prudent and necessary to assume that if Israel relinquishes control over Yehuda and Shomron, the Iranians through their terrorist proxies will quickly move to take over these areas. The flip side of this point is that as long as Israel does retain Yehuda and Shomron it is a disincentive for Iran (through proxies) to assert more than token aggression, as the Iranians will much prefer to have its missiles surrounding Israel before embarking on a serious attack.
Fourth, the Iranian war against Israel will be conventional.
Fifth, that the war will actually be between Israel and Hamas and Hizbollah, and that Iran will intervene solely to protect the people of Gaza, Lebanon and heaven forbid the “West Bank” from “Israeli aggression”, and,
Finally that the Iranian objective of the war is to damage Israel to the point that the peace terms to end the fighting call for a bi-national state of its “citizens”, and the limitation or ending of the IDF, with Israel’s security to be “guaranteed” by some regional security force. The kill will then take place quietly over the ensuing years.
Unlike the “rational behavior” theory ascribed to Iran, which has Iran doing nothing to eliminate Israel, or the suicidal nuclear war theory, this scenario both achieves the deep-rooted and heartfelt Iranian objectives of eliminating Israel and achieving Shia supremacy in the Islamic world, while doing so at little or no cost to Iran. To the extent that Iran develops nuclear weapons it will be to use them as a threat and deterrent rather than as the actual vector of destruction, which as noted above, will be a conventional war between Israel and Iran’s terrorist proxies that starts as a skirmish and escalates into a full-blown but conventional war.
Israel’s successful defense against this scenario has three main elements. One: not to be suckered into complacency by a lack of Iranian aggression over the next several years to a decade. Two: Retain Yehuda and Shomron, and make this an absolute priority. Three: continue to robustly develop missile defenses.
bernard ross Said:
Whose’s yawl. Look on FXN , there is a huge purple blob over the county seat of Hondo, TX.. Can BS float???
honeybee Said:
sez me 🙂
@ bernard ross:
Says yawl !!!!!!!!!!
honeybee Said:
NO, speculation is what scientists do when observing facts and inducing theories regarding those facts….. what he did was pure bullshiite.
bernard ross Said:
Speculation !!!!!!!!!!!
the author gave NOT ONE SHRED of supporting evidence for his ludicrous argument… he expects us to beleive him on faith.
What about defending against a first strike, there are no guarantees of preventing that….. plus the 1000 year guarantee is even more ludicrous.
What is his “adequate response” to a first strike by Iran which removes Iran as an existential threat? He says nothing as to what it is….. an “adequate response” must be a prevention of the event occurring…. and as he has not shown us that this is possible he is a loony tune babbling away. Is he saying they are incapable of developing nukes and delivering them, is he saying the anti missile strategy is 100% reliable…… what is he actually saying…. beyond nothing?
Perhaps its best that he no longer has any input into evaluating reality for Israel…. considering this laughable submission.
I have summarized primary-information about Halevy, published recently in the Jewish Exponent.
He was complicit – along with Dennis Ross – in holding the “Camp David II” event, despite awareness that it was a set-up for a give-away to the Palestinian Arabs.
I questioned him directly during a trip to Israel sponsored by the American Jewish Committee, a bit more than a decade ago.
He acknowledged awareness of Arafat’s intransigence, but then he blamed Dennis Ross for pushing for Clinton to proceed.
http://www.jewishexponent.com/opinion/2016/04/why-dennis-ross-pushed-for-a-doomed-camp-david-ii-the-untold-story