“A shrewd person sees trouble coming and avoids it; The ignorant walk right into it and pay the price.” King Solomon son of King David
Several countries of the Middle East have seen dramatic changes in the last two years; this has changed the strategic environment of Israel. On April 28, 2013, the Jerusalem Post organized a full day conference in New York attended by people of Jewish faith from all over the world in which representatives of Israeli strategic community from different backgrounds expressed their views about Israel’s security and economic challenges. It was quite an impressive gathering and speakers included representatives from political, military, intelligence and economic segments of Israeli society.
A brief review of the career of the main speakers will help in understanding the current thought process of Israeli strategic community. The cast included:
- Ehud Olmert – he was prime minister of Israel from 2006 to 2009.
- Yuval Steinitz – International Affairs Minister (this ministry was formed by amalgamation of Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Ministry of Intelligence).
- Meir Dagan – he was head of Mossad from 2002 to 2010 and was instrumental in conceiving and conducting some covert operations against Iranian nuclear targets (he has lost weight due to his recent liver transplant surgery but his mind is even clearer than before).
- Major General ® Amos Yadlin – a former ace pilot who was one of the members of eight pilot squad that successfully attacked the Osirak nuclear plant near Baghdad in June 1981, code named Operation Opera. He commanded several air bases and became the first air force officer to head Aman; Israeli Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) from 2006-2010. He is now director of Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University.
- Lieutenant General ® Gabi Ashkenazi – he was Chief of Staff (COS) of Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) from 2007 to 2011. In this capacity he was instrumental in planning and training for the herculean task of possible attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.
- Uzi Arad – he served a twenty five year career at Mossad and his final assignment was head of intelligence and analysis division there. Later, he served as National Security Advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He now heads the Institute for Defence Studies in Tel Aviv.
Persian Puzzle
“What percolates out of the jug is what’s inside it.” A Persian proverb
It is very clear that the Iranian nuclear program is on the top of the problem list crafted by Israel. They have concluded that a nuclear Iran will be a game changer in Middle East. There are several aspects of this threat as viewed by Israelis and first and foremost is direct threat to the safety and security of Israel in view of some very irresponsible and highly inflammatory rhetoric coming from the Iranian leadership. Second, a nuclear Iran will be emboldened to move some of its Middle Eastern chess pieces i.e. Hezbollah more aggressively that will have a direct impact on Israel’s security. Third, a nuclear Iran will change the balance of power in the region and open the door for further nuclear proliferation. Two regional heavy weights, Saudi Arabia and Turkey will go for their own nuclear ambitions to join the elite club. Saudi Arabia does not have the technological and human resources or the appropriate infrastructure, therefore they will try to buy the ‘crown jewels’ off the shelf. Their close relationship with Pakistan and severe economic problems of the later creates a dangerous possibility that is better left unsaid. Turkey may attempt to embark on its own ‘nuclear journey’ as many observers feel that the current Turkish leadership may have ‘neo-Ottoman’ imperial dreams.
Some in the Israeli strategic community are of the view that Iran’s strategy is to reach its nuclear goal through the ‘safest’ route rather than the ‘quickest’ route. I tend to agree with this view as Tehran may have concluded that by taking the fastest route, they may incur unacceptable risks and jeopardize the whole adventure. They may have opted for the ‘safest route’ and with this in mind they decided to continue negotiations with the sole objective of simply dragging the process with the hope that internal dissension among the coalition of Israel, United States, European Union and Arab countries led by Saudi Arabia will prevent any concrete and credible military threat against their nuclear facilities.
However, there is another side of the coin as viewed from Washington. In the last few years, Washington has been pushing back hawks both at home and in Tel Aviv dissuading against any premature military attack. Several factors including President Barrack Obama’s own inclinations against frontally loaded foreign policy, severe economic decline at home, desire to carefully disengage from the snake pit of Middle East and subtle strategic shift towards the Pacific region have contributed to this policy. In addition, the presence of large number of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan made them a fairly large target for Iranian retaliation. However, impact of nuclear Iran on the power dynamics is a serious concern in Washington and there is almost consensus that this cannot be allowed although there may be differences on how to achieve this objective.
Departure of U.S. troops from Iraq and return of troops from Afghanistan in 2014 will remove this piece of restraint giving Washington more flexibility. Pieces of current U.S. policy against Tehran include tightening up sanctions, isolating it diplomatically and continuing technical covert operations to slow down the process and make it so painful that country’s leadership starts to rethink its options. While pursuing these policy goals, many desperately hope that the ‘Arab Sandstorm’ currently engulfing many nations finally reaches the Persian shores that will ultimately make any nuclear point moot. In the meantime, preparation for the last resort of limited but devastating strikes against nuclear installations of Iran is on the table. It is clear by now that the end game is ‘prevention’ and not ‘containment’ of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Preference of Israeli strategic community is to isolate Tehran by efforts of international community with Washington in the lead while continuing its own covert operations to slow down the process. However, many are clear that at the end of the day if needed Israel may have to do it itself. Gabi Ashkenazi is confident that Israel can handle the fall out from any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. The timing of any military attack will depend on the speed of Iranian program and some agreement between Washington and Tel Aviv. Majority of American troops will be gone from the immediate neighborhood of Iran by 2014 thus removing potential targets for retaliation and by that time the land link of Iran with the Middle East through Syria will likely be permanently terminated. This means that any military option will be exercised after 2014.
Israel is likely running intelligence gathering and covert operations from all borders of Iran. In January 2012, Foreign Policy magazine published an explosive report quoting American intelligence officials that Israeli agents posing as American agents were recruiting members of an extremist Sunni group Jundullah in Pakistan to operate against Iranian targets during 2007-08 period. There were some high profile attacks in Iran and Tehran thought that U.S. and Pakistan were involved thus plummeting relations with Pakistan. Many American officials were furious that Israelis were working behind their backs thus risking American lives and relations with an important ally Pakistan. Israeli officials usually don’t comment about such reports but in this case they publicly denied these reports for fear of jeopardizing relations with the American intelligence community. However, report claims that end result of this aggressive Israeli behavior was severe curtailment of U.S-Israeli intelligence cooperation on Iran. Finally, Pakistan and Iran worked jointly to curtail activities of Jundullah resulting in the death and capture of this organization’s leadership.
Currently, Israel is probably running most important intelligence and covert operations through Iraqi Kurdistan and Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan provides a good example of education for those who neatly divide conflict zones in ethnic or sectarian terms. Interests of countries trump all other aspects. Most penetrative, widespread and successful covert operations against Iranian targets have been run through Azerbaijan with close cooperation of country’s security apparatus. No surprise but for the fact that the population of Azerbaijan is 91 % Muslim and 85% percent follow the Shia school of thought. A description noted in Wiki Leaks cable quoting Azerbaijan’s president stating that ‘Israeli-Azerbaijan relations are like an iceberg, nine-tenth of it is below the surface’ is the best description of this relationship. In the last decade, Israel has developed multi faceted and robust military, security, intelligence and economic relations with Iraqi Kurdistan benefitting both parties. I’ll not be surprised if some intelligence and covert operations are being run from Iraqi Kurdistan.
Currently, the overall policy against Tehran is solely based on punishment but no incentives. No one has asked the question what prompted Tehran to go full speed with its nuclear program? It was the ‘regime change’ policy of Washington in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001. This was seen as an existential threat to the regime in Tehran and nuclear capability was the only ‘life insurance policy ‘available in the market. The problem is that now even if Washington does not have the intention or capability of a large scale ground military operation against any country, it is very difficult to convince anyone.
No strategic decision is sterile or devoid of risks. The Persian puzzle is essentially weighing the risks of a nuclear Iran and its attendant consequences or risks associated with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. These questions need careful thinking and calibration as the worst nightmare will be to first face the consequences of a military strike against Iranian nuclear installations. However, this effort fails to push back the nuclear clock significantly thus facing the consequences of a nuclear Iran. In this scenario, the current saber rattling of North Korea will look like child’s play.
A viable short term solution with which Tehran and Washington can live is to have cap on uranium enrichment with robust international inspections of Iranian facilities in return for removal of sanctions. Long term solution is a serious global non-proliferation effort where members of the elite nuclear countries have to offer significant concessions. In the absence of that, every five to ten year, a ‘nuclear horse’ will try to run out of the barn. Nuclear weapons under the control of a state no matter how hostile is one thing but global concern is that weakening of the states risks these weapons getting in the hands of non-state actors. In this changed threat environment, reduction of global stockpile of nuclear weapons under international holistic efforts is the way forward and responsibility of all the members of elite ‘nuclear club’.
Tremors in Damascus
“The collapse of regimes – even hostile ones like Syria – means that there is no longer a clear, sovereign address from which a price can be extracted for transgressions against Israel”. Lieutenant General ® Gabi Ashkenazi
The second immediate concern for Israel’s security is the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Syria in the last two years. The Syrian conflict has now become a full fledged civil war with very dangerous and potentially destabilizing sectarian dimensions way beyond the country’s own boundaries. Meir Dagan focused on Syrian subject and very lucidly explained changes and their potential impact on region’s security.
One major concern is that as the State is losing more ground to a variety of rebels, there is clear and present danger that large stock piles of rockets, artillery and chemical weapons can fall into wrong hands on both sides of the conflict. If the Syrian regime concludes that their time is up then most likely they will try to transfer as much weapons possible to Hezbollah and Alawite communities in their own strongholds. On the other hand, international jihadist groups are rapidly gaining ascendency among rebel groups and with the state’s retreat they may over run many bases with large stockpiles of weapons.
This is not only Israel’s concern but also a major headache for other neighbors of Syria. Israel probably has a robust intelligence presence in Syria as well as close intelligence cooperation with Jordan. I think that Israel is most likely working with Jordan on plans to secure or destroy chemical weapons in case of complete chaos. If relations with Turkey improve then Tel Aviv will also be working closely with Ankara on this issue. Israel will not allow any transfer of weapons especially rockets, artillery and chemical weapons out of Syrian borders. This is a red line and Israel will selectively eliminate such targets. However, extreme restraint on part of Israel is essential, otherwise ‘street pressure’ in other Arab countries especially those in a state of cold peace with Israel can put severe strain on relations.
The crisis in Syria is not without any benefits to Israel’s security. There has been a cold peace between the two countries for several decades and the Syrian-Israeli border has been one of the most peaceful in the last several decades. There was no direct military threat from Syrian conventional forces. Main threat was Syria acting as a major transit point of Iranian supplies to its main Lebanese client; Hezbollah. This Iran-Syria-Hezbollah chain gave asymmetric strength to all three players. Removal of Syria right in the middle breaks this knot thus severely weakening Iran’s position to make trouble in an already much troubled region. This also defangs Hezbollah to a certain extent. First, there is reduction of weapon supply to the organization and more important is the fact that it is getting embroiled in the civil war in Syria and this will worsen with time. There are already reports that Hezbollah fighters are operating on Syrian government side. Many Sunni Jihadis from different Arab countries are fighting on the rebel side. Inside Lebanon, Hezbollah will face more opposition from all other communities as Christians, Druze and Sunnis have no love lost for Hezbollah. Influx of mainly Sunni refugees from Syria in Lebanon will add fuel to the fire. Just like Palestinians were blamed for bringing their war to Lebanon, many Lebanese will blame Hezbollah for now dragging the Syrian civil war into Lebanon thus weakening their position in internal power dynamics of Lebanon.
Syria is running out of options at a very fast pace. Possibility of most desirable outcomes that transfers power to a broad based interim government with representatives of all communities and minimizes risks of entrenchment of militias on country’s soil is fleeting away rapidly. The risk of proxy war on Syrian territory is a clear and present danger and Israel will be an active player in this game with unforeseen consequences for its own security.
Elephant in the Room – Palestine
“Victory in the true sense implies that the state of peace, and of one’s people, is better after the war than before”. Liddell hart
Neither Israelis nor Palestinians have entered the negotiations process in good faith. Each party saw the process as an exercise of extracting more concessions from the other with the hope of an end state that is unrealistic and impractical. Israelis aimed for maximum incorporation of occupied territories into Israel leaving a small rump on both sides of Israel that can never pose any credible danger. Palestinians hoped for getting as many concessions as possible simply as an interim relief with the delusion that some day a strong Arab army may recover additional territory from Israel with force of arms.
Palestinian community can be divided into four groups; refugees in other countries, residents of Gaza, West Bank and east Jerusalem. Strict security measures by Israel in the last several decades with severe restriction on movements resulted in current situation where now third generation of Palestinians is growing up with no interaction with fellow Palestinians. Historically Palestinian communities of Gaza and West Bank have evolved along different lines. Impoverished Gaza geographically, socially and economically tied with Egypt while educated, urbanized West Bank geographically, socially and culturally linked with Jordan. Brief civil war of 2007 when Hamas routed Fatah from Gaza completed the break. Now only possibility of a united Palestinian front is that Fatah is so discredited that Hamas is able to make inroads in West Bank gaining a foothold of at least 20-30 percent. It is unlikely that Israel will offer enough concessions in negotiations process that can improve Fatah’s credibility to an extent that it can sell itself to Gaza residents.
Fatah is now trying to bypass the negotiations completely to scare Israelis. It is trying to start a process of reconciliation with Hamas and taking their case directly to international community at United Nations. Israelis are aware that any foot hold of Hamas in West Bank is a bad news and it is certain that international community will embarrass Israel even if no practical steps are taken. Even in best case scenario of emergence of a single Palestinian state, it will be a gigantic task to weld together a community that has been compartmentalized over three generations. Ironically, the only ray of hope is the lesson which they can learn from their adversary. If miraculously, Palestinians can emulate Israelis, then a viable and peaceful Palestinian state can take its rightful place among the comity of nations.
If judged from the results of last few elections, Israel is clearly divided right in the middle about two visions. The right considers any additional concessions as potential suicide while the center and left now fear that the very Jewish and democratic nature of the country is under serious threat in view of changing demographics. Many including senior security and intelligence officers view this as the number one problem for the state of Israel and many now speak openly. In their view, the two state solution is the only viable option and by delaying negotiations on this crucial issue they feel that the Israeli government may be damaging long term interests of the state.
There are several angles of this debate. First and foremost is the realization that Israel cannot occupy a rising population of Palestinians indefinitely without destroying the very soul of the Jewish people. Many military officers are of the view that once the world recognizes international borders it will be easy for Israel to defend its territory without getting isolated on international forums. Legitimacy of Israel’s claims and actions is directly linked to this issue. Many who were at the fore front of the security battles of Israel don’t want their children and grandchildren to man check posts in West Bank as an occupation force. The most stunning recent example was a journalistic coup when Dror Moreh convinced six former heads of Israeli internal security organization Shin Bet to talk on record about this important subject in a documentary titled Gatekeepers.
Most polls show that majority of Israelis and Jewish Diaspora especially influential American Jewry support the two state solution. Currently, most Israelis look at the Palestinian issue as an exercise in concessions and giving up territories that they occupied by military defeat of the adversary. It is always hard for the victor to give up fruits of victory however the fundamental question which Israelis should be asking is what is in the best long term interest of Israel and its citizens? Once they approach the issue with this mindset then any compromise will not be seen as a concession to the Palestinians but a shrewd move to safeguard its own interest. Security is a challenge for Israel in view of small area and population and there will be challenges but in my view they can handle it. In 2005, Israel decided to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. Once this bold decision was taken, now despite some security challenges, even the most ardent Zionists would not advocate that Israelis should go back to Gaza. There will be problems including security challenges but in the long run an independent Palestinian is in Israel’s long term interest.
It is clear that Israelis and Palestinians will eventually live together in two independent states and both sides will have to make concessions especially land swap to separate two communities. It is their decision whether this generation or next generation will make some difficult and painful decisions. I recall advice to Israel by Jewish Congressman from New York Gary Ackerman while addressing a small gathering of Jewish students. He said that ‘we Jews are well known as good businessmen and deal makers and one of the cardinal principles is that you make a deal when you hold strong cards’. He was suggesting that Israel should make a deal while it is in a position of strength. Politicians and generals may get confused but students of history know very well that no one holds the position of strategic strength permanently. Israel’s long term interest is best served by solving the Palestinian question sooner rather than later. In the absence of that everybody and his cousin will fish in the troubled waters of Palestine not because they love Palestinians but to serve their own interests.
Arab Sandstorm
“Every twenty years
Comes to us a gambling man
To stake our country and culture
And resources and rivers
And trees and fruits
And men and women
And the waves and the sea
At the gambling table
We die; broken, hated
Cursed like dogs
While our philosopher in his shelter cogitates destruction into victory”
Nizar al-Qabbani 1991
In the last two years, the term ‘Arab Spring’ has been commonly used for the rapid changes in the region which is actually ‘Arab Sandstorm’. Arab Street is fed up with the status quo and wants change but not very clear about what that change should be? It will be quite a while when we will be able to see what emerges out of this storm. Each country has unique historical evolution and internal dynamics and generalization of these changes can lead one to wrong conclusions.
Internal social, political and economic problems are responsible for seismic shifts in many countries of the Middle East. New leadership wants to enjoy the fruits of power and govern in a volatile and turbulent internal milieu. In many countries, political Islamist parties have gained foothold in the corridors of power. They are shrewd enough to avoid any external conflicts that can jeopardize their embryonic and tenuous hold on power. Egypt’s example is a case in point. Muslim Brotherhood has been a great champion of Palestinian cause and always critical of Egypt’s policies of peace with Israel. Once in power, now they have to face the consequences of turbulence therefore they have kept their border with Gaza tightly sealed. Recently, Muslim Brotherhood led Egyptian government was instrumental in reigning in Hamas after clashes with Israel and brokered a ceasefire.
If Israel is unable to make a deal with the Palestinians in near future then popular support of masses in all neighboring countries will put pressure on their governments to reevaluate their policy towards Israel. It is not likely that they will embark on any conventional war but current cold peace will be put to severe test. It is in Egypt’s interest to keep the cold peace but it will depend on how much domestic pressure it can withstand from its own power base. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is the ‘lone ranger’ left on the field that has close relations with Israel. If King Abdullah of Jordan is swept away by the ‘Arab Sandstorm’, it is very likely that conflict will be between country’s tribal native population and Jordanians of Palestinian descent. Such a conflict will have severe negative impact on Israeli security.
Currently, major problem for many nation states is not another state but ungovernable areas infested by non-state actors with their own dreams, delusions and devious instruments that can have destabilizing effect. All immediate neighboring nation states of Israel; Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon are not a security threat in conventional terms but internal chaos, ethnic and sectarian conflicts can easily engulf the region and when there is massive fire in the neighborhood, no house is immune. Efforts should be geared towards resolving existing conflicts and creating an atmosphere of tolerance and acceptance to keep violence below a certain threshold and prevent new cycles of violence. Leadership is not about fiercely defending one’s own particular historical narrative but true test of leadership is visualizing a better future and then having the courage to move in that direction with all its opportunities and promises. This is the challenge of the leaders of the region.
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex and more violent; but it takes a touch of genius and lots of courage to move something in the opposite direction.” Albert Einstein
Note
This article is based on proceedings of a recent conference in New York where several representatives of Israeli strategic community expressed their views as well as the author’s informal conversations with a number of Jewish participants from diverse backgrounds. All errors and omissions are author’s sole responsibility.
