TEHRAN - Top military and security brass in Israel is engaged in a tense disputeover the handling of Irans nuclear program, al-Monitor reported recently.The drama is reminiscent of the deep disagreement among the regimes leadership 10 years ago, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and War Minister Ehud Barak unsuccessfully sought to convince the security cabinet to approve a strike on Irans nuclear facilities.
A decade on, history is repeating itself.
Israels military capabilities for such an attack have sincedegraded as Irans program has progressed and expanded.The controversy is the same, as is the balance of power between opponents and proponents of a deal with Iran.
The crux of the controversy is over intense United States efforts to reconstitute the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers.
One camp believes reviving the agreement is Israels best option and the other is convinced that the proposed agreement negotiated in Vienna is a disaster.Brig.
Gen.
(reserve)Dror Shalom, the former head of the Research and Analysis Division of Israeli Military Intelligence,reportedly told his American interlocutors last week in Washingtonthat the United States decision to quit the agreement with Iran in 2018 was a carelessstrategic mistake.Pulling out of the 2015 nuclear deal was carelessstrategic mistake.Shalom currently heads the political-military bureau of Israels Ministry of War, a highly influential and sensitive policy postWar Minister Benny Gantz appointed him to earlier this year.
His purview includes public and clandestine contacts with defense establishments around the world.Shalom led the intelligence research bureau from 2016 to 2020, a time when Netanyahu and his close aide, Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer, were deeply invested in convincing President Donald Trump to withdraw from the agreement with Iran.
Shalom warned Israeli decision-makers including Netanyahuof the risks of such a move.
Many top security and defense minds agreed.Their assessments have borne out.
The economic sanctions have not forced Iran to abandon its nuclearprogramand (perhaps despite Netanyahu and his allies' hopes), Trump did not order a strike on Irans nuclear facilities.
Shalom and other like-minded officials point out thatIran is now far closer to the nuclear thresholdthan it was while bound to its commitments under the 2015 agreement, and no world power seems to be able to stop itor afford the price off trying.Shaloms analysis corresponds to comments by former military intelligence chief Maj.
Gen.Tamir Heyman, who said in an interview this week with Israel Hayom that a return to the agreement with Iran is Israels least bad option.
His successorMaj.
Gen.Aharon Halivareportedly agrees.
As head of military intelligence, he is also tasked with compiling Israels national annual assessment report, whichalso reflects the long prevailing military intelligence view of the Iran issue.The most prominent professional voice on the other side of the issue is Mossad directorDavid Barnea, who took the agencys reins a year ago fromYossi Cohen.
Barnea reportedly believes thedeal with Iraniscatastrophic.Barnea is of the view that Israel must do everythingin its power to prevent a return to the deal, arguing that the status quo is the best alternative, while sanctions remain in place.
Prime Minister Naftali Bennetts views appear to correspond to Barneas, just as Netanyahu was in sync at the time withCohen.Gantz leans the other way, which ishardly surprising, as the Israel Defense Forces report to him as defense minister.
Bennett's alternate, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, is somewhere in the middle, andIDF chief Lt.
Gen.
Aviv Kochavis views are closer to the Mossad chiefs.The argument has serious policy repercussions.
The Mossad is taking some credit for convincingUnited States President Joe Biden to reject Irans demand forremoval of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps(IRGC)from the United States list of foreign terrorist groups in return for agreeing once again to curb its nuclear program.Israeli decision-makers have so far managed to downplay this disagreementand presented a mostly united front to the outside.