Should the US and Tehran reach a final deal over the latter's nuclear program, Israel should “multiply its intelligence attempts to monitor developments in the Islamic Republic, so that it can sound the alarm if necessary,” a former senior Israeli defense official says.
Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser, former chief of the research division in IDF Military Intelligence, and until recently, director-general of the Strategic Affairs Ministry, offers scathing criticism of the US administration’s handling of the Iranian nuclear issue, in a paper published recently by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.
Meanwhile, with the June 30 deadline for an agreement between the world powers and Tehran quickly approaching, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his cabinet on Sunday that the deal looks worse with each passing day.
“Iran has announced that it will not allow surprise visits at its military installations on the nuclear issue,” he said. “It has also backtracked from other issues that were seemingly agreed upon in the Lausanne agreement.
To our regret, the reports arriving from the major powers attest to an acceleration of their concessions in the face of this Iranian obduracy.”
Netanyahu said that from Israel’s standpoint the agreement being formulated looked bad from the outset, and now “from day to day it seems to be getting worse.” He was not too late, however, to “take stock,” reject the current deal on the table and insist on a better one, the prime minister said.
Kuperwasser, in his paper, wrote, “The main reason for the reluctance of the administration to consider the strategy proposed by Israel, and by like-minded Arab states and members of Congress, is its optimistic and guilt-driven worldview. As long as the negotiations continue, Israel should keep doing everything it can to prevent a bad deal with Iran.
“But if in spite of its efforts a bad deal is signed,” Israel should boost intelligence gathering, accelerate efforts to develop the military capability to defend itself if necessary, and build a regional alliance determined to block Iranian attempts to translate its achievements in the nuclear realm into greater regional influence, even without developing a weapon, he continued.
“Put succinctly,” Kuperwasser said, “Washington seeks to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, while Jerusalem seeks to prevent it from having the capability to produce nuclear weapons,” he wrote, as the June 30 deadline for a final agreement approaches.
Israel continues to believe that with enough pressure, Iran can be convinced that it has no chance of becoming a nuclear weapon state, he argued.
“On the other hand, Israel believes that the deal proposed now will justifiably be presented by Iran as a victory of the Islamic Republic, one that can be translated into further achievements in Iran’s quest for regional hegemony,” Kuperwasser said.
From an Israeli point of view, he continued, the US administration “seems to have convinced itself that the deal it is trying to reach is the best possible deal and is a reasonable one, while it remains blind to the deal’s many shortcomings, and indulges in wishful thinking and distortion of facts in order to justify it.”
Elsewhere in his paper, Kuperwasser wrote, “To be specific about the perceived threat, Israel’s view is that Iran under the current regime seeks, through a variety of ways, to bring about the destruction of the national state of the Jewish people. This is a central component of Iran’s broader efforts to form a new Middle East, controlled by extremist forces aligned with it and under its influence, from which basis it can advance toward changing the entire world order.”