by Dr. Gabi Avital
The past decade has seen the
development of a "security intelligence" circle, composed of the elite members
of the defense establishment, whose political and media connections span far and
wide. This group includes the former heads of the Mossad and Shin Bet security
agency, military generals, etc., and it is unique in the fact that the opinions
voiced by its members on matters of military, security, and the peace process
are uniform. And when this group's members are interviewed in the media, they
are perceived as professionals and not, heaven forbid, as
politicians.
Among the members of this group is
former Israel Atomic Energy Commission Director-General Brig. Gen. (ret.) Uzi
Eilam. In his recent interview with Yedioth Ahronoth, Eilam stressed that his
opinions represented the unequivocal truth and were devoid of any political
undertone, therefore his criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's
policies regarding the Iranian threat was purely professional.
Netanyahu's focus on a nuclear Iran,
he said, "is meant to score political points and it makes the public
unnecessarily anxious."
Eilam and President Shimon Peres are
the only two state officials to still tout their objections to the 1981 strike
of the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq. At the time, Eilam peddled an apocalyptic
scenario of what will happen should Israel strike the Iraqi reactor, while Peres
opted for a more poetic prediction, saying Israel would become "a lone juniper
tree in the desert."
In his interview, Eilam said that
Iraq was still a decade away from any nuclear capability, making the strike
unnecessary. In his opinion, he said, that is the case with Iran today. It may
sound good, but it is clear from the interview that if he could, Eilam would
vote against a strike on Iran. "Israel must not be the only one to take on such
a mission," he said.
In an interview Eilam gave the
Russian website Trent in December 2011, however, he warned that Iran was mere
months away of having a nuclear bomb. Other interviews have him lauding
Netanyahu's U.N. addresses and his urging of the international community to
impose relentless economic sanctions on Iran until it yields. This also sounds
good, but next he stated that the predictions warning that Iranian missiles
would rain on Israel are exaggerated.
I happen to share that opinion, and I
have said as much several times, using this exact platform. But what is
troubling is that the predictions of doom are expressed by those who, like
Eilam, oppose a strike on Iran.
What is even more troubling about
Eilam's position on the matter is the levity with which the possibility of a
nuclear Iran is taken. I agree with his assessment that Iran is unlikely to be
the first to strike, but the ramifications are still immediate and horrendous.
One could, heaven forbid, cause Israel to wither by the mere threat of a nuclear
attack -- without actually using a bomb. That is where the fundamental
difference between the threat of conventional missiles "raining" on Israel and
the nuclear threat lies.
Israel could strike Iran -- it has
already demonstrated it has the necessary capability. The pseudo-rational
reasons touted by the "security intelligence" circle against such a move are
politically biased, not to mention, voiced by individuals with colossal
strategic failures to their name.
Political considerations are rooted in one's
worldview and there is nothing wrong with that. The prime minister's
considerations are based on his own perception -- as they should be. Especially
since unlike the members of this circle who, for the most part, are affiliated
with the Left, the prime minister is replaced from time to
time.
Dr. Gabi Avital
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=8345
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment