by Amnon Lord
Despite claims to the contrary, the military option against Iran was on the table throughout former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's entire time in office.
One of the main reasons for the friction – or perhaps rift – between Israel's senior security officials over the past decade and then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revolved precisely around the strategy vis-à-vis the Iranian nuclear program.
To stop Netanyahu, whom they deemed dangerous, some senior media commentators justified extreme measures, even coups. The most extreme step was Mossad chief Meir Dagan's trip to the United States to meet with Director of CIA Leon Panetta and beg the US administration to stop Netanyahu.
Now the same media outlets and senior officials have become ardent
believers in the military option. Moreover, they now accuse Netanyahu of
abandoning that very same option. They speak of the need to target
Iran's nuclear facilities and blame Netanyahu for the fact that there is
no military option on the table today, and so the matter will be
postponed.
Until when? At least until after the end of term of IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi and Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.
Bennett himself spoke in an interview after Joe Biden was elected president about the need for the US to coordinate with Israel with regard to the return to the nuclear deal. Therefore, the new "military option" camp does not foster confidence.
Senior Likud officials said that there were attempts to skin the lion, while the lion – Netanyahu – was still running, jesting, and still hungry. In the opposition leader's opinion, the public is familiar with the false narrative about the Iranian nuclear program. The military option existed all along.
In Netanyahu's view, preventing Tehran from advancing its nuclear program is crucial, and if it requires military force, then so be it.
Netanyahu's basic view is that without the military option, Israel has nothing: no leverage vis-à-vis Iran, or the US, or world powers privy to the negotiations. His view is a matter of principle: a nuclear agreement would provide Tehran with legitimacy to enrich uranium, and, eventually, build nuclear weapons.
Recent debates revolved around whether Netanyahu, who has constantly pushed to strengthen the military option, has actually downshifted in the last two years. Netanyahu defined the matter of the Iranian nuclear program as Israel's number one security goal.
As part of this perception, he demanded that an additional budget be allocated by the IDF for the Iranian issue. The military turned down his demand. The IDF leadership said it could not allocate funds from the existing budget, which at the time, was "only" 60 billion shekels.
As prime minister, Netanyahu added the necessary funds to the budget
through US aid, which was one of several times he had a dispute with top
security officials who opposed him.
There are several testaments to the effectiveness of Netanyahu's policy.
In 2005, then-Director General of the International Atomic Energy
Agency Mohamed ElBaradei visited Israel and said that by 2012, Iran
would have a nuclear weapon.
In 2007, the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate warned that assuming
nothing stood in Iran's way, the Islamist Republic would develop a
nuclear bomb by 2009.
In 2018, even Bennett agreed with Netanyahu, after he unveiled Iranian nuclear documents collected clandestinely by Israeli intelligence agents.
"For so many years, Netanyahu's consistent policy on Iran was ridiculed and underestimated … I agree with him with regard to the … decision to publish [the documents]," Bennett said back then. "Once again, self-appointed security experts explain this was a violation of Israel's national security … for publicity purposes. It seems to me that today our children and grandchildren's future is much safer than yesterday. [And to Netanyahu I say] thank you."
Amnon Lord
Source: https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/netanyahus-critics-are-trying-to-rewrite-history/
No comments:
Post a Comment