Cold Water Splashed Onto the War Feverish: A Bit More on Lt. General Gantz's Remarks

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

Yesterday COL Lang wrote about Israeli Defense Force's Chief of Staff Lt. General Gantz's remarks pertaining to Iran.  I wanted to take a few lines and focus on some other portions of Lt. General Gantz's remarks, specifically those about Iranian strategic decision making.  Lt. General Gantz, told his interviewers from Haaretz, that "If the supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants, he will advance it to the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, but the decision must first be taken. It will happen if Khamenei judges that he is invulnerable to a response. I believe he would be making an enormous mistake, and I don't think he will want to go the extra mile. I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people."  While he still sounded a cautious note in regards to potential Iranian nuclear ambitions -  "But I agree that such a capability, in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who at particular moments could make different calculations, is dangerous", his caution was tempered by his evaluation of both the Iranian Supreme Religious Authority and leadership.

This is a very important point that we need to be cognizant of, just as the Haaretz reporter was, for two reasons.  The first is that Lt. General Gantz's remarks echo those made by GEN Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when he was visiting Israel.  The second is that it starkly differentiates the professional views of Israel's senior military officer, as well as its past Intelligence Chief Meir Dagan, from that of Israel's leadership, as well as a number of elected American officials and pundits.  If, as GEN Demspey, Lt. General Gantz, and Director Dagan assert, that the Iranian leadership, and therefore its decision making, is rational (and we should caveat this as within the Iranian context), then normal incentives such as economic sanctions and diplomatic initiatives, may bring about the changes in Iranian behavior that most would like to see.  

The issue going forward is whether the professionals', both military and intelligence, assesments carry the policy arguments going forward or whether the war feverish among Israeli and American politicians and American pundits win the day.  It also sets up some very interesting potential Israeli Civil-Military (Civ-Mil) relations follow ons as things continue to develop.  Lt. General Gantz's remarks, unlike GEN Dempsey's which were in line with official US/Administration positions pertaining to Iran, place him at odds with the Israeli civilian leadership.  That too is a developing situation that bears watching.

*Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College (USAWC).  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of USAWC and/or the US Army.

 

Comments

[CTuttle]

Ooh-wee, ever more cold water on Bibi's and Barak's parade...

Ex-intelligence chief Diskin says Netanyahu, Barak ‘not fit to lead Israel’ and wrong on Iran...

*ouch* That's gotta hurt...!

[The beaver]

Anyone saw this interview by Christiane Amanpour with the former Iranian nuclear negotiator- Hossein Mousavian :

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/25/amanpour-interviews-former-iranian-nuclear-negotiation-insider-about-weaponization-plans/

The emphasis was on the fatwa:
MOUSAVIAN: (Inaudible) at the beginning I had President Obama had a positive message, mentioning the rights of Iran, respecting the rights of Iran and respecting the Iranian leaders' fatwa. Already President Obama made an interview with "Atlantic," where he said we count on the fatwa. And American delegations also in the meeting, they reiterated on the fatwa. But some people like Israelis, they are questioning the fatwa.

AMANPOUR: So we're talking about the fatwa, the religious edict that the Supreme Leader issued?

MOUSAVIAN: Yes.

AMANPOUR: People are saying, well, how do we know it's real? It's not written down. What is it/ I mean, there's a certain group who are saying –

[FB Ali]

There is an interesting article by Gareth Porter in which he argues that the Iranians do not have (and never had) any intention of making a nuclear weapon. He says their enrichment program was designed solely to acquire bargaining chips for negotiating with the US. They believe they are now in a strong enough position to enter into serious negotiations.

Of course, the critical issue is whether the US is also ready or not. It seems that the coming election and Netanyahu's threats of military action have persuaded Obama to seriously explore that option.

[CTuttle]

If anybody's interested...! ;-) Ex-Shin Bet Head Diskin: Bibi, Barak ‘not fit to lead Israel’ And Wrong on Iran...

[Alba Etie]

With these kinds of counter recommendations can the Netenyhu government be re-elected ? And given now that there appears a Grand Bargain with Iran that might be achieved in the foreseeable future - could the Likud actually launch a strike against Iran ? It seems the critical time is between now & next election in Israel .

[Jonathan House]

New York Times, today 4/28
Ex-Israeli Security Chief Questions Current Leadership

JERUSALEM — The recently retired chief of Israel’s internal security agency said Friday night that he had “no faith” in the ability of the current leadership to handle the Iranian nuclear threat, ratcheting up the criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak from the defense and intelligence communities.

“I don’t believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings,” said Yuval Diskin, who stepped down last May after six years running the Shin Bet, Israel’s version of the F.B.I.

“I have observed them from up close,” Mr. Diskin said. “I fear very much that these are not the people I’d want at the wheel.” Echoing Meir Dagan, the former head of the Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, Mr. Diskin also said that the government was “misleading the public” about the likely effectiveness of an aerial strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

full text of article at link

[turcopolier]

AE

The PM of Israel is not Commader in Chief of the armed forces. I doubt if he and Barak can launch an attack with this kind of opposition. pl

[Babak Makkinejad]

Mr. Khamenei's Fatwa was issued in 2005 and was willfully ignored by US and EU.

Only when the coercive diplomacy of US & EU leaders was on the verge of igniting a war in the Persian Gulf that US and EU leader - all of a sudden - found religion and recalled that Fatwa.

Again, I wonder why no one has been fired.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Gareth Porter is wrong to think that the nuclear program of Iran is a bargaining chip with US.

My sense of it is that Iranian leaders concluded several years ago that their differences with US are not amenable to resolution.

Therefore, they proceeded to lower, as much as possible, the cost of their confrontation with US.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Interview with Colonel Douglas McGregor (Ret.)
http://rt.com/news/israel-iranus-war-068/

[E L]

Apparently, Yuval Diskin is sufficiently worried that there is a clear and present danger Netanyahu and Barak will order an attack on Israel that he has gone public with some very inflammatory language, i.e., "messianic feelings." No doubt he still has excellent sources within the Israeli government. http://news.yahoo.com/israel-ex-spy-warns-against-messianic-iran-war-114919243.html

[mac n.]

FB Ali,

Porter is, IMO, spot on. For Qom, it has always been about bargaining chips.

But there's an interesting twist to this. For Qom, yes, its about their relationship with Washington and Tel Aviv. But if the Iranian government was not led by the clerical establishment of Qom, but instead a civilian (read this as anything other than Qom) polity, then I very much doubt the nuclear program will remain as it is. In other words, because of the events of 1979 to the present, Qom plays the nuclear card according to it's particular needs, but a different government calling the shots in Tehran would not necessarily behave in the same way. Under these changed country conditions, Iranian diplomacy vis-a-vis it's nuclear posture could be altogether reconfigured.

[Harper]

To furhter reinforce the points made by Col. Lang and Adam Silverman, also note the even more blunt interview, given by former Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin just days after General Gantz spoke. Diskin warned of a messianic worldview of Bibi and Barak that is dangerous for the future of Israel. He also made a very important, veiled reference to the assassination of former Prime Minister Rabin, warning that fanatics live inside the Green Line, as well as in the settlements and another assasination could occur. Netanyahu was one of the politicians who created the climate for Rabin's assassin but was never held accountable. Diskin was the most highly respected recent head of Shin Bet and he knows of what he speaks regarding Israeli internal security and the threat coming from the "Jewish underground."

Note that Barak used the Independence Day celebration to push back against Gen. Gantz, but he was clearly speaking on the defensive. Gantz also issued a further comment to the Israeli press. Israel's future and the issue of the Iran attack is now coming down to a real fight over the dumping of Netanyahu and Barak. This runs deeper than the issue of an attack on Iran perse, but has everything to do with reversing Israel's growing isolation from the rest of the world, including--increasingly--from the United States and even the American Jewish community.

[turcopolier]

BM

Doug has always been a hard headed realist. pl

[E L]

Who can "fire" Gen. Gantz?

[E L]

"by Israel" not "on Israel."

[VietnamVet]

Dr. Silverman,

One would think that rational men everywhere would expose messianic crusades. Indeed, President Obama’s reelection is dependent on the continued falling gas prices caused by the decline in Iran War Fever.

But, there is another human failing besides idolatry; greed, the need to make money from war abroad in Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria to the privatization the US Postal Service at home.

[FB Ali]

mac.n,

You are right: if the present Iranian regime were replaced, it is quite possible their attitude towards the nuclear option would be different.

This, too, is in the hands of the US. Countries seek nuclear weapons if they feel under a grave threat. If the US were to end its hostile attitude towards Iran, and let it play its rightful role in the region, then the country would not feel the need to develop or acquire such weapons.

[kao_hsien_chih]

Well, nothing is "just" a bargaining chip--if it were, then people could simply ignore it. Without the potential (combined with apparent willingness) to do something meaningful, would others feel compelled to take a "bargaining chip" seriously enough. Unless the Iranians seem (and are, for all intents and purposes) willing to go the next step in the nuclear program if necessary (even if not necessarily to the weaponization...yet), it would not make for a good bargaining chip.

[mac n.]

Without assigning blame or responsibility, the odd thing is, because of the nature of it's relationship with DC and Tel Aviv, a sovereign Iran led by the clerical establishment, in my view, is actually more constrained vis-a-vis it's nuclear posture than say a civilian (read this as anything other than Qom) polity. That is to say, a civilian government, a government without the burden of defending the post-1979 realignment, would probably feel less constrained in it's nuclear position, especially relative to DC and Tel Aviv. Irony alert - could the best opportunity for a nuclear free Iran actually rest with the Islamic Republic?

[Babak Makkinejad]

FB Ali and mac n.

Iran as a threshold-nuclear-weapon state and remaining so is a possibility.

A non-nuclear Iran is suicidal for Iran in the light of the 1998 nuclear tests of India and Pakistan.

One has to have had his head in the sand to be ignorant of pesistent acts of violence against Shia Muslims in Pakistan by assorted Sunni Muslim extremists.

[Alba Etie]

Col Lang
So Ehud Barack is also in favor of a first strike ?Given the rumblings about a Grand Bargain do we have reason to be hopeful for a sustainable peace in ME & that also might include SW Asia ?
Is this doable -and what might it look like ?

[Alba Etie]

Greed is corrupting our body politic - and yes the attack on the USPS is the desire by the Corporatist to take over yet another function of government for profit . No other government entity has been required by Congress to fully prepay its Pension Plan , - If the USPS could tap that prepaid pension escrow account it would be solvent tomorrow. Wonder how much Erik Prince would stand to make if Israel goes to war with Iran ? ( This may drive me to put the Ron Paul sign up in the yard yet ) .

[Fred]

That is a very interesting interview that BM linked too. I was taken with Colonel Macgregor's comments on the "... very neo-Wilsonian interventionist elite inside Washington..."

[AnonAF]

This is a purely factual inquiry:

Is General Gantz US Special Forces-qualified (as I think I've seen)?

I ask because Israeli counterinsurgency seems quite different than American counterinsurgency, and thus placing an IDF officer in the course seems a little odd, although I suppose there may be more overlap with other core SOF roles and missions (e.g., Foreign Internal Defense).

Thanks
AnonAF