An Expert Artisan's View: Ephraim Halevy on Iran and the Foreign Policy Stakes in the US Presidential Election

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

On Sunday, the Al-Monitor published a very in depth and timely interview between reporter Laura Rozen and former Mossad Director and Israeli National Security Advisor Ephraim Halevy.**  The interview covers many important foreign policy issues, specifically dealing with Iran, how to approach one's adverseries, and the impact of Israel's concerns with Iran on the US presidential campaign and US foreign policy.

Some of the most important take aways were his remarks about how one should deal with one's adversaries:

    " Therefore, I realized that dialogue with an enemy is essential. There is nothing to     lose. Although the claim was, if you talk to them, you legitimize them But by not     talking to them, you don't de-legitimate them. So this convinced me, that we all     have been very superficial in dealing with our enemies. [...]

    Not everything you try succeeds. But you have to be willing to try. If you fail 10 times,     and succeed once, the success outweighs the failures.

    What happened: In order to meet public opinion, both Israel and the US governments     have tied our own hands. There is a law [...] which prohibits US officials from talking     to Hamas [...] In the end, you create an inherent disadvantage for yourself."

He also has some really important thoughts in regards to leadership at the strategic level in regards to operations, such as the one to kill/capture bin Laden:

     "I think nobody who has been involved in ordering the use of force can forget the     angst, the days and nights of concern, as to what and how it can be done.

    Romney has said, Anybody could have decided to finish bin Laden. Even [Jimmy]     Carter. This again  was a mistaken concept. President Obama didn’t just decide [one     day to kill bin Laden]. The operation to end the life of bin Laden necessitated     multiple points of decision by him. I know from operations I have been involved with     on a smaller scale.

    They are very intricate. You don’t just give the order and wait in your office for     commanders to come three months later and say it’s done. No. This kind of operation,     which is accident prone, hands on operation, one has to make one decision after the     other […] It took courage and cool headedness and leadership. Anyone who says it     was an easy thing to decide, doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. [Such     comments] show a total lack of understanding of what this kind of operation means.

    Once I was in charge of an operation and Netanyahu was Prime Minister. One day,     because of the intricacy of what we were doing, I talked to him 10 times on the phone     […] Ten times. It was a Friday, a day I will not forget.

    This kind of operation, every minute, an issue comes up, that sometimes requires a     decision on the political level.

    The Libya story, the way it’s being used, is a sordid manipulation. […]"

And he discusses something near and dear to my heart, which is trying to understand the identities of those we have to engage with - allies, competitors, and especially adversaries:

    "Over the years, both because of personal contact with some key figures on the other         side […] I realized, in order to be effective with one’s enemies, you have to have two     essential capabilities: To overcome by force if necessary — and/or to withstand their     force if necessary. And do everything you can to get into their minds and try to     understand how they see things, what their concerns are — their dreams,     aspirations, hopes, feelings are. And where if at all there is room for common ground     of one kind or another.

    I think that what we have had over the years is an abundance of one side, and a dearth     of the other.     There has been a big emphasis, and rightly so, [on overcoming     adversaries by force]. But we have paid little attention [to understanding one’s     enemies.] And I have always had the feeling to look for ways and means of creating     channels for dialogue. I was involved in channels of dialogue in one way or other,     in major and minor roles, as of 1973-1974, when I served here in Washington, D.C., as     Mossad station chief."

The whole interview is excellent.  Ms. Rozen did a great job, so click on over and read the whole thing!  It'll be far more informative on anything at the debate, in the Spin Room, or in the coverage over the next week...

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

** Hat tip to Tom Levenson over at Balloon Juice

Comments

[jr786]

"And do everything you can to get into their minds and try to understand how they see things, what their concerns are — their dreams, aspirations, hopes, feelings are. And where if at all there is room for common ground of one kind or another."

That's empathy, something which has been eradicated from American consciousness since at least 1860. I trace it to the Puritans, myself.

[mbrenner]

Bravo for Halevy's sanity. But let's bear in mind that this is still an Israeli perspective - Iran must be denied a nuclear capability at any price. In addition, there is no mention of complementary security arrangements in the region that might address the Iranians' legitimate concerns which inescapably would mean diminishing Israel's domination of Middle East security matters to some immeasurable degree.

US position? No different at the moment - however, there are other ways of looking at things from Washington

[Babak Makkinejad]

Halevi is making useful noises to support Mr. Obama's re-election.

It is too late for anything positive.

[Alba Etie]

Sheik bin Laden is dead. GM is alive . And it appears that saner 'old hands' are trying to rein in the Likudniks both here & abroad .

[confusedponderer]

I have always thought that the assertion that by talking to ones enemies one is legitimising them is supreme BS.

How is that supposed work? That the good- and greatness of Israel and America rubs off, and sticks like, for lack of a better metaphor coming to my mind, dog poo to a shoe? For one, neither Israel and America are all that good and great, and then, the rubbing off part, let alone sticking part, don't work all that well.

If spoken with conviction it is silly vanity essentially. Now, of course, when uttered in a more straight faced way, the argument serves the purpose to be an excuse for not doing something one doesn't want to do. In that there also is the aspect of vanity.

In talking with Hezbollah and Iran the US and Israel alike are addressing realities. What's wrong about that? Well, it is wrong for those who don't accept the status quo, don't accept realities - because the like their particular fictions better, and want to transform (read: subdue) said realities to this or that or the other thing.

[JohnH]

"In order to meet public opinion, both Israel and the US governments have tied our own hands."

Run that by me again! Where exactly is the groundswell of public opinion that prohibits talking to Iran? And if there were such a groundswell, why would the USG depart from current practice and pay any attention to it?

Let's not confuse AIPAC pressure with public opinion.

[Margaret Steinfels]

Confirming Mr. Halevy's candidate: "Who Threw Israel Under the Bus?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/opinion/who-threw-israel-under-the-bus.html?_r=0

[PS]

We talked all the time with the Soviets, who were a serious existential threat to the US. We still didn't always understand each other, but at least we talked.