by Derek Davison

A former senior analyst for Mossad, Yossi Alpher, told an audience in Washington Thursday that Israel sees the Islamic State (ISIS or IS) as an “urgent” national security concern, but the context of his talk at the Wilson Center implied that the extremist Sunni group does not top any Israeli list of threats. In fact, Alpher seemed to suggest at times that the actions of IS, particularly in Iraq, may ultimately benefit Israel’s regional posture, particularly with respect to Iran. He also called the American decision to intervene against IS “perplexing.”

Iran, unsurprisingly, topped Alpher’s list of “urgent” Israeli security threats, but he downplayed the prospect of a nuclear deal being struck by the Nov. 24 deadline for the negotiations and focused instead on the “hegemonic threat” Iran allegedly poses. Indeed, the former director of Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies was mainly concerned with an Iran strengthened by close alliances with Iraq and Syria as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon and now potentially expanding its reach into Yemen, whose Houthi rebels have made major military gains in recent weeks.

Alpher identified the threat of extremist/terrorist organizations as Israel’s second-most urgent threat, but within that category he placed Hamas and Hezbollah ahead of IS. He allowed that IS “threatens to reach very close” to Israel, particularly if it manages to make inroads in Jordan, where polls indicate that a significant minority of the population does not see IS as a terrorist group, and where there has been vocal opposition to King Abdullah’s support for the US-led anti-IS coalition. Indeed, Alpher suggested that Israel should try to defuse current tensions over the Temple Mount, which have caused Abdullah to suffer politically at home, in order to forestall an increase of IS sympathy within Jordan.

Several of Alpher’s later remarks seemed to suggest that the activities of IS in Syria (at least those that have targeted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad) and in Iraq may actually pay dividends for Israel. If the primary threat to Israel’s security is, as Alpher claims, Iran, and not just Iran’s nuclear program but also its regional hegemonic aspirations, then any movement that opposes Assad—a long-time Iranian ally—and that threatens the stability and unity of Iraq—whose predominantly Shia government has also developed close ties with Tehran—is actually doing Israel a service. It apparently doesn’t matter if that group might also someday pose a threat to Israel. It’s in this context that Alpher described America’s decision to intervene against IS as “perplexing.” He questioned the US commitment to keeping Iraq whole, noting that an independent Kurdistan would be “better for Israel,” and said that, as far as Syria’s civil war is concerned, “decentralization and ongoing warfare make more sense for Israel than a strong, Iran-backed Syria.”

The tone of Alpher’s remarks on IS echoed a number of recent comments from top Israeli government and military figures. Earlier this month, the IDF’s chief of staff, Lt. General Benny Gantz, told the Jerusalem Post that “the IDF has the wherewithal to defend itself against Islamic State,” and then went on to describe Hezbollah as Israel’s most immediate security concern. Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon also told PBS’s Charlie Rose on Sunday that Israel is contributing intelligence to the anti-IS coalition, but suggested that it was doing so because it has “a very good relationship with many parties who participate in the coalition,” not because it perceives IS as a near-term threat to Israel. Finally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 29 made several references to IS, but only as a secondary threat to Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program or in conflating IS with Hamas and, really, every other Islamic extremist group in the world.

Alpher made pointed criticisms of the US-led effort against IS in an exchange with Wilson Center president and former House member, Jane Harman, who pushed back against his characterization of US “mistakes” in the region. He was particularly critical of the Obama administration’s handling of Egypt, arguing that it “made things worse” by failing to support the Mubarak regime in 2011 and trying instead to “embrace” the democratically elected (and now imprisoned) Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi, and then by failing to welcome the military coup that eventually put current President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in office.

Harman questioned whether a stronger show of American support for the increasingly authoritarian direction of Egypt’s politics would hinder any effort to counter the anti-Western narrative upon which much of IS’ support and recruitment is based. Alpher’s answer, and indeed a recurring theme in his remarks, was that the question of narratives and terrorist recruitment is irrelevant to an Israeli security framework that is focused only on the most immediate threats (or, as he put it, “on what will bring short-term stability”).

The emphasis on the short-term is one of the defining features of Netanyahu’s term in office, particularly in his dealings with the Palestinians, but also in Israel’s broader security posture, and it may well cause greater problems for Israel in the long-term.

Follow LobeLog on Twitter and like us on Facebook

Alpher’s standing makes his contribution to the debate on attacking Iran noteworthy. A respected security analyst and longtime two-state solution advocate, Alpher served in the IDF as an officer, worked for the Mossad for a dozen years and won the 2008 American Jewish Press Association commentary award for his “Strategic Interest” column in the Forward.

In critiquing Jeffrey Goldberg‘s controversial  Atlantic piece, Alpher draws the distinction between what he considers Israel’s strategic concerns and that of those he says have been pushing the idea of an attack into the headlines. He calls out Goldberg and John Bolton by name, then questions their strategic analysis of Iran-Israel tensions:

There is a lot of bad judgment and misinformation, or perhaps disinformation, at work here. At the end of the day, an Israeli attack against Iran is conceivable, but not in the way Goldberg or Bolton imagine.

Alpher goes on to criticize Goldberg from several familiar angles. He points out that Goldberg didn’t seem to address Israeli dissent to Bibi Netanyahu’s claim, as reported by Goldberg himself, that Iran is “a messianic apocalyptic cult.” Last month, Noam Sheizaf echoed Alpher’s take on Goldberg as well.

Many of Alpher’s criticisms were stronger in the Peace Now conversation. For example, Alpher explicitly stated Goldberg’s article was indeed a “tool” for achieving the Israeli “objective”, Goldberg’s interviewees were certainly part of a “public relations campaign” and called his claim otherwise a “naive supposition.”

But in his Forward piece, Alpher collapses his take into a line about the hawkish Israeli perspectives which reveals just what that “objective” might be, and the impact of Goldberg’s analysis: “…Israeli threats to attack Iran sound good, because they could conceivably spur the Obama administration to take preemptive action.”

Coming from Alpher, laid out in a mainstream Jewish publication — that Israel and her witting or unwitting U.S. backers may try to push the U.S. to “action” — is noteworthy and ominous, even amid the softer criticism and restated doubts about an attack.

Some relevant portions of Yossi Alphers analysis, published by Americans for Peace Now, are included below.

Q. Jeffrey Goldberg’s “Atlantic” article on the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program is causing quite a stir. What’s your take?

A. The article contains a lot of interesting perspectives and is worth a read. But I believe Goldberg inadvertently exaggerates or misunderstands a number of issues.

First, he cites the consensus assessment of the 40-some Israeli decision-makers, past and present, that he spoke with, to the effect that “there is a better than 50 percent chance that Israel will launch a strike by next July”, then adds, “They were not part of some public-relations campaign.” I beg to differ; they were. Most of these people knew exactly whom they were talking to and how influential he is in certain circles in Washington. Most of them without a doubt believe that it is possible to influence President Obama’s ultimate decision–if and when sanctions fail–as to whether the US itself should attack Iran. They understand (as Goldberg himself notes) that the US can do the job far better than Israel and that an Israeli attack not coordinated with Washington that Goldberg writes about would be disastrous for Israel’s relations with the US as well as the rest of the world.

So, some or all of Goldberg’s interviewees didn’t “lay it on thick” for him in an effort to increase the pressure on both Iran and Washington? That’s a naive supposition. After all, as Goldberg recognizes, the Israeli strategy for dealing with Iran is premised on the need to persuade the international community to deal with Iran as an international, not just Israeli, problem. Goldberg’s article is one more tool for achieving this objective.

Second, had Goldberg spoken to Iran experts and not just “decision-makers”, whether in Israel or the US, he would have heard that, overall, the Iranian leadership (and not just President Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad) for the most part is not based on “a messianic apocalyptic cult” as Netanyahu is quoted as opining and that the messianic types are not at the center of Iranian decision-making. And those Iran experts, including in IDF and Mossad intelligence, can be expected to have a say in any decision to attack Iran. It is no accident that current IDF Chief of Staff Gaby Ashkenazi is described by Goldberg as being skeptical about the wisdom of an attack.

Third, largely because of his father, PM Binyamin Netanyahu is described by Goldberg as being “different” in that (quoting Israel’s ambassador in Washington, Michael Oren), “He has a deep sense of his role in Jewish history.” Well, so had every Israeli prime minister in the country’s history. With or without his father’s influence, Netanyahu is neither more nor less committed to preventing another Holocaust than was Levi Eshkol, Golda Meir, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir or Yitzhak Rabin.

Then there is the argument, attributed by Goldberg to Ehud Barak and Ephraim Sneh, that if Israel is obliged to live under an Iranian nuclear threat, the country will suffer a huge brain drain and effectively wither away. I don’t buy it. To his credit, neither does Goldberg. Reading between the lines of his article, he didn’t hear this from most of his Israeli interlocutors. Accordingly, this certainly should not have been alluded to by Goldberg as a compelling reason to go to war.

On the other hand, what Goldberg does not talk about is that an Israeli decision to coexist with an Iranian nuclear threat would oblige Israel to raise its own nuclear profile. Could this conceivably generate a stable balance of mutually assured destruction that might be preferable to a destructive war? Goldberg doesn’t ask.

Then there is a second area of Israeli thinking about war with Iran that Goldberg has neglected. This is unfortunate, because it is important for both Israelis and Americans to punch holes in it. More than three decades after the Islamic revolution in Iran, there are some prominently placed Israelis who actually believe an attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would somehow bring down the ayatollahs’ regime and restore the “good guys” to power in Tehran. This is a dangerous case of nostalgia for the periphery doctrine of Israel’s early decades, when we made common cause with Iran, Turkey and other non-Arabs or non-Muslims in the region against Arab nationalism and aggression driven by Nasserism.

Israel’s current outrage at Turkey’s regional policies is another instance of poorly controlled periphery-nostalgia. Today, Israel’s primary enemy is militant Islam as embodied in non-Arab and non-state actors in the region. The Arabs are potential allies, though due to the weakness of the Arab state system this doesn’t mean much. One way or another, there is every reason to believe that an attack on Iran would only strengthen the Iranian regime. Certainly, regime-change in Tehran should not be a factor in Israeli or American decision-making concerning an attack on Iran.

Q. Can you yourself conceive of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure?

A. Yes, but only if all the following conditions are fulfilled, some of which Goldberg seemingly ignores or underestimates:

1.         The regime in Tehran continues to call for Israel’s destruction.

2.         The Iranian nuclear program is crossing a “red line” and the timetable for obtaining the capacity to attack Israel with nuclear weapons has become extremely short.

3.         All international efforts based on diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions are understood unequivocally to have failed.

4.         All clandestine efforts to slow the Iranian program (which have apparently been very effective over the past 15 years) are understood to have failed.

5.         It is clear to Israel that neither the US nor any other international actor is prepared to deal militarily with Iran. If possible, Israel obtains at least a “yellow light” from the US.

6.         Israel has safe physical access for its aircraft via one or more of the countries separating it from Iran.

7.         An Israeli attack can set back the Iranian military nuclear program for a significant period of time.

8.         A sober cost-benefit analysis persuades Israeli planners that the benefit of significantly damaging the Iranian program outweighs the very heavy potential ancillary costs of the strike: rocket attacks on Israel from the north and south and missile attacks from Iran; regional and international outrage and isolation; an historic crisis in Israeli-American relations; dangers to Diaspora Jewish communities from terrorist attack; etc.

If indeed, all these conditions are fulfilled at some time in the future, I can imagine any Israeli leader, even one who hails from the left or center and whose father is not Ben Zion Netanyahu, concluding that the future of the Jewish people and certainly of the Jewish state rests on his/her shoulders.

But we are not there, and are not likely to be there next spring.