Moshe
Ya'alon tells Ari Shavit he is preparing for war. He suggests you do
the same.
By Ari
Shavit
With
a mischievous smile on his face and a naughty twinkle in his eye,
the tall, bespectacled officer had everyone roaring with laughter at
ethnic jokes, accent jokes and small-town jokes. Suddenly he was no
longer a tough chief of the General Staff in a starched uniform, but
a delightful jester bursting with life. If I describe this scene to
my readers, I said to the IDF spokeswoman, they will think I was on
some sort of drug: No one will believe that behind the stone face
that Chief of Staff Ya’alon puts on lurks this affable,
free-spirited Bogie with a terrific sense of
humor.
A
great many things have been burned into people’s minds since that
standup act on the 14th floor of the IDF tower in the Kirya defense
headquarters in Tel Aviv. To the astonishment of many, Hamas did in
fact seize control of Gaza and did indeed rain down rockets on
Israeli cities. To the amazement of others, Ya’alon did not pursue a
career as a school principal in the Arava, but pursued a political
career and has even done well in politics. Within a few years, the
dairy farmer from Kibbutz Grofit, north of Eilat, became one of the
most right-wing leaders of the right wing.
True,
Bogie has surprised the “national camp” time and again. He spoke out
against the exclusion of women from public events due to religious
strictures, opposed racism against migrants and objected to the
silencing of reporters. He supported same-sex marriage and the right
of Supreme Court Justice Salim Joubran not to sing the national
anthem.
But
despite his partial “otherness,” this son of the Labor Movement
became the hero of the followers of Jabotinsky, the hero of the
settlement project and the hero of hawkishness. It is only in regard
to the Iranian issue that the minister of strategic threats is
perceived as a dove. In closed conversations he reiterates his deep
concern about the influence wielded by Ehud Barak on Benjamin
Netanyahu, and about the possibility that the former will drag the
latter into a wanton Iranian adventure.
In
the modest living room of his kibbutz home, where he lives with his
wife Ada, Ya’alon sits across from me in shorts, a blue shirt and
sandals. He gets up to make a cup of black coffee and pushes a dish
of dates toward me. This time he doesn't tell jokes. In a very
accurate and concentrated way, the vice premier describes a harsh
reality. That is why he agreed to give this unprecedented interview.
Ya'alon believes the time has come to narrow the gap between what he
knows and what we know. He believes it is time to tell the people of
Israel what they are up against.
Moshe
“Bogie” Ya’alon, could a war erupt this year?
“I
hope not. I hope that in regard to Iran it will be possible to say,
as the old saw goes, that the work of the just is done by others.
But obviously we are preparing for every possibility. If I am not
for myself, who will be for me?”
If
you had to provide a comprehensive intelligence assessment today,
would you say that the probability of a war in the year ahead is
negligible, low, middling or high?
“The
probability of an initiated attack on Israel is low. I do not see an
Arab coalition armed from head to foot deploying on our borders -
not this year, not in the year after and not in the foreseeable
future. Despite the trend toward Islamization in the Middle East, we
enjoy security and relative quiet along the borders. But the No. 1
challenge is that of Iran. If anyone attacks Iran, it’s clear that
Iran will take action against us. If anyone, no matter who, decides
to take military action against Iran’s nuclear project, there is a
high probability that Iran will react against us, too, and will fire
missiles at Israel. There is also a high probability that Hezbollah
and Islamist elements in the Gaza Strip will operate against us.
That possibility exists, and it’s with a view to that possibility
that we have to deploy.”
What
the vice premier is telling me is that we are close to the moment of
truth regarding Iran.
“Definitely.
When I was director of Military Intelligence, in the 1990s, Iran did
not possess one kilogram of enriched uranium. Today it has 6,300
kilograms of uranium enriched to a level of 3.5 percent and about
150 kilograms enriched to a level of 20 percent. When I was chief of
staff, in the first decade of this century, Iran had a few hundred
centrifuges, most of which were substandard.
“At
present there are about 10,000 centrifuges in Natanz and in Kom,
which are enriching about eight kilograms of uranium a day. Since
this government took office in 2009, the number of centrifuges in
Iran has almost doubled and the amount of enriched uranium has
increased sixfold. The meaning of these data is that Iran already
today has enough enriched uranium to manufacture five atomic bombs.
If Iran is not stopped, within a year it will have enough uranium
for seven or eight atomic bombs.
“In
addition, the Iranians apparently possess a weapons development
system which they are hiding from the international supervisory
apparatus. The Iranians also have 400 missiles of different types,
which can reach the whole area of Israel and certain parts of
Europe. Those missiles were built from the outset with the ability
to carry nuclear warheads. So the picture is clear. Five years ago,
even three years ago, Iran was not within the zone of the nuclear
threshold. Today it is. Before our eyes Iran is becoming a
nuclear-threshold power.”
But
to build a nuclear bomb Iran needs uranium enriched to a level of 90
percent and above. At the moment it is still not
there.
“True,
but if Iran goes confrontational and goes nuclear, it has the
capability to enrich uranium to above 90 percent within two or three
months. Even if it does not build a standard nuclear bomb, within
less than six months it will be in possession of at least one
primitive nuclear device: a dirty bomb.”
If
so, maybe it’s already too late. The Iranians won and we lost and we
have to resign ourselves to Iran’s being in possession of nuclear
weapons in the near future.
“Absolutely
not. It will be disastrous if we or the international community
become resigned to the idea of a nuclear Iran. The regime of the
ayatollahs is apocalyptic-messianic in character. It poses a
challenge to Western culture and to the world order. Its scale of
values and its religious beliefs are different, and its ambition is
to foist them on everyone. Accordingly, it is an obligation to
prevent this nonconventional regime from acquiring nonconventional
weapons. Neither we nor the West is at liberty to accept an Iranian
nuclear bomb. What I am telling you is not rhetoric and it is not
propaganda. A nuclear Iran is a true threat to world
peace.”
Crossing
red lines
But
you yourself are telling me that the Iranians have already crossed
most of the red lines. They have swept past the points of no return.
Doesn’t that mean that we are now facing the cruel dilemma of bomb
or bombing?
“We
are not there yet. I hope we will not get there. The international
community can still act aggressively and with determination. Other
developments are also feasible. But if the question is bomb or
bombing, the answer is clear: bomb.
The
answer is clear to you but not to me. We survived the Cold War. We
also survived the nuclearization of Pakistan and North Korea. Israel
is said to possess strategic capability that is able to create
decisive deterrence against Iran. Would it not be right to say that
just as Europe lived with the Soviet bomb, we will be able to live
in the future with the Shiite bomb?
“No
and no and again no. The first answer to your question is that if
Iran goes nuclear, four or five more countries in the Middle East
are liable to go nuclear, too. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan
and other Arab states will say that if Iran has a bomb they also
need a bomb. The result will be a nuclear Middle East. A nuclear
Middle East will not be stable and therefore the world will not be
stable. Iranian nuclearization will bring in its wake nuclear
chaos.
“The
second answer to your question is that a nuclear umbrella will allow
Iran to achieve regional hegemony. The Gulf states, finding
themselves under that umbrella, will ask themselves which they
prefer: distant Washington or nearby Tehran. In my view, they will
opt for nearby Tehran. A nuclear Iran is liable to take control of
the energy sources in the Persian Gulf and of a very large slice of
the world’s oil supply. That will have far-reaching international
implications. But a nuclear Iran will also challenge Israel and
bring about a series of brutal conventional confrontations on our
borders. That will have serious consequences for
Israel.
“The
third answer to your question is that one day the Iranian regime is
liable to use its nuclear capability. That does not mean that the
day after the Iranians acquire a bomb they will load it on a plane
or a missile and drop it on a Western city. But there is a danger of
the use of nuclear weapons by means of proxies. A terrorist
organization could smuggle a dirty bomb into the port of New York or
the port of London or the port of Haifa. I also do not rule out the
possibility of the direct use of nuclear weapons by means of
missiles. That risk is low, but it exists. That extreme scenario is
not impossible.”
But
the Iranians are rational, and the use of nuclear weapons is an
irrational act. Like the Soviets, they will never do
that.
“A
Western individual observing the fantastic ambitions of the Iranian
leadership scoffs: ‘What do they think, that they will Islamize us?’
The surprising answer is: Yes, they think they will Islamize us: The
ambition of the present regime in Tehran is for the Western world to
become Muslim at the end of a lengthy process. Accordingly, we have
to understand that their rationality is completely different from
our rationality. Their concepts are different and their
considerations are different. They are completely unlike the former
Soviet Union. They are not even like Pakistan or North Korea. If
Iran enjoys a nuclear umbrella and the feeling of strength of a
nuclear power, there is no knowing how it will behave. It will be
impossible to accommodate a nuclear Iran and it will be impossible
to attain stability. The consequences of a nuclear Iran will be
catastrophic.”
Bombing
too will have catastrophic consequences: a regional war, a religious
war, thousands of civilians killed.
“Anyone
who has experienced war, as I have, does not want war. War is a dire
event. But the question is: What is the alternative? What is the
other option to war? I told you once and will tell you again: If it
is bomb or bombing, from my point of view it is bombing. True,
bombing will have a price. We must not underestimate or overestimate
that price. We have to assume that Israel will be attacked by
Iranian missiles, many of which will be intercepted by the Arrow
system. We have to assume that Hezbollah will join the confrontation
and fire thousands of rockets at us. Rockets will also be fired from
the Gaza Strip. The probability of Syria entering the fray is low,
but we have to deploy for that possibility, too. I am not saying it
will be easy. But when you pit all of that against the alternative
of a nuclear Iran, there is no hesitation at all. It is preferable
to pay the steep price of war than to allow Iran to acquire military
nuclear capability. That’s as clear as day, as far as I am
concerned.”
How
many casualties will we have? Hundreds? Thousands?
“I
cannot estimate how many will be killed, but I suggest that we not
terrify ourselves. Every person killed is great sorrow. But we have
to be ready to pay the price that is required so that Iran does not
go nuclear. Again: I hope it does not come to that. I hope that it
will be done by others. In the Iranians’ eyes, Israel is only the
Little Satan, and the United States is the Great Satan. But as I
told you: If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
“
Hezbollah
scenario
Hezbollah
can hit every place in Israel today: population centers, army bases,
strategic targets. Doesn’t the scenario of a massive missile attack
make you lose sleep?
“My
assessment is that Hezbollah will enter the fray. But what happened
in the Second Lebanon War will not be repeated. The way to stop the
rockets is to exact from the other side a price that will oblige it
to ask for a cease-fire. We have the ability to hit Hezbollah with
150 times the explosives that it can hit us with. We can also do it
a lot more accurately. If we are attacked from inside Lebanon, the
government of Lebanon will bear very great
responsibility.”
You
answered my question about the home front. But what about the
argument that bombing will spark a permanent religious war and will
unify the Iranian people around the regime? What about the argument
that bombing will in fact cause the collapse of the sanctions and
allow Iran to go confrontational and hurtle openly toward nuclear
capability?
“First
things first and last things last. In regard to a religious war,
isn’t the regime in Iran waging a religious war against us today? In
regard to the people unifying behind the regime: I do not accept
that. I think that an operation could even destabilize the regime.
In my estimation, 70 percent of the Iranians will be happy to be rid
of the regime of the ayatollahs.
“Let
me reply in greater detail to the argument that Iran will hurtle
toward nuclearization on the day after the bombing. Those who focus
the debate on the narrow technological aspect of the problem can
argue that all that will be achieved is a delay of a year or two,
not much more. If so, they will say, ‘What did we accomplish? What
did we gain?’ But the question is far broader. One of the important
elements here is to convince the Iranian regime that the West is
determined to prevent its acquisition of nuclear capability. And
what demonstrates greater determination than the use of
force?
“Therefore,
it is wrong for us to view a military operation and its results only
from an engineering point of view. I want to remind you that in the
discussions of the security cabinet before the Israeli attack on
[the nuclear reactor in] Iraq, the experts claimed that Saddam
Hussein would acquire a new reactor with a year. They were right
from the engineering aspect but mistaken historically. If Iran does
go confrontational and tries openly to manufacture nuclear weapons,
it will find itself in a head-on confrontation with the
international community. The president of the United States has
undertaken that Iran will not be a nuclear power. If Iran defies him
directly, it will have to deal with him and will embark upon a
collision course with the West.”
But
the Americans are with us. The Americans will rescue us. Why jump in
head-first?
“There
is agreement between the United States and us on the goal, and
agreement on intelligence and close cooperation. But we are in
disagreement about the red line. For the Americans, the red line is
an order by [Ayatollah] Khamenei to build a nuclear bomb. For us,
the red line is Iranian ability to build a nuclear
bomb.
“We
do not accept the American approach for three reasons. First,
because it implies that Iran can be a threshold-power which, as long
as it does not manufacture nuclear weapons in practice is allowed to
possess the ability to manufacture them. Second, because in our
assessment there is no certainty that it will be possible to
intercept in time the precious report that Khamenei finally gave the
order to build a bomb . Third, there is a disparity between the
sense of threat and urgency in Jerusalem and the sense of threat and
urgency in Washington.”
Yet,
Israel is not believed either internationally or domestically. The
feeling is that Israel is crying wolf and playing a sophisticated
game of ‘Hold me back.’
“Let
me say one thing to you in English, because it is very important for
English speakers to understand it: ‘We are not bluffing.’ If the
political-economic pressure is played out and the other alternatives
are played out, and Iran continues to hurtle toward a bomb,
decisions will have to be made.”
Is
there a danger that the Iranian crisis will reach its peak already
in the year ahead?
“There
was a time when we talked about a decade. Afterward we talked about
years. Now we are talking about months. It is possible that the
sanctions will suddenly work. But presently we are in a situation
that necessitates a daily check. I am not exaggerating: daily. From
our point of view, Iranian ability to manufacture nuclear weapons is
a sword held over our throat. The sword is getting closer and
closer. Under no circumstances will Israel agree to let the sword
touch its throat.”
‘Cruel
truth’
Bogie,
what happened to you? You are a Mapainik from the Labor-oriented
Haifa suburbs, a kibbutznik and a Rabinist from Oslo. Why did you
suddenly move to beyond the hills of darkness of the right? Isn’t it
odd for you to wake up in the morning and discover that you have
become a Likudnik?
“The
question is not what happened to me but what happened to the camp in
which I grew up. The Labor Movement had Yitzhak Tabenkin and Yigal
Allon and Yitzhak Rabin. Even Rabin, from the Oslo process, was
never from Peace Now. A month before he was assassinated he spoke in
the Knesset about an eternally unified Jerusalem, and about the
Jordan Rift Valley under Israeli sovereignty and about a Palestinian
entity that would be less than a state. Rabin supported the Allon
Plan in the broad sense and was firmly against a withdrawal to the
1967 lines ... Morally, mortal danger overcomes land, but in
practice giving up land causes mortal danger. That is the reality we
live in. That is the truth, however cruel.”
Let’s
assume there is no “land for peace,” but that there is “land for
Zionism” - land in return for our ability to maintain a Jewish
democratic state that does not commit suicide by occupation and
settlements.
“As
long as the other side is not ready to recognize our right to exist
as the nation-state of the Jewish people, I am not ready to forgo a
millimeter. I am not even willing to talk about territory. After
land-for-peace became land-for-terror and land-for-rockets, I am no
longer willing to bury my head in the sand. In the reality of the
Middle East what is needed is stability above all. Stability is
achieved not by means of imaginary agreements on the White House
lawn but by means of defense, by means of a thick stick and a
carrot.”
And
we can live like this for another 20 years?
“We
can live like this for another 100 years,
too.”
But
we are rotting away, Bogie. Demographically, politically and
morally, we are rotting.
“The
demographic argument is a lie. As for the political legitimacy, I
prefer to operate against a threatening entity from within the
present lines. And morally, as long as the Palestinians do not
recognize the right of existence of a Jewish state, they are the
aggressor. After all, they do not recognize my right to live in Tel
Aviv, either. From their point of view, the occupation did not begin
in 1967 but in 1948. Anyone who claims otherwise is throwing sand in
your eyes or deceiving himself.”
And
what do you propose for the future? Another 100 settlements? A
million Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria?
“The
establishment of more settlements touches on political and state
sensitivities. But there are now already 350,000 settlers in Judea
and Samaria. If the political reality does not change, their number
could rise to a million.”
If
so, what kind of reality will we be living in 10 years from now? A
million Jews in Judea and Samaria, the Palestinians with no state
and the two populations intermingled?
“The
Palestinians will have autonomy and have their own parliament. I can
tolerate that state of affairs. Any other state of affairs will be
irresponsible in security terms. Do you want snipers in Jerusalem?
Do you want rockets hitting Ben-Gurion airport? It is the
Palestinians who are placing us in this difficult
situation.
“I
was ready to divide the land. They are not ready to divide the land
and recognize my right to exist here within some sort of border.
Therefore, because they say ‘either them or us,’ I say ‘us.’ Until I
hear Abu Mazen [Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas] say there is a
Jewish people with a connection to the Land of Israel, and until I
see the three-year-old in Ramallah learning that Israel has a right
to exist - that is the state of affairs.”
If
so, there will be no peace, no withdrawal and no Palestinian state.
There will be no two-state solution.
“In
the present situation ‘solution’ is a dirty word. One of our biggest
problems is that we have become solution-oriented and now-oriented
and expect a solution now. We believe that we are omnipotent and
have the ability to find a solution to this problem which torments
us. But I believe a person should be more modest. What’s needed is
not to look for a solution but to look for a path. There are
problems in life that have no solution. And at the moment the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a problem with no solution. Anyone
who suggests a solution-now of one kind or another is not suggesting
a true solution but a false illusion. A golden calf.
Self-deception.”
Syrian
debacle
Bogie,
I understand what you are saying, but it is impossible live with
what you are saying. All you are offering me is a wall, an iron
wall, a determined stance. There is no hope in your words. No
latitude. No movement toward some sort of horizon.
“I
am actually very optimistic. I see where my grandfather and
grandmother were and where my parents were and where I am and where
my children are - and I see that time is not working against us.
Time works in favor of everyone who knows how to take advantage of
it. That is the secret of Zionism. And when our ethos is to build
and the ethos of the other side is to destroy, our ethos will
triumph. But what we have to free ourselves of is being
solution-oriented and now-oriented and of self-blame. We have to
free ourselves of the way of thinking that holds that if I give to
the enemy and if I please the enemy, the enemy will give me quiet.
That is an Ashkenazi way of thinking; it is not connected to the
reality of the Middle East.”
The
Damascus regime understands that very well and is defending its
honor by killing thousands of innocent civilians. Aren’t you
concerned that the chaos in Syria will result in chemical weapons
being smuggled out of that country?
“As
of now, we are seeing good control by the Syrians of their chemical
weapons supplies. But everyone with eyes in his head should prepare
for future developments. There is international deployment in this
regard. The Western states are focused on securing the stocks of
chemical weapons in Syria.”
With
your permission, as the interview draws to a close, we will move to
a few personal pleasures. Why do you despise Ehud
Barak?
“When
you live in a military system, you are living within a particular
ethical system. There are values, there are codes, there is high
regard even when there is no agreement. When you see someone
distancing himself from those values, a crisis ensues, and
disappointment. It is a moral disappointment.”
At
the moment we are going through a serious moral crisis as reflected
in the Harpaz affair. Where do you stand in regard to that grave
issue?
“It
is hard for me to read what is being published. What is being
published demands explanations from the two bureaus and from the two
people who headed those bureaus. It’s clear that what this affair
did not have was a responsible adult. Now it is necessary to
complete the clarification process as quickly as possible, whether
by completing the state comptroller’s report or by a criminal
investigation. If I were defense minister I would have treated the
wound when it was small, and not allowed it to become a festering
abscess that damages the government, the army and the country’s
security.”
But
you are not the defense minister; you are a kind of upgraded
minister without portfolio. Yair Lapid claims that this is a form of
corruption.
“There
is a knight-on-a-white-horse phenomenon in Israeli politics: the
Democratic Movement for Change, Shinui, the Center Party, Kadima.
These knights appear like fireflies and then disappear. Why? Because
they do not possess an ideological backbone, only rhetoric that
generates white hope of a white knight on a white horse.
Regrettably, there are fools who flock to these white
knights.
“I
certainly welcome everyone who is ready to plunge his hands into the
cold water of politics. Truly. But it seems to me a little
pretentious to appear on television and write columns in a newspaper
and think that you can be prime minister. A little humility, a
little responsibility. First work as an MK, then become a minister,
prove that you can manage a system. Occupy yourself with questions
of life and death, like the ones I dealt with for 37 years. I find
the notion that you can move from the media to being the leader of
the country a bit childish.”
But
you suffer from the opposite problem. You are tough, you are grim.
There is a feeling that you are uncomfortable on television and on
the stage and in the public arena.
“I
am in the game and I have to play by the rules of the game, but it’s
possible that people also discern that it’s hard for
me.”
And
the goal is to win the game: to become prime
minister?
“One
of the good things in Likud is that when there is a leader, he gets
backing. No attempt is made to subvert him. But in the remote
future, after a lot more water flows in the Jordan and Benjamin
Netanyahu decides that he no longer wants to head the party and the
country, we will be in a different situation. I definitely see
myself contesting the leadership. The premiership,
too.”
No comments:
Post a Comment