The new Israeli leadership's declaration that we have no ready military option vis-à-vis Iran - contrary to past policy - prepares the ground for total reliance on the Americans
Israel's potential allies respond not by the amount of enriched uranium Iran produces, but by the intensity of its determination and the actions directed against Iran as a whole, as a country.
The fierce and effective resistance shown by the United States and Israel in concert has led the Gulf, Sudanese and Moroccan principalities to join Israel. Operated by the United States and Israel.
These seem to them to be in a dramatic weakening.
The background to Prime Minister Naftali Bennett's visit to Abu Dhabi this week is the emerging intelligence ties between the United Arab Emirates and Iran. Bennett's main goal was to bring them into line with Israel in its position, in view of the Vienna negotiations on the nuclear agreement. There will be no agreement, and existing sanctions will even be tightened.The UAE does not seem to be a significant enough player to add weight to Israel's position.
It should be noted that at this critical juncture, most of the government and media propaganda efforts in Israel are directed at former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Talk about his "mistake" when the Americans withdrew from the agreement in 2018.
What is the mistake?
That no alternative has been prepared for a situation in which the "maximum pressure" strategy ceases to function.
Netanyahu's policy critics' intention, in the main, is to fold the "military option."
According to sources familiar with the matter, and according to Barak Ravid in his book "Trump's Peace", then-Chief of Staff Eisenkot said that in the era of President Trump they thought that when he said Iran would have no nuclear weapons he meant it. Once they withdrew from the agreement and began the policy of harsh sanctions, accompanied by covert activity - there was an exacerbation of operational activity, and between autumn 2020 and April 2021, Israel - according to foreign sources - twice destroyed the centrifuge plant in Natanz and eliminated the head of the Pharisees nuclear project.
The more interesting question is why the new Israeli leadership declared out loud that Israel has no ready-made military option. Even if there is no such thing, Israel has created a certain image over the years, which has intensified in recent years through intrusive actions within Iran. Suddenly she announces in the matchmaking section, that she should not be expected to have certain abilities? Just to win some propaganda points against Netanyahu? Everything is possible. In this context, the Bloomberg Agency released a diagram a few weeks ago showing the enrichment activity and the amounts of enriched uranium in Iran: the amounts on the eve of the signing of the original nuclear agreement in 2015 were much higher than they are today. Progress in enriched uranium accumulation began in late 2019. But Iran stopped implementing its commitments under the nuclear deal, including the Additional Protocol, only on February 23 this year. Iran's progress on the nuclear issue stems from President Biden's commitment, even before he is elected, to return to the nuclear deal as soon as possible. The fiasco in Afghanistan encouraged them to press the gas of the centrifuges. In the current situation,The leadership in Israel will breathe a sigh of relief if they return to the original agreement (!). This is ultimately the explanation for Blitz against Netanyahu. To justify political incompetence, and to justify the notion of relying on a weak and alienated democratic government.
Decision, not unanimous
The composition of the security cabinet, as it stands today, does not guarantee a total anti-Iranian approach. It is also not certain that Bennett-Lapid-Gantz will succeed in attracting the other member ministers
, but it should be mentioned that Israel does not only have military options that are zero or 100. Without and feeling with. It is possible to sabotage, delay and destroy even in ways that will not cause a great war to flare up. Of Israel at what stage to act.
Dr. Dori Gold, former director general of the Foreign Ministry, returned last week from a conference of research institutes in Bahrain.
He says that a new field of research and study is developing and is deciphering the Israeli system, mainly by elements in the Arab world, such as Jordan.
It is a fact that even within Israel, branching expertise is required to understand the decision-making process here and the process of changing policy.
The Canadian professor Michael Richer tried to do this as early as the early 1970s and called it "the narrow circle of decision-makers."
This was not the government, for those who ask.
This is clearly seen in the Yom Kippur War affair.
The government was out of the loop.
This circle consisted of the prime minister, the defense minister and some other close associate or two, and in addition, according to the degree of trust, they were present in the circle of the chief of staff or the head of the Mossad.
During the Eshkol period, for example, Chief of Staff Rabin was overweight, and in Golda Meir Chief of Staff Dado Elazar.
Yigal Alon's entry into government in 1961, and even only as Minister of Labor and a member of the Ministerial Committee on Defense, created a significant change in the system of decision-making and perceptions.
This is how some point out that despite all the testosterone in the current security cabinet - Nitzan Horowitz's entry into the closed circle of decision makers marks a change that may develop in unexpected directions in the long run.
The dichotomy here is between a decisive anti-Iranianism in the style of Netanyahu and a conciliatory approach that minimizes danger.
And on this scale, the current circle of decision-makers, as expressed in the security cabinet, cannot be considered a cast anti-Iranian concrete.
There is the leading trio, which is coordinated and with one head on the issue of Iran - Bennett, Ganz and Lapid.
If the three reach a decisive decision between them, the question will be asked whether they have the power to carry the other nine ministers in the cabinet with them.
The key man is of course Gantz, who is considered moderate and reliable, and if he comes to the conclusion that he needs a certain action - he has the power to convince.
The presence of an incomparable Sarah like Yifat Shasha Bitton in this circle is absurd.
Absurd over absurd: Gideon Saar's queer party has three cabinet members (Saar, Elkin and Shasha Bitton), meaning that a quarter of the decisive votes on the day of an order belong to a party without any public support.
Saar himself, who is counted in the "right" category, can not at all be considered a hawk in these contexts.
Articles he published in the INSS indicate a great reluctance to confront Hezbollah.
Gideon Saar.
Photo: Oren Ben Hakon,
Creeping imperialism
Voter ID the next Attorney General was elected as lead that feel "must" in appointing him. This is another sign of the disintegration of the state, from the creator of the Minister of Justice
Party's new hope assault is any ultimate example castration of democracy and the collapse of the state in the name of protecting the "gatekeepers" This failed party, which won only six seats in the Knesset, holds a very large share of what can be called the "Interior Government": the justice, education, media and construction and housing portfolios.
This is not acceptable.
Now Saar has set up a committee to select the attorney general.
This is a role that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice originally had to appoint, in order to implement enforcement policy in the order of priority of the elected government.
He should also give advice on the implementation of such policies, such as the expulsion of infiltrators.
The composition of the committee - chaired by the two dominant members, former court president Asher Grunis and former justice minister Dan Meridor - shows that the next adviser will be a representative of the judiciary - who owes his appointment to Supreme Court President Esther Hayut, who sought to chair the committee One of her predecessors in office is the Supreme Court's creeping imperialism into the executive branch. And the question arises: Has the Jewish people not suffered enough? What appointment will it receive from the plague of the Gabayim in six years?
Without favors
Even if the personal relationship between Netanyahu and Trump was not good, the list of achievements speaks for itself. Previous prime ministers have shown that caressing an American president is a worrying sign that
bibiphobia and incitement are still very much alive and well. That's why Trump's insult affair has been so absorbed and garnered so much media coverage. Trump, who was not a fan of the bronze, receives a book that recognizes his practice, and in return pays a membership fee to the non-Bibi cult. It is hard to believe that there is another country in the world whose propaganda mouthpieces would have been mobilized in this way to amplify morbid remarks against a prime minister who has worked successfully for many years for the benefit of the state.
As some commentators have noted, the interview provides proof that it was not at all easy to work with Trump and that Netanyahu got the most out of him. Also on the issue of historical legal recognition of Judea and Samaria. The "Peace Now" report on "creeping annexation" in the days of Trump is the best testimony to what Netanyahu and his people have achieved. Trump's greatest success in foreign policy has been in the Middle East. Built here, including in the fight against the Iranian nuclear program.
A little over a year ago, Makor Rishon conducted a survey on the degree to which right-wing voters were satisfied with the Netanyahu government's performance (on the eve of vaccinations, about four months before the fourth round of elections). The question posed was whether Netanyahu is implementing the worldview of the right? 46.6 percent answered - "to a large extent". 27 percent "moderately". That's a total of about 73 percent of satisfaction with what has been achieved. On the question - to what extent has the right-wing government succeeded in implementing its security policy? About 59 percent answered "largely," about 23 percent moderately. Again, these are very high data of satisfaction.
Right-wing leaders who worked together to overthrow the "right-wing government" and Netanyahu did so against the will of their constituents.
This is not news.
And today we live in another world.
Satisfaction from a year ago also indicates the degree of success of Israeli-American cooperation in the region.
He owes Trump's success in the problematic sector, in which most US presidents have failed, to Netanyahu who set the direction and shaped Middle East policy.
In the face of Trump, who receives an amplifying system of raging Israeli media, Netanyahu's matter-of-fact and restrained response stood out.
This is the difference in the leadership level between him and Trump himself, and between him and local leaders and heads of state in the country, like Mandelblit or Beinisch and Saar, who have recently expressed themselves in a promiscuous and inciting way.
The public can judge by the form of behavior and expression, who is more responsible and who can be trusted.
In the end, American experts in the Middle East, such as Aaron David Miller and Daniel Pipes, predicted at the beginning of Trump's tenure that in about a year the explosive financial president would turn against Israel.
It did not happen.
It turns out that for most of the period, the personal relationship between Netanyahu and Trump was not good, maybe even bad.
Looking back on Israeli prime ministers and American presidents, with a current or former president showering praise and verbal caresses on an Israeli prime minister, this is a worrying sign.
A sign that the Israeli provided good service to the Americans and harmed the Israeli interest.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us