One of the main reasons for the tension - not to mention a rift - between senior security officials in the last decade and then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was precisely around the right strategy vis-à-vis the Iranian nuclear program, and much has been written about it.
To stop Netanyahu, who seemed dangerous to them, there were senior commentators in the media who justified extreme measures to the point of a military coup.
The most extreme step known for him is the trip of Mossad chief Meir Dagan to the head of the CIA, Leon Panetta, begging the US administration to arrest Netanyahu and Barak.
Now the same media outlets as well as senior officials from that period have become proponents of the military option.
Moreover, they accuse Netanyahu of abandoning this option.
They are talking in one corner of the mouth about the need to attack the nuclear facilities and in the other corner about the fact that, precisely because of Netanyahu, there is no military option on the shelf today, so the matter will be rejected.
When?
At least until the shift of Chief of Staff Kochavi and, of course, the shift of Prime Minister Naftali Bennett pass.
Ganz meets with Defense Secretary: "We will deepen the discourse on joint military readiness vis-à-vis Iran" // Photo: Defense Minister Communications
Bennett himself spoke in an interview after the election of Joe Biden as president about the need to be coordinated with him on a return to the nuclear deal. Therefore, the words of the new "military option" party do not inspire confidence. Senior Likud officials said they were trying to strip the lion of skin, while the lion - Netanyahu - was still running, joking and still hungry. In the opinion of the head of the opposition, a false narrative about the Iranian nuclear program is known to the public. The military option existed all along. In his view, when asked if he now supports military action, he is in favor of preventing the Iranians from carrying out their nuclear program, and if it requires the use of military force - then unequivocally yes.
In other words, Netanyahu's approach, even today, under the irresponsible propaganda attack, is cautious.
There is a certain purpose, there is an arsenal of moves that can be made, probably mainly in its leadership, and if that means military action, then Israel will go for it.
It sounds more accurate, and more serious and reliable.
The goal is to thwart the nuclear program and not just an action of Zebang and our man.
What's more, since 2015 the International Atomic Energy Agency has discovered four secret nuclear facilities that were not included in the agreement.
A crane is required
Netanyahu's basic view is that without the military option, Israel has nothing;
It has no leverage vis-à-vis the Iranians, vis-à-vis the Americans and vis-à-vis the group of international negotiating powers.
His view is a matter of principle: an agreement on nuclear energy gives international legitimacy to the uranium enrichment program and finally to nuclear weapons.
The debate has recently revolved around the question of whether Netanyahu, who has constantly pushed to strengthen the military option, has actually slowed down in the past two years.
Netanyahu defined the issue of the Iranian nuclear issue as Israel's supreme goal included in the security doctrine.
As part of this perception, he demanded an additional budget to be allocated by the IDF to the issue of the attack on Iran. It was rejected by the IDF;
The IDF leadership clarified that it could not allocate resources from the existing budget, which stood at "only" NIS 60 billion.
As prime minister, he made the necessary additions to the budget through American aid funds.
This was not the first time that Netanyahu entered into a confrontation with the top security officials who opposed him on several issues.
This was the case with the fence on the Sinai border, which also required an additional budget for its construction;
The fence was essential for blocking the flood of infiltrators, and Netanyahu saw this issue, which is apparently not military, as a national security interest.
The same is true of the underground barrier to the blockade of Hamas tunnels on the Gaza border, which cost several billion shekels.
Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, Photo: Gideon Markovich
As for the effectiveness of Netanyahu's policy, there are several witnesses, and Naftali Bennett himself is not the least of them.
But the first is the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Muhammad al-Baradei, who visited Israel in 2005 and claimed that by 2012 Iran would have nuclear weapons.
Gen. Amos Yadlin predicted that "assuming no difficulties are piled up on Iran, then the dire scenario is that by the end of 2009 Iran could have nuclear weapons," Yossi Beidetz, research researcher, told the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in November 2007.
Bennett said years later that "for so many years he has ridiculed and underestimated Netanyahu's consistent policy on Iran ... I agree with him in the cabinet and the decision to publish last week (2018, bringing the Iranian nuclear archive); and once again self-defense experts "Of Israel ... for publicity purposes. It seems to me that today the future of our children and grandchildren is much safer than yesterday (it should be said to him) Thank you very much."
The question of budget
There have been handshakes in the last two years between the government and the IDF. They argued that it is impossible to transfer budgets within the 60 billion shekels of the defense budget, because it is money tied up in contracts. Additional budget.There was a confrontation about this that included the use of horror scenarios.The bypass roads found led to the money being found and reaching its districts in February 2021.
Another issue that some of the commentators are also wrong about is regarding Netanyahu's aspiration that increasing "maximum pressure" will bring Iran into a position that will allow the signing of an improved nuclear agreement.
It is very possible that President Trump would have done it, and perhaps it would not have been so terrible for Israel, but Netanyahu's view on this issue as well is in principle: the only legitimate agreement is an agreement to dismantle the Iranian military nuclear program.
In light of all the prophecies about atomic deadlines, the fact that even today in 2021 they do not have a nuclear option in hand is the achievement of Netanyahu's policy.
In his view, what is happening today is an attempt to rewrite history, and the strange thing is that this is not history that took place a generation ago - it is recent history.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us