Dagan brought a possible attack on Iran closer – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
Dagan is the hero of the century. In the past eight years he rehabilitated the Mossad, headed daring operations and obtained rare intelligence. His biggest achievement was time. Dagan is the man who won time vis-a-vis Iran. But the shadow man’s decision to come out into the light and unleash his tongue was inexplicable. Some think it caused Israel severe strategic damage.
The prime minister responded with rage to the former Mossad chief’s statements. Benjamin Netanyahu thinks Dagan has sabotaged the diplomatic effort to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. But Netanyahu isn’t alone. Senior officials in the United States, Britain and France this week castigated Dagan for his utterances. The White House and Capitol Hill expressed shock and anger. Major allies of Israel saw the former Mossad chief’s briefing as incomprehensible and irresponsible.
***
Dagan probably thinks Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are dangerous people. He is afraid they might make some foolhardy move in Iran. But the things he said around the end of his term have not neutralized the military option. Rather, they damaged the attempt to impose a diplomatic-economic siege on Iran. So Dagan did not remove the possibility of an attack on Iran, but brought it closer.
Senior American, British and French officials compared the damage done by Dagan to the damage caused by the complacent, unfounded American intelligence evaluation released at the end of 2007. Senior Israeli officials compared the accuracy level of Dagan’s evaluation to that of Military Intelligence’s evaluation that determined in 1966 that no war was expected in 1967. All these officials sighed in exasperation. Dagan left many mouths open in Washington, London, Paris and Jerusalem.
Seems like just the sort of stuff that I’ve encountered somewhere else of late.
Every move that damages Iran’s plans and doesn’t entirely destroy their capabilities is a blow to peace and security.
Every word spoken that deviates from the ultra-confrontational line espoused by warhawks and that merely shows hostile intent coupled with a desire to thwart Iran without open warfare invites warfare.