Is Iran deal a threat to Israel? New signs military is at odds with Netanyahu.

An overview of Israel's strategic doctrine authored by its military chief of staff, and the first ever made public, barely mentions Iran or its nuclear program.

Baz Ratner/AP/File
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits at a military outpost during a visit at Mount Hermon in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights overlooking the Israel-Syria border in February.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s denunciation of the Iran nuclear deal as a “historic mistake” enjoys broad public support and has been echoed by opposition leaders.

But many Israeli security chiefs have adopted a more nuanced approach to the agreement – the latest indication of a divergence between some in Israel’s defense establishment and the prime minister.

Mr. Netanyahu portrays Iran's nuclear program as an existential threat to Israel and is lobbying US lawmakers to block the deal. But after the agreement was announced in Switzerland last month, some former military officers endorsed it, saying it postponed the nuclear threat for another decade.

Now, in a fresh sign of a debate, the Israel Defense Forces has made public a 33-page overview of its strategic doctrine that raised eyebrows in Israel last week for barely mentioning Iran or its nuclear program.

Entitled simply, “IDF Strategy,” and authored by the chief of staff, Lt. Gen Gadi Eisenkot, the paper is a dry, dispassionate assessment of changing threats, military goals, and guiding principles for warfare. It marks the first time the army has ever released such a report to the public.

“It's not a secret that some high-ranking people in the Israeli security establishment, including the IDF, view this deal more favorably than the prime minister,’’ says Amir Tibon, diplomatic correspondent for “Walla!,” an Israeli news website.  “On the one hand, they think that the deal does indeed push Iran away from the bomb, which is a good thing. On the other hand, they share Netanyahu’s concern about Iran using sanctions relief money to increase its support for terror proxies across the region.’’

Netanyahu argues that Iran’s nuclear program is the top destabilizing factor in the Middle East, on par with Nazi Germany’s march to war in the late 1930’s. By contrast, the IDF document mentions Iran by name only once. Missing from a section providing an overview of threats to Israel is the word “nuclear” or any other reference to Iran’s atomic program, notes Mr. Tibon.

Writing in the liberal Haaretz newspaper, veteran defense commentator Amir Oren said that the IDF paper reflects a view that the threat of a nuclear Iran “has gone on vacation until 2025.’’

Asked to comment on the strategy document, a senior Israeli military official cautioned against jumping to conclusions about the army’s positions on the Iran deal. However, other Israeli defense analysts say the omissions weren’t a coincidence.

Different set of calculations

“I tend to think it’s on purpose. The military is an organization that looks at things as is, and I think that their assessment is that at least in the short term the IDF will not deal directly with the Iranian nuclear program,” says Ehud Eiran, an assistant professor of political science at Haifa University and a military expert.

It’s not the first difference of opinion aired over Iran between elected leaders and security officials. Several years ago, when Israeli leaders were hinting at the possibility of a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Mossad chief Meir Dagan came out against plans for a strike.

Mr. Eiran points to a "structural difference" between the two camps. "Militaries are concerned with immediate threats, and politicians interpret reality drawing on a broader sets of facts, values and stories; they have a wider set of calculations, like getting reelected.”

Indeed, opposition Labor party leader Isaac Herzog has come out against the agreement since it was announced in early July.

Haaretz reported Monday that the IDF Intelligence Branch predicted that the nuclear deal would leave Iran short of a nuclear weapon for the coming years and restrain terrorist attacks against Israel.

Cooperation with US is urged

“We have a group, we don’t know how big, of existing members of the IDF that think the deal is acceptable,’’ says Meir Javadanfar, an Iran expert at Israel’s Interdisciplinary Center. “The other trend is that there are former members of the IDF who think that the deal isn’t perfect but that the prime minister should focus on relations with America.”

Amos Yadlin, a former military intelligence chief, has criticized the deal as flawed and expressed concern that it will strengthen Iran’s position in the Middle East. Still, he has called on Israel’s government to tighten cooperation with the US in overseeing implementation.

In July, a former general who heads Israel’s space agency and serves as a top government adviser on technology and research, went so far as to endorse President Barack Obama’s position on the deal.

"This agreement, if properly implemented, will put off the nuclear threat for a very long time,” Yitzak Ben Yisrael said in an interview with Walla! News. Mr. Ben Yisrael added the agreement provides “full and satisfactory” monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.