Courcy’s Intelligence Brief

In our main briefing last week we assessed the implications of the intervention of former Israeli Mossad chief Meir Dagan in the debate over what to do about Iran’s nuclear programme.  He had told a public meeting at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem that a possible Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities is “the most stupid idea I have ever heard”.   Our sources in Jerusalem say that Dagan’s intervention appears to be having the effect he desired.

There are still hawks within the Netanyahu administration who believe a military solution is the favoured option, but the “anti-strike” view seems to be in the ascendancy, for three reasons.  The first is that there is no guarantee that a military strike would be effective, whilst it would certainly spark fierce retaliation from Iranian-allied Hezbollah in Lebanon (armed with tens of thousands of Iranian supplied rockets and missiles).  The second is that with the Middle East in turmoil this is not the moment for Israel to be making matters worse.  And the third is the hope that Iran might still succumb to the pro-democracy currents sweeping the Middle East.

Those espousing the latter view argue that economic sanctions are pushing the Iranian business community towards the opposition Green Movement, while there appears to be a split between Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  With Iran’s ally Syria also in deep difficulties, it is argued in Israel that this is a time to play ‘wait-and-see’ not a time for action.

Our sources in the region expect the more cautious view – the wait-and-see strategy – to prevail, but with immense misgivings.  Israeli nervousness about developments in Egypt is palpable, and now strongly pro-Palestinian noises are being made publicly by Jordan, the other Arab state with which Israel has a peace agreement.

When Jordan’s Prime Minister Maruf al-Bakhit addressed the Jordanian Foreign Affairs Association on Tuesday last week (10 May), he was unusually forthright about Jordanian support for the Palestinian cause.  No doubt this was a defensive measure against domestic unrest among Jordan’s Palestinian-origin majority, but that makes it no less worrying for Israel.  On the contrary, it confirms that increased attention to public opinion in the Arab world will not necessarily produce a more stable outcome.

Al-Bakhit was particularly forthright about Jordan’s support for the Palestinian right-of-return.  He pointed out, rightly, that Jordan’s “supreme national interests are in total agreement with those of the Palestinians”.  The Jordanian premier added: “Anyone who serves those interests is an ally of Jordan, and anyone who undermines them is an enemy...To us in Jordan, the Palestinian cause is not – and can never be – merely a just pan-Arab cause.  It is first and foremost a Jordanian national security concern, the solution of which is linked to a number of vital issues such as Jerusalem and the right of return.”

Jerusalem and the right of return are, of course, the two issues on which Israel is least likely to compromise – along with the need to maintain a military presence in the Jordan Valley.

And just in case there is any remaining doubt, al-Bakhit reiterated: “We will never allow Israel to exploit the difficult circumstances the Palestinians are experiencing to blackmail or extort them into making concessions.  The Jordanian compass is directed towards Jerusalem and the refugees, and the Jordanian state will never agree to anything less than full Palestinian statehood and the return of Palestinian refugees.  Any road that does not lead to this destination is a road to nowhere.”