Courcy’s Intelligence Brief

We have noted on a number of occasions that Israel is in a relatively strong position as a consequence of the post-Arab Spring disarray in the Middle East, nevertheless it has been interesting to see a senior Israeli military commander admitting as much this week, but not in the obvious sense that it no longer faces any strong Arab power or combination of powers on its borders.  His point was that all this also greatly helps Israel’s negotiating position with the Palestinians.

Notwithstanding whatever Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu may say about the Iranian nuclear threat, the biggest theoretical threat to the state of Israel remains an overwhelming conventional attack by neighbouring powers.  This threat was neutralized by the 1979 camp David accords with Egypt, but it was not removed entirely.  Then, for a while, the Arab Spring threatened to resuscitate this challenge with the advent of a Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt and the possibility of the same in Syria (and possibly even in Jordan) – and all at a time when Turkey was becoming increasingly hostile.

In the event, Egypt has rejected Muslim Brotherhood rule while Syria is deeply mired in civil war.  And now the possibility of a rapprochement between Iran and the Western powers is causing even more disarray within the Sunni Arab powers.  As this week’s Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) summit has shown, even the Gulf Arabs are finding it difficult to make common cause in the face of Iranian advances, with Oman opposing Saudi moves for a much more united and militarily effective GCC.

Israel has not admitted in public that all this is greatly to be welcomed, and instead it continues to emphasize above all else the continuing threat from Iran.  Subscribers will know well that we view the Iranian nuclear threat in very different terms to those publicly expressed by Netanyahu.

Netanyahu’s position is that if Iran had a nuclear capability it would in all probability use it to destroy Israel.  Our own view, expressed many times, is that Israel’s real fear is not an Iranian first strike (because of Israel’s ability to retaliate in kind) but that an Iranian nuclear capability would constrain Israel’s ability to use its own nuclear capability to defend against an overwhelming conventional attack.  Yet an overwhelming conventional attack by the Arabs against Israel is now so far into the distance as to be virtually irrelevant to Israeli strategic planning.

So, whatever Netanyahu may say, Israel is in a strong position provided there is no miraculous outbreak of Arab unity – and provided Israel can resist strategically dangerous compromises in the current push for a peace agreement with the Palestinians.  Which brings us to the head of Israel’s Central Command, Major-General Nitzan Alon.

The background is the status of the Jordan Valley in any agreement.  US officials have been giving a lot of attention to the security details of a possible agreement, including control of airspace, satellite surveillance, and control of the Jordan River.

Israel’s position was expressed clearly last week by Israel’s Deputy Defence Minister Danny Dannon, who told Army Radio: “The Americans are proposing joint control over the crossing points [into Jordan].  From the Israeli point of view, there will not be any Palestinian presence at the crossing points.  An Israeli civilian and military presence in the Jordan Valley is essential.”

This is, of course, the long-declared position of the prime minister, who has said that there can be no transfer of sovereignty in the border area, and he reportedly repeated this position to a meeting of his Likud-Beytenu political faction on Monday (9 December).

A minister who is close to Netanyahu, reported him as saying: “We need to be there in the Jordan Valley.  Jihadist elements are there and we cannot have that on our border...Technology is not enough to fight terror.”

The day before this meeting, on 8 December, Alon had a meeting with heads of the West Bank settlers’ organization, the Yesha Council, in which he also sought to allay fears about a possible Israeli retreat from the Jordan Valley under the terms of any permanent peace agreement with the Palestinian National Authority (PNA).

Alon assured the settlers that it is Israel’s intention to maintain a military presence in the Jordan Valley and that the government is working with the Americans to ensure this imperative is fully understood by the US side.

A local newspaper, the mass circulation free-of-charge daily Yisrael Hayom, obtained a recording of Alon’s remarks to the settlers and has published them.  He said: “We have been involved in this issue since before it made headlines.  We discussed it during the previous round [of peace talks] during [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert’s government, in 2007.  We are adamant that the Jordan Valley is a strategic buffer for Israel.  We have to cultivate the strategic relationship with the Jordanians and create another ‘protective vest’ like that, and our position regarding the Jordan Valley is very clear.”

Alon then said: “The recent developments in the Middle East – the regional upheaval, the instability, everything happening in Syria – it only helps our case [our emphasis added].”

He also revealed that he considers the question of who controls the Jordan Valley to be academic, in that he does not expect the current peace process to progress.  He told the settlers: “Overall I have little faith in the prospects of the peace process.”

This, too, echoes Netanyahu’s position.  The prime minister apparently told Monday’s Likud-Beytenu meeting “We are not on the verge of a final-status agreement.  We have clear demands in the negotiations that are not being met for the time being.  We aren’t there yet; we aren’t close to getting there.”

It is our view that Israel is feeling so secure in its position, whatever noises are being made in public about Iran, that it is viewing the Arab disarray as an opportunity for driving the hardest of bargains with the Palestinians, not as the West would like to believe, an opportunity to reach an early and comprehensive peace.

Of course Iran remains a serious issue, and there are many in the Israeli policymaking elite who still believe a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities will be necessary (for the reasons we have explained, not for the reasons Netanyahu gives in public).  Nevertheless, Israel’s overall strategic position looks and feels secure for as long as the Muslim Brotherhood is excluded from power in Egypt and Syria and is not replaced by some other potent unifying force.

This is not good news for the Palestinians, or for US Secretary of State John Kerry who has been putting out signals that something is moving in the peace process.  He looks certain to be disappointed. JdeC.

NOTE: An idea of how Iran’s policymaking elite views the nuclear agreement with the P5+1 (the permanent five members of the UN Security Council and Germany) can be discerned from remarks this week made by Defence Minister Hoseyn Dehqan.

Speaking to a “command and control” conference in Tehran, Dehqan said: “After the end of the talks a huge stream of countries and companies rushed towards Iran.”  He then went on to say: “The world and America have reached a conclusion today that Iran’s nuclear potential is undeniable.  We became a nuclear power today and achieved nuclear science and technology, leaning upon domestic skills.”

In a key passage Dehqan reiterated: “What is important to us is the maintenance of the fuel and enrichment cycle, and we have to possess this process based on our geography and ability.”

Dehqan was also interesting in his interpretation of the Obama administration’s position and motives.  He said: “Obama intended to restore and rehabilitate America’s foreign image and he failed to gain any success in this regard.  He did not gain success in the domestic scene either.  They needed a big victory.  Of course we also wished that our nuclear dossier come back to its regular path, as we suffered huge expenses.”

Dehqan also gave a clear indication that he sees no threat of military action from the United States.  He said: “The regional and global conditions as well as their internal conditions do not allow them to take an illogical action against our country, as they are unable to predict the consequences of such an action.”