The Prime Minister’s Office was not surprised by the briefings held yesterday (Thursday) by the head of the Mossad, Dadi Barnea, for reporters from several media outlets. What was surprising was Barnea’s attack on the American government. Barnea was quoted in several media outlets as saying that the nuclear agreement is a strategic disaster and that an American signature on the nuclear agreement is inevitable because the US and Iran have a common interest in returning to the agreement.
Lapid and his people did not like this part of his speech, which neither matched the message the Prime Minister’s Office wanted to convey, nor did it match the facts regarding the content of National Security Advisor Eyal Hulta’s talks in Washington. In addition, Barnea refused to state in his words that the US has hardened its positions on the nuclear issue, even though Prime Minister Lapid asked him to convey this message.
Prime Minister Lapid. Courtesy of spokespeople for the Prime Minister’s Office
The words of the head of the Mossad created an embarrassment for the American government after a few days in which there was actually a certain fading of the tensions between the parties regarding the nuclear deal and a convergence of positions regarding the need to avoid further concessions in the negotiations with the Iranians.
Hulta’s visit to Washington this week somewhat eased concern in Jerusalem that the Biden administration would make a series of significant additional concessions to secure a nuclear deal with Iran. According to three senior Israeli officials, Hulta got the impression in his talks that the Americans had hardened their positions in the answer the US sent to Iran regarding the draft nuclear agreement.
- “We decided it was time for everyone to walk their own path” Statik and Ben Al Hasof
A few hours before Barnea Lapid’s statement, he himself appeared in front of the cameras and said that the Biden administration accepted a large part of the Israeli positions regarding the wording of the response to the draft nuclear agreement. “The dialogue with them is good and we will continue it,” said Lapid.
Holding the briefing for reporters was one of the issues discussed in the meeting held in Raana with Prime Minister Lapid on Thursday at noon. A source in the Mossad stated that Lapid asked Barna that, as part of the briefings, he would point out that the US had hardened its positions in the negotiations with Iran. This point also appeared on a page of messages on the subject of Iran that the Prime Minister’s Office distributed yesterday to other ministers and senior officials in the government, including the head of the Mossad Barna for use in media interviews.
“The close dialogue that Israel maintains with the Americans – as was reflected in the meetings of Rabbi Malal in the US this week – succeeded in causing the US to harden its positions on issues important to Israel. Israel continues to work to prevent a retreat in the American position,” the message page reads.
But Barna did not want to use this message in the existing press briefings and instead voiced a sharp criticism of the Biden administration that crossed the line of the government. After Barnea’s words were published, officials in the Prime Minister’s Office contacted the advisors of the head of the Mossad, and asked for clarification and a correction.
A Mossad source said that the reason Barane did not want to say that the US had hardened its positions in the negotiations was because he was not himself involved in the talks with the White House and therefore did not want to address things in which he was not personally involved. But sources who spoke with Barnea yesterday gave the impression that he saw the message about the hardening of American positions as the position of the Prime Minister and not as a professional position and therefore did not agree to say it in briefings to reporters.
“I don’t know if the Americans have hardened their positions. When Holta returns from the US he will explain to me. In any case, the fact that positions have hardened does not mean that the agreement will be better or worse. I hope the result is that he will not sign an agreement because it is bad,” said Barna according to a source at the Mossad.
Officials in the Prime Minister’s Office said that Lapid has no problem with Barnea’s professional position and he also agrees with a large part of it. The problem, they said, was the lack of coordination when it came to some of the messages he conveyed.
The head of the Mossad, Dedi Barnea, is the factor pushing the most extreme line on the Iranian issue within the Israeli government. Sources exposed to his statements on the Iranian issue in closed discussions defined them as messianic. His predecessor in the position, Yossi Cohen, took an extreme line on the Iranian issue for cynical reasons, Barnea really believes this.
A few months ago there was a meeting between Barnea and several former Mossad heads and heads of departments in the former Mossad. A source who participated in the meeting said that several former heads of the Mossad confronted Barnea about his position on the Iranian issue and cast great doubt on her logic. Barnea was not convinced.
It was not difficult for Barnea to convince Bennett of his position, but during the past year he also convinced Lapid to adopt his line according to which a return to the nuclear agreement would constitute an injury to Israeli interests. Those who support Barnea’s position, even if not with the same strength, are the National Security Adviser Eyal Hulta and the Director General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Alon Oshfiz who greatly influence Lapid.
Barnea claims that the entire security establishment supports his position against the nuclear deal. To strengthen his claim, he uses the fact that Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi, who previously believed that the nuclear agreement had merits, aligned himself with him on this issue a few months ago, contrary to the position of the IDF Intelligence Division and the position of other senior officials in the General Staff.
But within the security establishment there are quite a few opposing voices. The head of the Defense Ministry Aharon Haliva, the head of the research division at the Defense Ministry Amit Sa’ar and the head of the political-security division in the Ministry of Defense Dror Shalom think the opposite and also see strategic advantages for Israel in the agreement. Defense Minister Gantz does not say this in public, but he accepts the logic of senior IDF officials.
The arguments of the camp that does not oppose a return to the nuclear deal are that a nuclear deal would stop Iran’s progress towards a bomb, roll back the Iranian nuclear program and extend Iran’s “break-in time” – the period of time necessary for the Iranians to obtain enough highly enriched uranium to produce one atomic bomb.
Another argument is that the alternative – no deal and continued Iranian progress towards the bomb without limits – is worse. And the third argument is that an agreement will buy time for Israel to prepare for an attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities – something it is not optimally prepared for now.