The United States military announced this morning (Wednesday) that the United States had attacked infrastructure facilities of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in Syria. The army’s high command explained that the strikes protected against an attack by Iranian groups on American forces. Major General Amos Gilad, head of the Institute for Policy and Strategy, He was a guest on the show of Anat Davidov and Golan Yochpaz on 103FM and commented on the attack.
The United States attacked targets of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in Syria
“This attack could stem from intelligence that is believed to be thought, or from the actions of the militias that are financed by Iran,” Gilad said. “The nuclear agreement has nothing to do with this. The agreement says in the eyes of the Iranians – ‘There is a nuclear pathway, we are ready to reach it if we reach an agreement of a temporary freeze, and we have the right – we will open up capabilities to strike Israel and threats to the Middle East and this is not subject to negotiation.’ This attack illustrates how things are not connected. A particular tactical attack is not a pressure on a massive strategic event. The Iranians are ready to return to the agreement, with all the benefits it gives them in the future. There is no connection between the attack. The US has already attacked, it may be that they have intelligence, that they are thwarting something, this only illustrates the separation between the nuclear path and the strengthening path. Today, Iran has X resources which it invests at the expense of the hardships of the Iranian nation. There is a separation between the two paths here.”
Then we were asked if Israel had anything to say about the agreement. To which he replied: “Sure. In the Middle East you often choose between worse and worse. Let’s take the previous agreement, we managed to cancel it and in the end Iran advanced to the threshold of nuclear weapons and it can advance to nuclear weapons subject only to its decision. So what have we gained here? When you act In Iran, if you operate, you must also have strategic coordination. I also don’t think that the head of the Mossad speaks without permission, that is fundamentally absurd. The Mossad is a disciplined organization.”
Gilad also said that “in the end you have to consider what your options are, what is worse. When we influenced the cancellation of the agreement, Iran advanced dramatically to the threshold of nuclear weapons, crossing the threshold depends only on it. If Iran goes nuclear, this is terrible news for the Middle East and Israel in particular, it Brings the Middle East into a nuclear arms race and that is why the US President said that the US does not want to act militarily and the best way is the agreement and Israel can oppose, that is perfectly fine.
Finally, we were asked how close Iran really is to nuclear weapons. To which Gilad replied: “It is being published. Iran is on the brink, it has reached 60 percent enrichment, it can continue to advance to 90 percent and simultaneously or in a phased manner develop nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a murderous regime that calls for the destruction of Israel is a dramatic development It cannot be more advanced than you know, what they know is enough to understand that they are a threshold country. The weapon is a missile with a nuclear bomb on top, they don’t have it yet because they decided they don’t have it because they want the agreement. The agreement is a bad thing, but bad than that they will advance to nuclear weapons. I am in favor of choosing the least bad option, the worst is for Iran to have nuclear weapons. There could be a nuclear arms race. Therefore, we can influence the terms of the agreement and the changes we will receive. The frontal collision at the time in Oumba is one of the greatest acts of folly that were recorded in the history of the State of Israel”.
Assisted in the preparation of the article: Shani Romano, 103fm