Last week I wrote my assessment of the Iranian effort to produce nuclear weapons and my proposition that we probably have no choice and would have to preempt Iran with a destruction of its nuclear facilities and its key military installation. I do not recommend invasion or use of ground troops.
Now, please read below a summary of what a previous head of the Israeli secret service, the Mossad, is saying on gathering intelligence and how to approach the enemy and see how it reflects on my recommendation.
Matania
Jerusalem Issue Brief
Institute for Contemporary Affairs
Vol. 7, No. 20 5 November 2007
The Challenge of Intelligence Assessment
Regarding International Terrorist Organizations
Shabtai Shavit
Head of Mossad 1989- 96
• In the past, intelligence assessments dealt with sovereign countries. Today, in the era of global terrorism, we are dealing with Muslim fundamental terrorist organizations, entities without territories or sovereignty, entities without any hierarchy, with no uniforms, reporting systems, recruiting centers, or training camps.
• Furthermore, in the past, conventional wars were relatively short events that occurred as an interval between periods of peace or coexistence or cold war. Today, the Western world, Israel included, lives in a state of constant war. The threat is permanent, while it changes faces, locations, strategies, methodologies, and capabilities - and you have to assess it while fighting them.
• Signal intelligence and imagery offer excellent intelligence, but you cannot ask any questions and get any answers. Thus, through human intelligence you are better able to understand your enemy and the threat he poses far better than through any other means of intelligence gathering. But penetrating these groups is very hard. We are dealing with families, blood connections, and a religious culture that is impossible for a foreigner to penetrate.
• If Iran acquires a nuclear capability, is it going to activate it or not? Will a nuclear Iran be pragmatic or messianic? For the intelligence officer this question is academic. Any intelligence officer would recommend that the state should prepare for the worst-case scenario and not for any lesser eventuality.
• Should fighting terrorism be based on reaction or on pre-emption. Since there is an ongoing war, since the threat is permanent, since the intention of the enemy in this case is to annihilate you, the right doctrine is one of pre-emption and not of reaction. When we are dealing with an enemy which plans all the time and waits only for the opportunity in order to attack, what is the point even morally to wait and only do something when he comes to attack?
Shabtai Shavit held a variety of senior positions within the Mossad for over 32 years, including head of the agency between 1989 and 1996. Since 2001 he has been the Chairman of the Board of the International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism (ICT) at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, advisor to Israel's National Security Council, and advisor to the Subcommittee on Intelligence of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. This Jerusalem Issue Brief is based on his presentation to the Institute for Contemporary Affairs in Jerusalem on September 6, 2007.
Dr. Matania Ginosar was a member of Lechi when Israel was established. This blog records his articles and thoughts on Zionism and Israel both historically and now.
Page Naviation:

You can also join the mailing list
This blog can be accessed as either:
Past 20 articles
Conversation about Israel independenceYou can also search: