11 thoughts on “What is ‘Intelligent’ About Israeli Intelligence? – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Speaking of Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum, guess who said this? “Well, I think first of all, it’s important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons. And so we’ve got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election.”

    The BBC, btw, had a paragraph which suggests that some intelligence reports are saying that Ahmadinejad did win after all. Seems far-fetched to me, but I’d be intrigued to hear more.

    1. Yeah, Obama said it. So what? It’s true in part. Moussavi would be one tough negotiators regarding Iran’s nuclear program. But ultimately he would be far more willing to make a deal than the other bozo, as long as the former felt it was in Iran’s interests & the Ayatollah went along. But to say there would be no difference bet. the 2 candidates is ridiculous. “May not be as great as advertised” is saying something far different than Dagan.

      some intelligence reports are saying that Ahmadinejad did win after all.

      I’ll bet you dollars to donuts the Mossad is one of the sources.

  2. I don’t think the difference is that great – as is clear, foreign policy is not really determined by the President, it’s in Iran’s interest to go nuclear, and that isn’t going to change. If external issues were a significant factor in this election, it’s the issue of how Iran’s image is presented to the world – the Iranian public understands that Ahmadinejad’s rants don’t do it much good. But I think there is a consensus around the nuclear issue. In that sense Dagan is right.

  3. Ummm…have you considered that Ahamdinejad DID in fact win the elections? And since Mousavi (or any other Iranian politician) is not likely to back down on Iran’s nuclear program, then there will be no strategic change regardless of which president is in power in Iran (especially since presidents don’t control their nuclear program–which is massively popular among the same “democratic” people there?)

    You’re falling into a black-white form of thinking.

  4. “This type of pat “analysis” may also come back to haunt the Mossad’s top spook”

    This suggests that they might be worried about contradictions but habitual liars won’t of course.

  5. The idea that there is no real difference between the candidates has to support the view that not only the regime is Israel’s enemy but that the Iranian people as such are up to no good. This would justify murdering a good many of them in the ‘collateral damage’ caused by an Israeli attack.

  6. Good point, Arie. That’s my sense too when the right-wing-nuts claim there is no difference between Moussavi and I’m-a-dinner-jacket. It’s really about demonizing the Iranian people and justifying mass murder in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran.

  7. Arie – it can be used in that way but it doesn’t have to. The regime is the problem, not the people suffering under it. That doesn’t mean I support regime change (I don’t), but one can say there won’t be a substantial shift in policy if Moussavi gets in without villifying the Iranian people.

  8. “one can say there won’t be a substantial shift in policy if Moussavi gets in without villifying the Iranian people”

    Yes, one can. But one can also do the opposite and that is what is being done in Israel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link