—
As the conflict between Iran and Israel escalates into wider aggression, the public rhetoric of the Western nations against Iran is mounting. But behind the scenes, considerations of the intelligence agencies have for some time been telling a different story.
In secret US diplomatic cables leaked to WikiLeaks in 2010, revealing insights show the actual views of both Australian and American intelligence officials at the time regarding conflict between Iran and Israel. The cables are a window into America’s global objectives.
This timely article is extracted from the book ‘What Uncle Sam Wants: U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Australia and Beyond’, by Clinton Fernandes and published by Palgrave Macmillan.
—
“Iran’s military strategy is designed to defend against external threats, particularly from the United States and Israel.”
In testimony to the US Senate Committee on Armed Services in 2010, Lieutenant General Ronald L. Burgess, the Director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency made clear his agency’s judgement that the strategic objectives of Iran’s leadership are “first and foremost, regime survival”.
“Its principles of military strategy include deterrence, asymmetrical retaliation, and attrition warfare… Iran’s defense spending as a share of GDP is relatively low compared to the rest of the region.
“This reflects its defensive military doctrine, which is designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities. Iranian military training and public statements echo this defensive doctrine.”
“Iran … [has] its defensive military doctrine which is designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities.” – Director, US Defense Intelligence Agency
In other words, US intelligence confirmed that Iran’s defence was low in comparative terms, was aimed specifically at defence, and sought to deter an invasion long enough for diplomacy to set in.
Even if it were developing nuclear weapons, they would be part of the “deterrent strategy”.
But a deterrence strategy would be unwelcome to the United States because it would deter; it could prevent the United States and its allies from free, unconstrained military action in the region.
The United States interprets the prospect of a deterrent as a very serious threat.
Iran is ‘not a Rogue State’
The need for a deterrent also motivates Iran’s behaviour, as Australia’s intelligence agencies appeared to acknowledge privately, as revealed in another 2008 leaked US Embassy cable.
During annual intelligence exchanges with the United States, Peter Varghese the head of Australia’s Office of National Assessments (ONA) observed that Iran “clearly represented the greatest challenge to regional stability, and ONA was focusing most of its attention on Tehran because of it.”
Australia’s analysts appeared to take a calm view of Iran’s nuclear program, saying it fell “within the paradigm of ‘the laws of deterrence’.”
It was “a mistake to think of Iran as a ‘Rogue State’,” according to the Director-General of Australia’s ONA.
“It’s a mistake to think of Iran as a ‘Rogue State’.” Director-General, Australia’s Office of National Assessments.
We also know from publicly available sources that the former senior US State Department Middle East intelligence analyst Wayne White in a 2010 briefing in Washington DC, dismissed talk of Iranian aggression.
He said an Iranian nuclear strike against Israel would be “absolute insanity.” It could never eliminate “Israel’s massive nuclear capabilities, estimated at between 150 and 300 deliverable weapons, in a first strike.
“Iran would absolutely – certain Israelis assure me – suffer a return strike that would demolish most of the country, leaving perhaps tens of millions dead.”
For all his rhetoric, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [then-Iranian president] had “very little power” under the Iranian system. The “finger on the button” belonged to Supreme Leader Khamenei and his clerical elite.
They were “making vast amounts of money, have huge economic empires and are quite happy with the way things are going right now. For them to throw it all away in some quixotic attack against Israel with a nuclear weapon is down there with that 1 percent probability.”
Their motives were defensive, not offensive. For them, a nuclear weapon is “the ultimate deterrent” which they can “wag … in the face of the United States and say, ‘We’ve got it, leave us alone’.”
Australia worried Israel may use ‘non-diplomatic’ means
Australia’s analysts were alarmed at the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran. They showed great interest in US assessments about Israeli attitudes toward Iran’s nuclear program and the likelihood of an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.
ONA’s Director-General cautioned that possible conflict between Israel and Iran “clearly represented the greatest challenge to [Middle East] stability.”
Another 2008 US Embassy cable showed that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was “deeply worried” that “Israel may feel forced to use ‘non-diplomatic’ means” to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. He discussed his concerns with the Israeli Ambassador to Australia on several occasions.
The Israeli Ambassador Yuval Rotem confided in US diplomats that Israel saw Australia as “playing an important role in the ‘global public relations’ battle on Iran” because the “European Left” viewed Rudd favourably. His policies were receiving a surprising amount of positive attention, particularly because he had withdrawn Australian combat troops from Iraq.
Another leaked 2009 US Embassy cable shows us that during a subsequent exchange of views, the Australian Intelligence Community – which included the six main Australian intelligence agencies – informed the United States of their views on Iran.
“[A] leading concern [is] working with the United States to prevent Israel from independently launching uncoordinated military strikes against Iran.” – Australian Intelligence Community
They stated their “leading concerns” were to understand what time frame applied to Iran’s nuclear weapons capability, and to work with the United States “to prevent Israel from independently launching uncoordinated military strikes against Iran.”
This could draw Australia, which then had troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, into a potential nuclear war in the Middle East.
—
Before you go…
If you appreciate Declassified Australia’s investigations, remember that it costs both time and money. Join almost 10,000 followers and get our Newsletter for updates.
We’d really appreciate if you could subscribe to Declassified Australia to support our ongoing investigations. Thank you.
