Interview: Dr. Mordechai Kedar (Part 1)
Part 1 of my interview with Dr. Mordechai Kedar, a former member of Israeli intelligence and professor at Bar-Ilan University in Tel Aviv
Dr. Mordechai Kedar served in Israeli intelligence for twenty-five years before becoming a professor at Bar-Ilan University in Tel Aviv. He is an expert in Israeli Arab culture and has been described as “one of the few Arabic-speaking Israeli pundits seen on Arabic satellite channels defending Israel.” He is fluent in Hebrew, Arabic, and English.
In our conversation, we discuss the Biden Administration’s efforts to rejoin the Iran Nuclear Deal, the attack on Iran’s nuclear facility at Natanz, and the current political situation in Israel. This is a must-read interview!
Antonio: Thank you for agreeing to virtually sit down and talk with me. Also, a late happy independence day!
Dr. Mordechai Kedar: Thank you very much.
A: I want to get started by allowing you to tell us a little bit about yourself. I understand that you served in Israeli intelligence and now teach at Bar-Ilan University in Tel Aviv. Please, introduce yourself to my readers.
MK: Well, I was born in Tel Aviv, and studied Arabic in school before going into the army and into military intelligence. I was there for twenty-five years. When I retired, I held the rank of brigadier colonel, I believe you call it in English. And after serving for twenty-five years in jobs that required very good Arabic, I joined academia and worked on my PhD in the late 90s. I finished it in 1997 and become a teacher at Bar-Ilan University in 1995, and I’ve now been there twenty-six years. A quarter of a century I spent in the army, and another quarter of a century I spent in academia.
A: Just out of curiosity, when you say intelligence, do you mean AMAN, or the Shin Bet, or the Mossad? What do you mean by intelligence?
MK: I was in a unit in AMAN working on all kinds of projects with the Shin Bet and the Mossad.
A: So let’s get to current events, and I want to get started by talking about the Iran Nuclear Deal that President Biden is currently trying to revitalize. The deal was first put in place under President Obama in 2015; and very simply, it sent Tehran pallets of cash in exchange for a promise that they would not enrich uranium above 3.7 percent. So first off, was the original deal a good deal?
MK: The original deal was a bad deal. A very bad deal. First of all, because it was limited by time. Originally, in 2015, the deal was meant to last fifteen years. Meaning by 2030, the Iranians would be liberated from any restrictions. This is not good. Are you willing to buy a house for the full price, but after fifteen years the house doesn’t belong to you? Would you agree to such a deal? If there is a deal, it should be forever.
Secondly, the Iranians demanded that any inspection of any nuclear facility would have to be scheduled in advance. Meaning the inspectors couldn’t just show up one morning to check that they are still following the deal. And they succeeded, as I remember, a delay of thirty-five days. That means if you tell them on January 1st that you want to check one of their facilities, you cannot come to the facility until February 4th or 5th. Meanwhile, since you sent the notice on January 1st until February 5th, they can clean everything, dismantle everything, dispose of everything which might show that they were actually going against the agreement. What good is an inspection after a thirty-five-day warning?
I’m not completely sure about the number thirty-five, but it’s more or less something like that. This is not an inspection, this is a joke. When we first heard about this part of the deal, we didn’t know if we should laugh or cry.
If you take only these two flaws…it is nothing, it is not worth the paper which it was printed on.
If you take only these two flaws—one, that it is only for fifteen years; and two, that there is a thirty-something day warning for inspections—it is nothing, it is not worth the paper which it was printed on.
Another thing was the inspections could only be done on military facilities. What are they doing at “civilian” facilities? It’s mind-boggling that people who are supposed to be the smartest turned out to be totally foolish when it came to dealing with the Iranians.
The Iranians are excellent negotiators. They are the toughest negotiators in the world. And when somebody from America, who has a time limit because Obama needs everything to be done by the 2016 election, comes to Iran, the Iranians understand that and are going to exploit that. They forced America to agree to things that if not for the political pressure to get something done, they wouldn’t have agreed to it.
A: So how did the Israeli government feel about the deal? Did they perceive it as Obama pushing Israel aside?
MK: Very bad. First of all, Israel was not a part of the negotiations. It was hidden from Israel. Secondly, when Netanyahu understood the failure of the deal, he went to speak to the US Congress against the wishes of President Obama. Obama did not want him to come to Congress to talk against the Iran Nuclear Deal. But Netanyahu did something—not against the law—but against international courtesies and went anyway.
But when the danger to the state of Israel is existential, you don’t play games. You do what you have to do.
A head of state cannot come to a country against the will of the head of the host state and speak to the parliament against the head of the host state. It’s just not done. I cannot come to your home and start acting against you in your own home. But this is what Netanyahu did. It’s not nice, it’s not acceptable. But when the danger to the state of Israel is existential, you don’t play games. You do what you have to do.
A: President Trump withdrew the US from the deal and now President Biden attempting to bring it back. So while American and Iranian diplomats were in Vienna taking part in indirect “proximity talks,” there was an attack on Iran’s main nuclear facility at Natanz. Assuming it was the Mossad, as is being reported by the Jerusalem Post and others, first, what does this mean for the deal; and second, was this a not-so-subtle sign of Israel’s displeasure with President Biden?
MK: First, I’m not admitting that Israel did it because I don’t know. There has been no official Israeli acknowledgment of the attack. But, in general, such an action requires years of preparation. Read my lips: years. And you carry it out not according to the political situation but according to the situation on the ground. If everything comes to fruition—the weather, all of the right people in the right places—only then do you do the action. It cannot be by demand. It is not a button that you just push and something blows up because the Americans are meeting with the Iranians. I think it’s a total coincidence that it happened the same day. The timing is being chosen by operational considerations, not by political considerations.
A: I understand the operational concerns of an attack like this. If it was in fact the Israelis, they would have needed to smuggle people into Iran to plant explosives at Natanz. But do you think there is a chance that the operation was expedited to send a message to the Americans?
MK: Israel doesn’t need such an action to “hint” to anyone in the world. Israel has open channels to everyone in the world to let them know what they think about the Iran Nuclear Deal. Israel doesn’t need to use an explosion as a message. Netanyahu has a thousand ways to get a message across without endangering anyone. Whoever did what they did at Natanz, did it to slow Iran’s path to The Bomb.
A: After the attack, Iran announced they would begin enriching uranium to 60 percent and they allegedly attacked an Israeli cargo ship off the coast of the UAE. Where do you see this conflict headed?
MK: There’s definitely been an escalation over the past half a year. Israel attacks Iranian ships in the Mediterranean. They attack our ships in the gulf. Israel attacked—allegedly—a ship in the south Red Sea which was used by the Iranians as a floating headquarters for the war in Yemen between the Houthis and Saudis. Tensions are rising.
Keep an eye out for part two of my interview with Dr. Mordechai Kedar, and please share!
Insightful, and great questions asked.