Follow us on social

2021-05-30t000000z_311154010_rc28qn9zgyfu_rtrmadp_3_israel-politics-scaled

Retired Israeli general: Pushing Iran deal exit 'worst strategic mistake in Israel's history'

The security establishment in the Jewish state is getting increasingly vocal as prospects dim for a return to the JCPOA.

Reporting | Middle East

Major General Isaac Ben Israel played a key role in Israel’s attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor back in the 1980s and later served as Israel’s chief of air force intelligence and is now chairman of Israel’s space agency. This week he joined a growing chorus emerging from the Israeli security establishment that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s obsessive opposition to the Iran nuclear deal has worsened Israel’s security. 

“Netanyahu’s efforts to persuade the Trump administration to quit the nuclear agreement have turned out to be the worst strategic mistake in Israel’s history,” Ben Israel told journalist Zev Chafets in an interview published at Bloomberg. “We need to end the negativity and encourage the U.S. to conclude a deal that focuses on the main thing.”

Ben Israel dispelled the notion that a military strike would end Iran’s nuclear program and dissuade its leaders from building a nuclear weapon. 

“[A]ll the technology needed to produce a bomb is already in Iranian hands,” he said. “The fact is, Israel can no longer destroy the Iranian nuclear project.” Ben Israel added that if Israel destroyed Iranian nuclear facilities, they would be able to rebuild them “within a year or two.”

The former Israeli general also criticized the idea, put forth by many JCPOA opponents, that talks with Iran should include a whole host of issues outside the nuclear file, like Tehran’s support for terrorism and missile development. 

“It is [a] mistake to complicate things. We can deal with terrorism on our own,” he said.

Ben Israel said he has personally advised current Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett “to end Israel’s opposition to the American return to the JCPOA.”

Calls from the Israeli security establishment for the restoration of the Iran nuclear deal have ramped up in recent weeks as talks in Vienna have resumed and many experts are pessimistic about whether the United States with its international partners can reach an agreement with the Iranians. 

Danny Cintrinowicz, who led the Iran branch of the Israeli Military Intelligence’s Research and Analysis Division from 2013 to 2016, recently called Netanyahu’s anti-Iran deal posture a “failure.” Former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon agrees with Ben Israel in that it was a “mistake” to withdraw from the JCPOA and and former Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot said the U.S.-Iran deal exit was “a net negative for Israel.” 


FILE PHOTO: Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu points to a red line he drew on the graphic of a bomb used to represent Iran's nuclear program as he addresses the 67th United Nations General Assembly at the U.N. Headquarters in New York, September 27, 2012. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson/File Photo
Reporting | Middle East
Lockheed Martin NASA
Top photo credit: Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Littleton, Colo. Photo Credit: (NASA/Joel Kowsky)

The Pentagon spent $4 trillion over 5 years. Contractors got 54% of it.

Military Industrial Complex

Advocates of ever-higher Pentagon spending frequently argue that we must throw more money at the department to “support the troops.” But recent budget proposals and a new research paper issued by the Quincy Institute and the Costs of War Project at Brown University suggest otherwise.

The paper, which I co-authored with Stephen Semler, found that 54% of the Pentagon’s $4.4 trillion in discretionary spending from 2020 to 2024 went to military contractors. The top five alone — Lockheed Martin ($313 billion), RTX (formerly Raytheon, $145 billion), Boeing ($115 billion), General Dynamics ($116 billion), and Northrop Grumman ($81 billion) – received $771 billion in Pentagon contracts over that five year period.

keep readingShow less
China Malaysia
Top photo credit: Pearly Tan and Thinaah Muralitharan of Malaysia compete in the Women's Doubles Round Robin match against Nami Matsuyama and Chiharu Shida of Japan on day five of the BWF Sudirman Cup Finals 2025 at Fenghuang Gymnasium on May 1, 2025 in Xiamen, Fujian Province of China. (Photo by Zheng Hongliang/VCG )

How China is 'eating our lunch' with soft power

Asia-Pacific

In June 2025, while U.S. and Philippine forces conducted joint military drills in the Sulu Sea and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reaffirmed America’s commitment to the Indo-Pacific at Singapore’s Shangri-La Dialogue, another story deserving of attention played out less visibly.

A Chinese-financed rail project broke ground in Malaysia with diplomatic fanfare and local celebration. As Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim noted, the ceremony “marks an important milestone” in bilateral cooperation. The contrast was sharp: Washington sent ships and speeches; Beijing sent people and money.

keep readingShow less
President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Russia Vladimir Putin
Top photo credit: President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Russia Vladimir Putin appear on screen. (shutterstock/miss.cabul)

Westerners foolishly rush to defend Azerbaijan against Russia

Europe

The escalating tensions between Russia and Azerbaijan — marked by tit-for-tat arrests, accusations of ethnic violence, and economic sparring — have tempted some Western observers to view the conflict as an opportunity to further isolate Moscow.

However, this is not a simple narrative of Azerbaijan resisting Russian dominance. It is a complex struggle over energy routes, regional influence, and the future of the South Caucasus, where Western alignment with Baku risks undermining critical priorities, including potential U.S.-Russia engagement on Ukraine and arms control.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.