Meir Dagan - Director of Mossad (2002-2010) HARDtalk

nuclear submarines. The money will go towards modernising the facility

where the reactors are built. Now it is time for HARDtalk.

Israel's secret service, the Mossad, is regarded as one of the most

resourceful and ruthless intelligence agencies in the world.

But are Israel's top spies on the same page as the country's

politicians when it comes to an assessment of the threat posed by

Iran? The question was prompted by Meir Dagan, director of Mossad

until a year and a half ago. Just months after retiring he said an

Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would be stupid. Why did

he go so public so quickly, and is there a dangerous gulf between

Israel's political leadership and Meir Dagan, welcome to HARDtalk.

Thank you very much for receiving me. It's a pleasure. Let's go back

one year and start there. He would talking about the idea that Israel

could launch a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities

one year ago. You said that would be a stupid idea. Have you changed

your mind? First of all - I never used the word "stupid". In was

widely reported. In the Hebrew press... I am not responsible for

it. The main purpose, I believe the international community - is to

prevent Iran from reaching nuclear capability. That is in the interest

of everyone, including Israel. We were threatened directly by the

Iranians. We are the only country in the world that has been really

threatened by another state that we do not even have a common border

with. They want to see us disappearing from the earth. If you

believe in the threat, why would you use either the word stupid or a

word like stupid - definitely a negative word that you used when

you were talking about the idea of an immediate Israeli... I don't

think they serve the Israeli goals or purposes. Why? First of all, you

can't stop a project by a military strike. You are able to delay a

project. Secondly, you are going to create a situation that will rally

the Iranian public behind the leadership, even though today they

are in a very serious economic crisis. Even a political crisis,

internally. Thirdly, it will provide them with the justification

for going directly to a nuclear military project. One now, at least,

for the public - they are presenting that they are doing it

for peace purposes. But goodness knows, until recently you had

access to all the intelligence that Israel could muster. You believe a

strategic decision to cross the threshold in to urbanisation has

been taken in Tehran? First of all, I do not know. -- weaponisation. I

have no doubt in my mind that they are intending, at the end of the

road, to acquire nuclear military capability. If they took such a

decision already - I really don't know. The EU don't know? -- you

don't know. Israel's defence minister says that even if you

don't know the strategic intent, what you do know, inside the

intelligence community, it is that more and more of Iran's nuclear

facilities are being put underground, deep underground in

places where they are difficult to hit. He says that suing Iran will

enter a zone of immunity. -- suing -- soon. He said that is why you

must enter a strike. First of all, what are the criteria that he has

that same no-one will be able to deal with the project. He is

operating on intelligence. believe some of the facts on the

ground are not really backing that presentation of the Defence

Minister. Some of them are deeply covered, but some of them are not.

You are suggesting that the defence minister, and perhaps Binyamin

Netanyahu, are in some ways be misleading about what the

intelligence is telling them. not think they are misleading

because, let's say Britain is an example - you have excellent

intelligence services. Usually will never be building your intelligence

picture based on the assumption that here or there are a politician

is presenting something. You are going to make your own assessment

and analyse your own situation. I don't think those remarks here and

there are really reflecting and encouraging the point of view of

different governments. This is what the defence chief said after your

high-profile intervention last year - he said "whoever keeps saying

later, later in terms of reaching a decision on military intervention,

they may find it too late". That is enormous pressure, isn't it? There

is a point in him saying that. I can't rule out everything he is

saying. I think this is not the right approach about a nuclear

project. The main goal is to stop the project - I believe he will

have to adapt a different policy for how to deal with this. I

believe that you always have to have a military option. Such a

military option should not be waived as the first priority. You

can organise a great deal of pressure on the Iranian regime by

threatening the regime, by imposing serious sanctions, by preventing

the proliferation in to Iran. Also by creating a situation where you

are encouraging the opposition internally and by presenting the

costs that the Iranian regime might be happy if they are going to go

further into this project. -- might pay. When you say costs, do you

mean the targeted killing of Iranian scientists, for example?

am not aiming at this as a cost - by cos I mean the price the state

will pay as a result of isolating themselves. As a result of economic

pressure, as a result of not solving their basic problems

because they are still very much dependent on their connections to

other countries. All right then, let's stick with that for a moment,

then we might come back to targeted killing. If we stick to the kind of

formulas you have outlined... have to be clear on one. Met - I

have no intention on dealing with gossip. -- one.... Let's stick with

your formula of wood in as much pressure as possible on Iran. We're

talking about the next stage of sanctions -- putting as much

pressure. You have talk about cutting banking ties with Iran, you

have talked about embargoes on shipping to Iran. You say these

measures will put meaningful new pressure on Tehran. I suggest that

everything we hear from Tehran makes for us believe that would

just increase their defiance. one thing, the rhetoric that the

regime presents. It has been a completely different story when

this regime will have to face the daily problems internally in Iran.

This regime is key to the public opinion inside Iran. Those

pressures will continue - no doubt the backing of the regime - the

backing the regime is receiving from the public, it would lose

ground. If they are going to lose ground, I believe it is a vital

element in their policy to be supported by the majority of the

Iranians. Let's leave aside what might happen inside Iran, I am very

aware, as you sit here, that you were the boss of Israel's secret

service - you are not a diplomat. What makes you think for a moment

that you could get the sort of maximum super sanctions you are

talking about through the UN Security Council? The Russians and

the Chinese have given no indication whatsoever they are

prepared to go down the road you want them to go down. I have a

different point of view. I think even though the Iranians receive

some level of different approach by the Russians and by the Chinese,

eventually, when there is a decision about sanctions, even

China and Russia have voted for it. Eventually, they aligned themselves

with the international community. I think that even China and Russia

understand the threat that might come from Iran. Even though I agree

that the rhetoric is confronting against the United States and the

West. But on the other hand, they are very practical, they know what

is going on in Iran, and in many ways they are adopting the point of

view of the international community. When it comes to furthering this

process, would you say that Israel and your successor in the security

services, and the leadership as a whole, are happy to be guided by

American strategy and policy on Iran? Is that a comfortable

relationship at the moment? I think Israel always kept policies on

issues that are important to our security. To have a close

relationship and close ties with the United States and having a deep

corporation with the United States is a vital element of our security

-- Corporation. I am happy to see the United States supporting us in

those efforts to try and stop Iran from reaching nuclear capability.

It is rare were ever to countenance a unilateral strike without

American support, would that be a fundamental mistake? If Israel.

would create a significant problem with the relationship with the

United States. I would advise, if I can advise on that - I am no longer

in the government, it is not my role, but in many aspects, if we

can co-ordinate with the international community,

particularly the United States, that is important. Let's return to

something I suggested earlier, which is that there has been a

policy of targeted assassination of a number of, we believe at least

five or six, at Iranian nuclear scientists in the last few years.

The Iranians have pointed the finger at the Mossad and Israel as

prime responsible agent for these killings. That was when you were

still in charge of the Mossad. Believe me, unfortunately, if they

were talking about an event in the Falkland Islands, they would

probably blame the Mossad. For many events, we have no responsibility

and we are not connected. I believe that the Iranians are suffering

from a great deal of internal problems and they always have a

tendency to blame the Israelis. Let's not forget that in many cases

they blame even the British. that is an absolute denial. But you

wouldn't deny, would you, that Israel and the Mossad have, over

decades, it embraced the idea that targeted killings are justified in

Israel's national interest. That is beyond doubt, isn't it? I never

said that and I have no intention of dealing with anything that is

related to the Mossad. Those periods and those issues are not an

issue for discussion from my point of view. Is that the cause there is

very much a credo in Israel which says - when you have run the Mossad,

one of the most important security jobs in Israel, you have to beat -

not just when you are in the job - but when you are out of the job, it

extraordinarily careful about what you say and what you reveal about

I was leading the Mossad for more than eight years and I have

appreciation for the people I serve with. From my point, they do a

unique service for the country. I have no intention of doing anything

that may endanger the gap to the Tees. -- their activities. Were you

hurt on a personal level? The point of criticism that was directed at

you after you made that high- profile intervention in the Iranian

policy. They were quoting from newspapers. They were saying that

you were sabotaging the Israeli democratic institution so soon

after doing that job, talking publicly about the Iranian policy

as a retired Mossad chief. Maybe I'm mistaken. I believe in the

heart and soul of democracy and it's a public debate. I never

discuss the operations of the aspect. I will only discuss issues

from the point of view of the policy of this row. I do not see

that even though I am a private citizen that on not allowed to

present my point of view when every politician every newspaper in

Israel and everyone in this row is able to present that view. I care

for my country and those people that criticise my activities. Even

now I have finished in the Mossad, I still care about my country and

people. Here in that context, let's quickly look at some other

challenges that Israel faces in your own region. But talk about

Syria. In the last few weeks, the language from the Syrian government

has become much more direct and condemnation of the Mossad. --

president and sad. People say he has to go. Do you think that's very

wise for Israel? I believe on two aspects. Its moral aspect. I am

living not far from the Syrian border. I think as a Jew, whose

parents have survived the Holocaust, and sit quietly when somebody is

using the might and force of the country to execute its own citizens.

It's against my morality. I believe that anyone is able to raise his

voice against that and they must do it. That's the moral point.

Especially the state of Israel. I am this and that point. But what

about politics. Some Israelis are worried that if you end up with a

stunning victory against the al- Assad regime you may end up with

some neat militants and how kind out on the doorstep. I am not

sharing that point. In this case the Iranians will lose the

stronghold in the Middle East. They will lose the focal point of their

influence in the Middle East. The Syrian regime is supporting the

Hezbollah. That's a necessity. If the regime of President al-Assad is

to fall, I don't think an Islamic party will take over. But you will

see a much more influential rule of the pragmatic Arabic States that

may moderate those activities inside Syria. You me in Saudi

Arabia and the other Gulf states? Yes. But you are close to the

establishment in his row, how worried are you about the security

chiefs about the instability in his row, I mean Egypt, in the vast

areas that borders Israel? There is a concern for his row. There is a

lot of smuggling to Hamas coming through the Sinai. We need to

present -- prevent the trading of arms. We don't want the terrorists

to come together. There is cause for concern. Given the turmoil in

Egypt continuing right now, can you imagine the Egypt and Israeli peace

unravelling? Even though I am coming from a long line of profits

and prophecies, we have written books about that, I am not a profit.

We have a president. He told the if you make any predictions for the

future, we don't do that. Nobody will remember after 50 years' what

you said. If somebody does remember you will not be around in 50 years.

To be serious, on the Egyptian side, the situation in Egypt is of great

concern to Israel. There's no problem with the peace agreement in

the immediate future. Let's say theoretically that the Muslim

Brotherhood wince. Even though it may cause a serious impact and a

backlash in the region. In the short-term, the Muslim Brotherhood

will be occupied with their own internal problems. I'd like to ask

you one last thing bringing you directly back home to Israel. You

have voiced support for the fundamental peace deal. You suggest

you should pursue dialogue with the Saudi plan returning to the

adjustments on both sides. You see that as the route to peace. That's

not a path that current government is following. How worried are you

about the limbo that Israel and Palestinian peace mechanism has

fallen? Many people when you ask who is to blame, we will be blamed.

But the Australians will say the Palestinians. I think that

eventually at some point it's a necessity for the two communities

to reach agreement. Unfortunately. That will be based on the previous

agreement? I think that it's been presented by the Prime Minister. I

never said it was that 67 border. I said they will be peace. Visual

vision include the Israeli Government moving against tens of

thousands of Jewish settlers on the occupied land and tell them that

these settlements must be closed and that they must move back into

his row. They have no future in the occupied territory. TUC any

willingness among wit the Israeli leaders to take that difficult

decision? I'm not the Israeli government. Our I am asking you for

your assessment. Personally I am against moving the settlers. We

should arrange a land swap between the Australians and the

Palestinians. But that will not save the homes of tens of thousands

of Jewish settlers. Everybody knows that. I agree that there's a need

for hard decisions by the state of Israel. I believe that any

government to sit down seriously with this issue will have to take

hard decisions and it will be very painful for the country. It's not

easy to move the settlers. Personally I don't think you have