Analysis: Tense day for Mossad chief Barnea at Langley

Shortly after this article goes up, Mossad Director David Barnea may be walking through the large lobby at the CIA Langley’s wall of stars for fallen intelligence heroes into one of the most critical and tense meetings of his career.

The fateful questions in the balance: can Israel influence the US after the shaky first week of Iran nuclear talks and has Barnea increased or lost personal influence following his major combative speech last Thursday.

During that speech, Barnea left no doubts about where he stands in the internal Mossad debates and the broader global discussions about how to handle the Islamic Republic.

cnxps.cmd.push(function () { cnxps({ playerId: ’36af7c51-0caf-4741-9824-2c941fc6c17b’ }).render(‘4c4d856e0e6f4e3d808bbc1715e132f6’); });

Former Mossad chiefs Tamir Pardo, Shabtai Shavit, Efrayim Halevy and Danny Yatom have all in different ways said that Israel should try hard to stop Tehran from getting a nuclear weapon, but may need to plan for living with such a reality.

In contrast, most recently retired former Mossad director Yossi Cohen has said Israel and the clandestine agency have the power to act aggressively to prevent Iran from getting the bomb indefinitely.

One side wants to prevent a nuclear Iran, but is also concerned about acting too aggressively in a way that could lead Jerusalem into a regional war or permanently damage relations with the US.

The other side believes the Jewish state is a mini-super power that can use overt or covert force to stop the ayatollahs – the consequences be damned since a nuclear Iran would be far worse.

Last week, Barnea said, “Iran will not have nuclear weapons – not in the coming years, not ever. This is my personal commitment: This is the Mossad’s commitment.”

“Our eyes are open, we are alert, and together with our colleagues in the defense establishment, we will do whatever it takes to keep that threat away from the State of Israel and to thwart it in every way,” said the Mossad chief.

Barnea also sharply criticized the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal as “terrible” and “barely tolerable.”

Reports are hazy, but it is also possible that Israel and the Mossad may have had a failed drone attack on Natanz over the weekend.

If Washington is Jerusalem’s big-brother, maybe Barnea might be worried that CIA Director William Burns might be ready to chew him out when he went loud and public against everything the Biden administration is striving for?

Was Barnea thinking that he would get a more attentive ear by going public with his criticism of US policy like the previous government of Benjamin Netanyahu?

There is one argument for this.

Maybe if the US really believes Israel is on the verge of overt or covert action against Iran, they might push harder for a deal on Jerusalem’s terms.

But Biden’s policy of wanting to rejoin the JCPOA takes into account many more factors than Israel’s security needs.

One combative speech by a new Mossad chief is not likely to change that policy, but it could lead to Barnea being more ignored.

If Barnea wanted to be seen as a trusted non-political convincing intelligence provider, wouldn’t he keep his criticisms private?

It turns out that either the government of Prime Minister Naftali Bennett is not as different from Netanyahu in publicly fighting with the US over Iran as some might have thought, or that Barnea himself has chosen Cohen’s path over the other former chiefs.

Five or so years from now when evaluating Barnea’s legacy and ability to convince or be ignored by his US counterparts, last week’s speech may stand out and today’s meeting might be when he gets some major CIA pushback.