Has Prime Minister Naftali Bennett just answered all the questions posed by his predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as by new Iran president-elect Ebrahim Raisi, about whether he is willing to act boldly against the nuclear weapons program?
On Wednesday night, hours before other media outlets, The Jerusalem Post reported that an attack on one of the buildings of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO) caused major damage, despite Iranian denials.
The Post also revealed that the target was likely the location of one of Iran’s centrifuge manufacturing sites, near the city of Karaj – referred to as the TABA site – and that centrifuge components were reportedly made in three workshops there.
Such a blow to Iran’s future centrifuge production, after it already lost so many of its existing centrifuges in attacks on its Natanz facilities in July 2020 and April 2021, could have a massive impact on its timeline to acquire a nuclear bomb.
Israel and the Mossad have not formally taken credit, but the fingerprints and national interests are clear – and soon, Iran will probably blame Jerusalem.
This came just days after Netanyahu claimed that with Bennett at the helm, Israel would stop using the Mossad and the IDF against Iran.
He said that the Bennett government was actually run by Foreign Minister Yair Lapid who had guaranteed a more passive policy in acting against Iran.
His accusations were based on a radical interpretation of Lapid agreeing with the US that it was better to avoid surprising each other too much and to avoid public disputes, when disagreements could be discussed productively behind the scenes.
Nothing in Lapid’s statement about relations with the US suggested that he, or Bennett, would refrain from hitting Iran.
Other Israeli governments, including during Netanyahu’s tenure, attempted to keep disagreements less public.
True, Netanyahu is a stronger believer in fighting publicly with the US over its negotiations with Iran than Bennett-Lapid, but they have still made their disagreements with the Biden administration on the issue known – and now, it appears, they have acted boldly and aggressively.
It will be interesting to see if the previous prime minister will drop this talking point of criticism – that Bennett is too new and worried about offending the US to act – and maneuvers to a different line of attack.
If Netanyahu had spoken to his former intelligence minister, Eli Cohen, he might have heard what Cohen told the Post: that new Mossad Director David Barnea was likely to continue to act aggressively against the Islamic Republic.
None of this detracts from Netanyahu’s achievements against Iran in his era, but other prime ministers before him, and now Bennett, have also shown they can act.
This operation could also be an answer to Raisi, whose speeches during and after the election portray a highly confident figure who believes his election win will allow him to steamroll Iranian opposition, the US, and anyone else in his path.
The attack at Karaj may also have been a message to Raisi that he should not get overconfident.
He may be Iran’s new president and eventually may succeed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as the supreme leader, but the message may be that he should not have illusions that those threatened by a potential Iranian nuclear bomb will give that program immunity simply because of his domestic achievements.
Bennett will still need to prove himself in a variety of ways on the international stage – and no doubt he will have a learning curve on some issues as compared to Netanyahu.
But, if this attack was carried out by Israel, Bennett just showed that he is willing and able to act boldly.