The new allegations of Israel’s spying on US-Iran talks should not just be considered another intelligence-world whiff of smoke. The Pentagon has upped its counterintelligence assessment of Israel to a level of “critical,” its highest designation, due to growing concerns about Israeli intelligence’s “abnormally aggressive” push to spy on American officials in the making of decisions in the Middle East, reports have indicated. It’s incredible progress. Other countries, especially allies, will gather intelligence about each other in the shadows, and Washington isn’t entirely guiltless in the intelligence game worldwide. The concern, however, when it starts to be treated at the Pentagon level as Israel is a top counterintelligence threat, is no longer simply a business matter of “normal diplomatic friction.
The USA and Israel share a long, intimate, and complex security relationship. They do share information and military planning, and sometimes they are strategic partners in the Middle East. But the same reports indicate US officials are concerned that Israel may have attempted to get a read on the thinking of US officials in the midst of the American discussion on the Israel-Iran issue, Lebanon, and even potential diplomatic avenues of escape.
The Witkoff Question
The biggest and most serious allegation is about the reported attempts to keep tabs on President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, who has been involved in conversations regarding Iran. The Times of Israel said that US concerns involved alleged Israeli attempts to eavesdrop on US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby and US Pentagon official Michael DiMino. The American intelligence sources, Ynet reported, suspected Israel was trying to learn more about Trump’s outlook and new attitude toward peace talks with Iran. The article in the Jerusalem Post went on to say that the targets included “senior officials who are involved in US policymaking.” Israel and the White House continue to deny these claims, but they are serious: A foreign government is trying to learn what Washington is up to in its negotiations, not simply to get background information. It’s attempting to affect the results in the background.
The embassy of Israel has denied the charges, claiming that Israel does not spy on American officials or entities. Both the Israeli Embassy and the White House have denied spying, i24NEWS noted, and Israel’s denial was also reported by the Media Line, which summarized the reported concerns of the Pentagon. Denials are important and need to be incorporated. Denials can’t resolve the issue, however, when US defense officials are allegedly adjusting their threat assessments. The problem is that Israel says that it respects the alliance. The question here would be whether American institutions now feel compelled to shield the deliberations of a partner who’s already getting a hefty amount of support from the US military, diplomatic, and intelligence services.
Iran Diplomacy Is Too Sensitive for Intrusion
One of the most sensitive diplomatic channels in the world is the US-Iran channel. Reuters reported on previous indirect negotiations via Oman, which included Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Reuters was also citing as “positive” and “constructive” some preliminary discussions. Later, Iran made it official that it had not asked for fresh talks with Washington, says another Reuters report. Diplomatic opportunities are tenuous.
This controversy comes in the context of a longer history. In the years leading up to the Iran nuclear talks under President Obama, The Guardian reported that spying on the talks and using information to oppose the deal had been the practice in Washington, DC, with Israel. At the time, the Wall Street Journal reported the same. There’s Jonathan Pollard, who was caught spying for Israel and whose case was declassified in a CIA damage assessment report, and then the reporting by the AP on Pollard’s case. History doesn’t validate any new allegation, but it does show why Washington’s suspicions aren’t considered paranoia.
The Alliance Needs Boundaries
Israel is completely justified in raising objections to a potential US-Iran agreement. It may suggest that Tehran is not to be trusted. The AP has been reporting on the internal US debate about Iran’s uranium enrichment, and The Guardian has been doing feature stories on Iran’s warning to Washington that Netanyahu is not to be allowed to derail diplomacy. The open political arena is that. It’s a different thing to try to keep tabs on negotiators without everyone knowing. If reports are to be believed, Israel went from persuading to intruding.
This should not be taken for granted as business as usual in US disagreement; even bitterness between a real alliance can exist. What it cannot be for is one side thinking that they can hear the other’s diplomacy without the other needing to trust them and expecting the latter to trust them at the same time. Washington needs to be a good partner to Israel when it’s in its interests but also restrict access, limit communications, and remind Israelis of the repercussions of spying on American negotiators. Being a friend is not an excuse to sneak up and into the room.
