How the war plan against Iran went haywire.

This week on Firing Line.

[rocket launches] The U.S.

and Israel were partners in the attack on Iran on February 28th.

But one Israeli general reveals how the operation against Iran may have been shaped more by the U.S.

military success in Venezuela than by facts on the ground in Iran.

I think hope covered rational thinking.

Hope is not strategic plan and that hope energized some positive, over positive thinking about the outcome of the war.

- Tamir Hayman holds the rank of Major General in the Israeli Defense Forces.

He has led Israeli's top military intelligence agency and is now the Executive Director of the Institute for National Security Studies, an independent national security think tank at Tel Aviv University.

What does General Tamir Hayman say now?

- Firing line with Margaret Hoover is made possible in part by... Robert Granieri Vanessa and Henry Cornell The Fairweather Foundation The Tepper Foundation Peter and Mary Kalikow The Beth and Raven L Curry Foundation Pritzker Military Foundation Cliff and Laurel Asness The Margaret and Daniel Loeb Foundation ...and by the following.

- General Tamir Hayman, welcome to "Firing Line."

- Thank you for having me.

In reference to the U.S.

and Israel's joint operation that began on February 28th, which the Pentagon refers to as Operation Epic Fury, you recently wrote, quote, "Despite tactical achievements, the campaign's two main centers of gravity, the Iranian regime and the nuclear project, remain essentially unchanged."

- Mm-hmm.

- The regime survived, and the regime now, under the leadership of Mojitaba Khamenei, after surviving the worst case scenario possible, facing US and Israel joint operation in order to topple it.

Basically, it's much more resilient and strong right now on the short period of time.

The Iranian regime survived the worst-case scenario.

Secondly, the nuclear aspect, the nuclear facility, the nuclear enrichment is almost intact.

And combining those two elements together creates a very dangerous situation.

An ultra-radical survival regime, which thinks differently on nuclear power and the ability, the potential capabilities left over in Iran, that combination is dangerous.

How do they think differently about nuclear weapons?

Mojitaba Khamenei, the son of the late Ali Khamenei, his father, constantly criticized his father over the nuclear strategy of Iran.

Mojitaba Khamenei, the son, believed that a nuclear threshold state is not enough.

It will end up bringing upon the Iranian a U.S.

strike and U.S.-Israeli strike in order to topple the regime.

And if the number one, two, three, or four priority of the Iranian regime is survival, he claimed back then, when he was just the son of the Supreme Leader, that we need to go all the way to a nuclear bomb.

So he was right.

We don't know yet, but what worries us right now is that he will fulfill his vision right now, having survived the attack, considering how much he wants to retaliate over the death of his father, his wife, his daughter, his mother, by Israel and the United States, and having the potential possibilities of all of the components of a nuclear project, and mainly the knowledge, which you cannot erase knowledge, but not just knowledge, advanced centrifuges, enriched uranium, underground enrichment facilities, all of the above exist.

That is a dangerous combination.

What general would you have hoped would have been achieved by now?

On one sentence, the destruction of the nuclear project.

I didn't believe that we can topple a regime through aerial campaign.

Most professionals would state that that's impossible to achieve, but degradation and the destruction of nuclear project, that can be achieved through military campaign.

So why hasn't it?

Well, on the brink of execution, President Trump stopped the war and believed that he can get the same results of a destruction of the, or obliteration of all the nuclear projects through negotiations, through the diplomatical procedure.

You recently called the ceasefire in the Iran war counterproductive.

Yeah.

Why?

Because I think the time that passes is being used in order to recover by the Iranians.

We are losing the tensions.

We are bleeding strategically.

in terms of how the war is portrayed in Israel, in the United States, worldwide, and we are losing the momentum.

Extending it indefinitely works on behalf of the Iranians.

So what is victory from the Israeli standpoint?

Right now, two options.

One, a reliable, thorough nuclear deal, which will ensure there is no underground enrichment facilities at all.

All of them are blocked, sealed.

No advanced centrifuges at all.

And very tight inspections by international agencies that are supervising and maintaining and enforcing that status.

>> Is it your view that those objectives could be achieved through negotiations, or would more kinetic activity be required?

I think all of the above will not be accepted by the Iranians.

Do you think it is possible at this point, and given the actors that are negotiating, to get a deal better than the Obama deal with the current regime?

>> It will be difficult to achieve.

And you need details to be discussed and maybe an additional cycle of violence in order to push them into the right direction.

It will be harder right now, because as long as time passes, they are becoming more and more confident that the United States doesn't really want to re-engage in warfare, and that creates a sense of security, a sense of stubbornness in the negotiation, so that will be problematic.

- It has been reported that Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli officials told President Trump before the war that Iran was ripe for regime change, that Iran would be too weak to choke off the Straits of Hormuz, that there was a very low risk that Iran would be able to effectively strike back against U.S.

assets in the region.

Was the intelligence incorrect or were the leaders, the political leaders, not listening?

Well, all of those three statements are, I'm skeptical whether that's true.

Okay?

I didn't, I have never heard those statements from a first source, from a first-hand source.

Okay?

And it seems to me contradictive to what I know, the knowledge I know.

For example, Straits of Hormuz, it was in the center of intelligence assessment.

We knew that in the worst-case scenario, that is a full-scale war against Iranians, Iranians will cross the Straits of Hormuz.

You don't need to be a great intelligence officer.

They have stated that.

They have took pictures beside the Straits of Hormuz.

And if we know about the Iranians, they are not bluffing.

When they say something, they will execute.

So what you're saying is the intelligence never suggested that Iran was ripe for regime change, that they wouldn't choke off the Strait of Hormuz, and that they wouldn't try -- and the Israeli intelligence, and that also it wouldn't -- Let's break it.

Yeah.

Okay.

Ripe for a regime change?

No.

I don't think that any intelligence officers said that in such a clear manner.

Yes, probably someone said that we are in historical opportunity because of the fact that the regime is weak, the leader, the supreme leader is tired, weak, sick, the economy is crumbling, there's protest in the streets, the rate of approval of this regime is in the historical low, so that context true, but ripe for regime change through military operation I'm not sure.

As for retaliation through missiles, definitely that statement definitely contradicts our experience.

We have experienced before this war three rounds of collisions with Iranians.

We know exactly how well they are prepared and their ability to strike Israel.

So I don't see that as credible evidence of things that occurred in their closed room.

Do you think political advice was given between Israeli and American leaders that didn't reflect the intelligence that you say existed?

I think hope covered rational thinking.

Nobody can clearly state or prove that the regime won't fall.

It is historical context.

And we have up our sleeve a few amazing capabilities.

We can kill the supreme leader and all of the high ranking officials that controls the security and the national security of Iran in one strike and all of the commanders or the leaders of the general intelligence of Iran in one strike.

That really is amazing.

So there was a hope after the success in Venezuela, that after the historical weaknesses of this regime that that will happen.

Hope is not strategic plan.

And that hope probably energized some positive, over positive thinking about the outcome of the war.

>> Well, you said hope covered rational thinking.

I wonder if hubris played a role as well.

And I ask you this because there's a new reported story from "The New York Times" that suggests that there was a plan, some semblance of a plan at least, for an individual within Iran to emerge as a transitional leader or a new leader, and that the U.S.

and Israel had identified former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be that person.

A surprising story because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is so well known as a hater of Israel, a hater of the United States, and frequently had argued that Israel should be wiped from the map.

So this report is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had potentially been identified as a Delcy Rodriguez figure, likening it to how easily Venezuela was able to transition from their dictator Maduro to Delcy.

Can you add any insight or context into those reports?

Let's start with Venezuela because that is really what's behind the sense of confidence that maybe arrogance.

Arrogance, yeah.

And that the sense of success probably led Trump to tweet that help is on the way which was a huge surprise to Israelis.

We know that there's a kind of a concept that Israel drove, was kind of convinced Trump to strike.

That's not accurate.

When Trump said help is on the way and decided to strike Iran, surprised Israel on early January, okay?

So, why did Trump say, "Help is on the way"?

Why he pushed himself into the Iranian arena?

Probably because of the success in Venezuela.

So, initially, the joint operation with Israel was going to be in early January?

No, no.

Nothing was planned in January by the Israelis.

Trump, out of nowhere, surprised Israelis and said that he's going to strike Iran.

Trump kind of shuffled the cards when he suddenly surprised Israelis by initiating this, willing to strike.

That led to the Israeli planning and the American motivation in the 28th of February.

So that's the true story.

That's the sequence of events that happened.

So Venezuela, the success in Venezuela must have emboldened.

Trump.

Yeah.

As for Ahmadinejad, there was a sequence of special operations, very, very unique, that was supposed to happen.

And Ahmadinejad was a part of that sequence.

The rest of the operations are not fully disclosed to the public, except for the Kurdish invasion.

Why didn't it work?

Because the centerpiece of all the sequence should have been started with the Kurdish invasion.

Why didn't the Kurds go?

According to what was published, Erdogan, who really considered the Kurdish as a strategic threat to the stability of Turkey, convinced Trump that it's a bad idea to give the Kurdish a state.

And giving a Kurdish, backing the Kurdish by United States goes against the interest of Turkey.

And I think that had something to do with the decision of Trump to cancel this operation.

- So Trump canceled the operation.

- Definitely.

- In 1972, William F. Buckley Jr.

interviewed Shimon Peres.

Of course, Shimon Peres is one of the founders of the nation of Israel, who's also credited with helping turn Israel into a robust military power.

Buckley asked him why the United States should support Israel.

Listen to his answer.

First of all, the United States is still among the nations where an idealistic approach plays a role.

There was a great injustice done to the Jewish people throughout ages, in many places over the world, and I think there is a natural inclination among the United States people for such a people, for the people of Israel, for the Jewish people, to correct wrongs which took place for such a long time at such difficult tests and with such a great harm to so many people.

General, for many Americans today, it pains me to acknowledge that that description of why Americans should support Israel no longer resonates as it used to.

Particularly, and I know you know this, amongst young Americans, too many, in my view, view Israel and Israelis not as a people who have suffered great wrongs but as a people who are committing them.

How do you reflect on the Israeli-American relationship right now?

-Well, that's a very important topic, and we are worried.

We, that is the Israel National, the INSS, the Israel National Security Studies Institute, which I am heading.

It is long being observed that on the long term, there are basic development that may split us apart.

and it's not just started in this war, but accelerated during the war.

It's a combination of three things that are evolving together.

First of all, the historical trends of antisemitism, it lies there.

That ugly monster was never killed.

It's still beneath the ground affecting.

The Israeli policy, which in some cases overplayed by foolish statements done by politicians for political reasons, by not acknowledging some compassion of what we have done.

Are you referring to Gaza?

Yes.

I think that was a mistake.

We have done our best to avoid casualties in Gaza.

During the war, we supplied water, food, medicine.

Israeli soldiers were on harm's way and sometimes wounded and killed in order to diminish the casualties among Palestinians.

We should be proud on how moral and how restricted we were in order to prevent casualties, in order to avoid famine.

And third, there is a fundamental truth that is hard to explain.

We are fighting for our life.

And it's hard to, in this context of very wealthy, well-nourished world that we are living, it's hard to believe that a flourishing state like Israel is fighting for its life.

But it's true.

Support for Israel and the United States continues to crater.

According to a recent Pew poll, 60 percent of adults in the United States have an unfavorable view of Israel.

That's up from 53 percent just last year.

Is American public opinion of Israel a national security concern for Israel?

Of course, what happens in the public arena will reflect the next generation of politics governing in the United States.

That's a kind of a hatch open to the future.

We cannot avoid it.

We cannot eliminate it.

We cannot ignore it.

That's a major strategic problem.

And it relates to another problem that Israel right now is either being labeled as the one-party state that leans to the Republican Party or even more as tied up with Trump, as a Trump's country, which is really something that in the long term will work against Israel.

Israel should be a bipartisan, return back to its formal consensus of the flourishing Jewish state that only wants to live with peace and harmony inside the Middle East and to be a safe haven for Jews worldwide as a nation-state of the Jews but a democratic flourishing state.

Labeling us inside the context of a very polarized, toxic, internal American political discussion is bad for the Israel-U.S.

relationship.

And it's true that Israel long ago betted on America.

Fully.

I cannot really imagine Israel national security without the full backing of the United States and a very close cooperation between the United States.

And I must return to Shimon Peres.

We may be still naive to think that the U.S.

stands for values, ideals, not just narrow interest.

We still believe that the shared values of democracy, of fighting for freedom, trying to save lives, trying to flourish, is something unique that connects our values together.

But if we are entering a world of narrow interests, business-based politics, that values are off the table, it's a very cynical, cold world that threaten the connection between Israel and the U.S.

for the long term.

General Hayman, thank you for joining me.

It's my pleasure.

Thank you for having me.

Firing Line with Margaret Hoover is made possible in part by... Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, The Tepper Foundation, Peter and Mary Kalikow, The Beth and Ravenel Curry Foundation, Pritzker Military Foundation, Cliff and Laurel Asness, and the Margaret and Daniel Loeb Foundation, and by the following.

(upbeat music) You're watching PBS.