HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028251.jpg

Extraction Summary

4
People
4
Organizations
6
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Book manuscript / government exhibit
File Size:
Summary

This document appears to be a page from a memoir or manuscript by Ehud Barak (page 117) included in a House Oversight production. It details the strategic disagreements between Barak (then Defense Minister) and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert regarding the timing and tactical execution of a preemptive strike on a Syrian nuclear reactor. Barak argues for a delay to ensure a 'fail-safe plan' that minimizes the risk of all-out war, while noting Olmert's frustration and urgency.

People (4)

Name Role Context
Ehud Barak Narrator / Defense Minister / Former Chief of Staff
The author of the text (indicated by header 'BARAK'), describing his strategic planning and disagreements with the Pr...
Ehud Olmert Prime Minister
Described as frustrated with the delay in attacking the reactor; wanted to attack 'within days'.
Service Commanders Military Officials
Participants in the planning meetings.
Chief of Staff Military Official
Participant in planning meetings.

Organizations (4)

Name Type Context
Mossad
Intelligence agency working with the narrator to ensure a successful plan.
Kirya
IDF Headquarters/Tel Aviv defense complex; source of the 'off-the-shelf' military plans.
Hizbollah
Mentioned as part of an alliance with Syria and Iran.
The Americans
Mentioned as helping to get forces and munitions in place.

Timeline (2 events)

2006 (implied)
Recent Lebanon war
Lebanon
Circa 2007 (implied)
Strategic planning meetings regarding the destruction of a Syrian nuclear reactor.
Israel

Locations (6)

Location Context
Location of the nuclear reactor target.
Country whose security strategy is discussed.
Referenced in relation to a previous reactor strike (Osirak).
Mentioned as a regional threat and ally of Syria.
Mentioned regarding Hizbollah and the 'recent Lebanon war'.
Where forces and munitions were being placed.

Relationships (2)

Ehud Barak Political/Professional Conflict Ehud Olmert
Olmert got more and more frustrated with the fact we hadn’t yet attacked, and frustrated with me as well.
Syria Alliance Iran
Syria posed a particular threat, as part of an increasingly close alliance with Iran

Key Quotes (4)

"The question, however, was how and when to strike the reactor. Olmert wanted to attack within days."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028251.jpg
Quote #1
"We need a fail-safe plan to destroy the reactor."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028251.jpg
Quote #2
"Invariably, I began my remarks by saying: 'We have to destroy the reactor.'"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028251.jpg
Quote #3
"Olmert was beginning to suggest to the few ministers and senior officers aware of our planning that I was against attacking the reactor."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028251.jpg
Quote #4

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,695 characters)

/ BARAK / 117
reactor near Baghdad, there was never any question that we would take any and all
possible measures to prevent Syria from getting a nuclear weapon. An immutable,
core assumption in Israel’s security strategy was the need to retain our ability to
deter, and if necessary defeat, our enemies. A nuclear Syria – or Iraq, or Iran –
would dramatically alter the balance of power in the region, at obvious risk to
Israel. Syria posed a particular threat, as part of an increasingly close alliance with
Iran, and with Hizbollah in Lebanon.
The question, however, was how and when to strike the reactor. Olmert wanted
to attack within days. He seemed to assume that, as a former chief of staff, I’d nod
enthusiastically and go along with him. I did understand the reasons for his sense
of urgency. Not only did we have to make sure we attacked before the fuel was on
site. There was always the risk the Syrians would find out that we were aware of
their nuclear facility, putting them on even higher alert. But the operational
challenge was complex. We need a fail-safe plan to destroy the reactor. We had to
do it in such a way as to avoid a full-scale military confrontation with Syria if
possible. And we had to ensure we were ready for that, if it did happen. It took
very little time for me to realize that none of those prerequisites was yet in place.
Not unlike the recent Lebanon war, we were choosing between two off-the-shelf
plans from the kirya. One involved using a large military force, and would almost
certainly draw us into a major conflict with Syria. The other was a smaller,
targeted operation. But it remained untested, and there was no certainty it would
actually destroy the reactor.
Over the next few months, Olmert got more and more frustrated with the fact
we hadn’t yet attacked, and frustrated with me as well. We held dozens of
meetings, sometimes two or three a day, chaired by the Prime Minister, sometimes
by me as Defense Minister, or by the chief of staff or service commanders.
Invariably, I began my remarks by saying: “We have to destroy the reactor.” This
was not because I felt that any of us seriously doubted that. It was because Olmert
was beginning to suggest to the few ministers and senior officers aware of our
planning that I was against attacking the reactor. In fact, I was working with the
military and Mossad to ensure we had a plan that would succeed, with the
minimum possible risk of drawing us into a major clash with the Syrians after the
facility was destroyed. I was also working – with the help of the Americans – to
make sure we could get the forces and munitions in place in the north of Israel to
403
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028251

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document