The Middle East Institute (MEI) hosted an on-the-record briefing to discuss the IDF’s movements across southern Gaza, Israel’s current military objectives, and how combat today differs from that of previous weeks.
Speakers
Lt. Gen. Michael K. Nagata
Distinguished Senior Fellow on National Security
Mick Mulroy
Non-Resident Senior Fellow
Transcript
(The following transcript was automatically generated and may contain errors.)
00:00:00:00 - 00:00:38:20
Rachel Dooley
All right. Welcome, everyone. I'm Rachel Dooley, I’m the deputy director of communications at the Middle East Institute. Thanks for joining us today for our on-the-record briefing on Israel's military operations in southern Gaza amid a worsening humanitarian crisis and increasing military and civilian casualties. I'm joined by my two distinguished colleagues at MEI, Lieutenant General Michael Nagata, former commander for Special Operations Command Central and an MEI senior fellow, and Mick Mulroy, former deputy assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East and retired CIA paramilitary operations officer, also an MEI senior fellow.
00:00:38:22 - 00:00:58:12
Rachel Dooley
They will discuss the IDF's movements across southern Gaza, Israel's current military objectives, and how the conflict may continue to play out from here. And when we get to the Q&A portion, you can use the raise hand function on your screen to ask a question. And if you're called we’ll unmute you and then you can go ahead, introduce yourself and direct your question to one of our panelists.
00:00:58:14 - 00:01:12:16
Rachel Dooley
I'll go over all of this again later, but for now, we're going to jump right into it. I'm going to turn to Mick first. Mick, you just returned from the Doha Forum with an MEI delegation. How much of the discussion there was focused on Gaza?
00:01:12:18 - 00:01:44:13
Mick Mulroy
So thanks, Rachel, and greetings to everybody from Montana. Almost all of the discussion at the Doha Forum was was focused on Gaza. I know it's generally a kind of around the world event where we talk about conflicts. There were, of course, discussions on that, but most of the main panels did focus on Gaza and it was good to be out there for MEI and it's good to be with my friend Mike for this event.
00:01:44:13 - 00:02:08:07
Mick Mulroy
And a lot of the information that I have did come from that forum because it was in addition to the talks that as as most know, the side discussions were really helpful. I don't want to spend too much time talking because I think it's best to get to your questions and just have Mike and I answer those. But by way of short, by way of background, I spent most of my life as a practitioner in this.
00:02:08:07 - 00:02:34:02
Mick Mulroy
Was until my last two years when I had the privilege of working for Secretary Mattis and then Secretary Esper. But most of it is in the form of, quite frankly, a combatant, both in the military and the agency. So I draw a lot of my at least my analysis based on that. I think that we see we're seeing National Security Adviser Sullivan in Israel today.
00:02:34:04 - 00:03:01:17
Mick Mulroy
They’ll certainly be a lot of discussions on how Israel, how the IDF is conducting their combat operations there. We're seeing reports on percentages of unguided munitions, etc., statements by the president that it's indiscriminate bombing, which I think I think we need to have addressed and clarified, because that statement in of itself would indicate that it's not in conformity with international law.
00:03:01:18 - 00:03:29:22
Mick Mulroy
I'm not saying that it is that that's what indiscriminate means to most people. I do think there will be discussions on how to prevent this war from expanding. And there's reports that we potentially even talked Israel out of a preemptive attack against Hezbollah in the north. And that, of course, has not happened, which is a good thing. And one of the reasons we put our our two aircraft carrier strike groups in the region.
00:03:29:24 - 00:03:56:00
Mick Mulroy
But I do think and even statements from the Hamas spokesperson who was in Beirut that as we see Hamas in Gaza get closer and closer to destruction, that there'll be more pressure on Hezbollah to join the fight in a much more expanded way than it currently is doing. And I think thirdly, you'll see a lot of discussion on what comes after the end of major combat operations.
00:03:56:02 - 00:04:22:06
Mick Mulroy
Is there going to be a long term occupation of Gaza by the IDF and for those who would not like to see that happen, which I think also includes the US government, what's the alternative? What is the international community going to do to present an alternative for a security stabilization type force that can provide assurances to the Israelis and keep the peace all while Gaza gets rebuilt?
00:04:22:08 - 00:04:49:05
Mick Mulroy
Because it is a exceptionally dire humanitarian situation in Gaza. Another thing I believe that the national security adviser will bring up is the need for a much more expanded, increased humanitarian aid delivery system that's going to go into Gaza. The fighting is moving south. The main gates right now are in the south. Obviously, Rafah and Kerem Shalom. Is there going to be more gates opened up?
00:04:49:05 - 00:05:12:11
Mick Mulroy
Is there going to be a maritime route in? Because that's I don't think you can say enough about just how dire the situation is there. And that is something that everybody should be concerned about. And going forward, how's how are we going to make sure that we can keep up with the need? So I'll stop there, Rachel, and again, thanks MEI for having me for doing this. I'm looking forward to discussion
00:05:12:13 - 00:05:20:06
Rachel Dooley
All right. Thanks, Mick, I appreciate it. And turning to you, General Nagata, how do you see things as they stand now?
00:05:20:08 - 00:05:46:22
Mike Nagata
Thank you, Rachel. I'd be happy to talk about that. I want to say hello to everybody, especially Nick, welcome back. And obviously, given the fact Mick is just coming back from the Middle East, whereas I as I mentioned the last time we did this, I haven't been back to the Middle East in at least five years. At this point. I cannot possibly match the up to date nature of the information that Mick has relayed here in my own remarks.
00:05:46:22 - 00:06:11:07
Mike Nagata
But I'll give you what perspectives that I think I can from here. I think most of you know by now. But I'll just repeat it for brevity sake. I'm a retired military, spent about 34 years in U.S. Special Operations. My last assignment was the director of strategy for the National Counterterrorism Center. About a third of my military career was all spent in the Middle East.
00:06:11:07 - 00:06:46:05
Mike Nagata
Rather unsurprisingly. So the last time we did this, I remarked that I believed Israel had essentially two major strategic priorities. My view of this is unchanged. Although some things have evolved since the last time we did this, the first one is retribution against Hamas. I think the need, the perceived need among the Israeli leadership and the Israeli population for retribution against Hamas for what happened on seven October still burns very brightly.
00:06:46:07 - 00:07:16:24
Mike Nagata
It will gradually recede over time, but the wounds are too fresh. And I think for the Americans in the audience, all you have to do is ask yourself the question, how long did the American people's need for retribution against al Qaeda last after 9/11? And obviously, the answer is that it lasted for several years. I expect the need, the perceived need for retribution among the Israeli population to remain very strong for the foreseeable future.
00:07:17:01 - 00:08:04:09
Mike Nagata
The second one is the destruction of Hamas that continues, from my perspective, to be the most commonly repeated refrain from the Israeli government and leadership that they intend to destroy Hamas as I suggested the last time we did this, I remain dubious that they can fully accomplish that, but they are certainly inflicting grievous harm on that organization ever since seven October, and I believe they will continue to do so for some time to come despite the enormous and growing amount of international criticism the Israeli government is receiving, I don't see how, at least in the near term, the Israeli government can walk back from the stated goal of destroying Hamas.
00:08:04:09 - 00:08:38:21
Mike Nagata
Whether or not it is achievable, as I think I suggested the last time we did this, because I believe Hamas, like most terrorist organizations, operates more like a network than it does in the way a more traditional military organization would operate. That network characteristic tends to be far more resilient, flexible and survivable than classic military organizational styles tend to allow.
00:08:38:23 - 00:09:04:24
Mike Nagata
So while they are certainly being harmed very substantially and they have taken enormous casualties, and I think that casualty rate will continue, they're large enough, but most importantly, their networked enough, and they're receiving enough external support that they will live to fight another day, although their size, their shape and their future victory will take time to understand.
00:09:05:01 - 00:09:27:01
Mike Nagata
Conversely, I still believe that Hamas has the long term strategic goal at this is what they publicly state, and I believe they're serious that their long term goal is to destroy Israel. I don't see how they can surrender that goal at this point, given the nature of the fight there. Now in though, it will be some time before they recover anything remotely close to the ability to do so.
00:09:27:01 - 00:10:08:22
Mike Nagata
If they ever accomplish that. But what they have managed to do is they have managed to badly embarrass the current Israeli government. They have strategically reversed what was a years long, gradual movement by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to begin some kind of political rapprochement with the Israelis. And beyond this, because of the way this conflict in Gaza has unfolded, whether they intended to or not, Hamas has created deep political wounds for Israeli, for Israel, both internally in their own politics and in their political relationships with the international community.
00:10:08:24 - 00:10:38:01
Mike Nagata
And both of those things, I expect, will take years to fully recover from, if they ever can. Finally, whether they intended to or not, I suspect they probably did. But whether they did it intentionally or not, the this fight and what Hamas has accomplished is they have breathed new life into the Palestinian cause writ large, regardless of whether or not most Palestinians actually ascribe to what Hamas preaches.
00:10:38:03 - 00:11:18:15
Mike Nagata
Meanwhile, U.S. and Western efforts to strongly support Israel have to some degree prevented an expansion of the conflict. In the in terms of that, there's no large scale second front that has emerged directly against Israel from probably primarily Hezbollah and other Iranian type actors in the region. But what they have done is they have created an expansion of the conflict as it relates to the United States and several other nations in the region and several European countries.
00:11:18:17 - 00:11:50:07
Mike Nagata
Mostly what I'm referring to here has been the gradually escalating proxy attacks that Israel is clearly sponsoring, whether conducted by Iranian actors themselves in Iraq or their proxies in Iraq, in Syria and in the Red Sea. I'm sure everybody on this call is tracking the steadily growing number of attacks that these various proxies and actors, I think we're will well in excess of 90 attacks at this point, both ground based and maritime based.
00:11:50:09 - 00:12:26:17
Mike Nagata
Though I'll end by saying this is probably a controversial statement, but I do believe this is true. There is something close to an undeclared war between Iran and the United States when it comes to the attacks and the reprisals that are going on outside of Israel, whether or not that was anyone's intent, there is now a quiet armed conflict ongoing between these Iranian proxies and the United States and some of its allies.
00:12:26:19 - 00:12:51:08
Mike Nagata
And this is a dangerous development. I don't think there's any way of predicting where this is going to go at this point, but it is significantly complicating the ability of countries like the United States and other elements of the alliance with Israel from supporting Israel, because these other attacks are a significant distraction. With that, I'll stop and stand by for questions.
00:12:51:10 - 00:13:14:06
Rachel Dooley
Thanks General Nagata, as you said, we will welcome questions from our participants at this point. You can go ahead and use the raise hand function on your screen and when I call on you we’ll unmute you. Go ahead and introduce yourself and your organization and direct your question to one of our panelists. It's also useful if you leave your hand raised throughout the whole period if your question goes doesn't get answered immediately.
00:13:14:08 - 00:13:33:21
Rachel Dooley
I'll start with a question that I have from Jay Solomon from Semafor. And it really goes into what you were just talking about, General Nagata, which is, “Is this an opportunity for the U.S. and Israel to significantly clip the power of Iran's regional axis? And if it is an opportunity, is there a different way to go about it than they're already doing?”
00:13:33:23 - 00:13:38:08
Rachel Dooley
Maybe because we've heard from you, Gen. Nagata, first, I'll go to you, Mick.
00:13:38:10 - 00:14:03:22
Mick Mulroy
Sure. Thanks for that. And a very good question. I think you're you're seeing a lot of pressure now of the U.S. to respond to these these near constant attacks, both the attacks in Syria and Iraq and now in the Red Sea. It's clear that at least in those arenas, that the deterrence that we hope to gain is not working.
00:14:03:22 - 00:14:26:04
Mick Mulroy
And I think that's, again, one of those self-created homework assignments where you get the answer by the reaction of your adversaries and adversaries are not deterred. So a few of those things and, you know, I was saying to you guys before we started at a boxing coach that used to say, if you're not punching and you're not throwing counter punches, then you're not a boxer, you're a punching bag.
00:14:26:04 - 00:14:49:10
Mick Mulroy
Right? So we need to not be a punching bag. And it's I know that and I don't say that lightly. I mean, we need to start putting people on notice by action that it's not this action is not going to be acceptable. We are right now been successful in deflecting the cruise missile attacks and drone strike attacks against our naval assets.
00:14:49:10 - 00:15:20:01
Mick Mulroy
But if any of those gets through, that's going to be a whole entirely different question. I think people will be asking why we did not do more to mitigate the threat. So what I'd advocate for is if this happens and it's it it's unfortunate because we don't want the war to expand, but it's an opportunity. We need to not only respond to where those weapons came from, the point of origin, but I'm certain that the U.S. intelligence community has been keeping track of where they think a lot of these systems are stored.
00:15:20:01 - 00:15:43:06
Mick Mulroy
For example, in Yemen. And I think that needs to be mitigated as a fully legitimate self-defensive action of the United States to mitigate where we think. And of course, they all come from Iran, but their storage facility that they use before they launch them at us and Yemen, and then also to any of the advisors that Iran might have that's there.
00:15:43:08 - 00:16:04:06
Mick Mulroy
You know, to the extent, I don't know the intel, I’m out of the government now, but that should be an opportunity because it is a component. You have a proxy group that's willing to launch. You have weapons systems that come from Iran and potentially you have advisors that come from Iran. And I think if this keeps happening, that should be a legitimate response of the United States.
00:16:04:06 - 00:16:23:04
Mick Mulroy
And I would imagine CENTCOM is way ahead of me on this and probably advocating, I don't know, but advocating for something like that and certainly prepared to do it should the president give the green light. So that would be in that area. And the other thing is that it's not just against our assets there, right? It's against commercial shipping.
00:16:23:06 - 00:16:51:12
Mick Mulroy
And that's that's something the whole world should care about. Right. This is, you know, if you're familiar with commercial shipping, you realize that, you know, it might be flagged one place ship from another place, a captain for another place, a crew from another place. It's going to even different places. So it is a completely international issue. A lot of the world's energy supply, for example, comes out of this region and it's in it's really it's really something that most should care about.
00:16:51:13 - 00:17:18:02
Mick Mulroy
I would hope that it's not just the U.S. that's out there defending it, but the international maritime security construct that we set up also is looking at potential for escorting because it's not just indirect attacks, but it's also, you know, shipboard assaults that we need to do that to protect the industry or we're going to have an issue because the insurance companies are, quite frankly, not going to insure ships to go through, you know, key maritime waterways like the Bab al-Mandab and the Strait of Hormuz.
00:17:18:02 - 00:17:44:14
Mick Mulroy
So that should be an issue much broader than just the U.S. and our partners. In Iraq and Syria, almost nonstop attacks against our places. We have an absolute obligation to the soldiers that are out there deployed on behalf the United States. We need to give them, again, the ability to respond and mitigate the threat. It can't just be nonstop retaliation.
00:17:44:15 - 00:18:11:20
Mick Mulroy
Or nonstop, you know, blocking of the threat. It needs to be getting ahead of it, trying to disrupt the chain of supply and those that are carrying it out. Again, the United States, I understand the dilemma. The United States is trying to contain this and not expand it to a regional conflict. But that does run up against our absolute obligation to allow our military men and women to defend themselves. So I'll stop there and hand it over to Mike.
00:18:11:22 - 00:18:44:13
Mike Nagata
It is a good question. Unfortunately, my own view is that we're now--if this is a question that is being considered by the former colleagues that Mick and I once served with, you know, do we now is this a moment where we can clip Iran's wings or push them back strategically? Our timing is awful because in my humble opinion, Iran is in the strongest strategic position I think they've probably ever been in since the Revolution.
00:18:44:15 - 00:19:08:01
Mike Nagata
This is not just because of the benefits they're deriving from the current conflict, but over the last decade they've established their own unbroken land bridge all the way from Iran through Iraq, through Syria to the Mediterranean, which Iran has never had before. So and there are other things Iran has accomplished, including the fact they're just a few steps away from potentially creating a nuclear weapon.
00:19:08:03 - 00:19:42:04
Mike Nagata
So they're in an enormously strong strategic position right now. So if the United States does intend to strategically push back or unwind what Iran is now accomplishing, it will require a degree of a risk acceptance by the United States and its allies -- because the United States cannot do this alone -- that will be very, very hard to accept, particularly when one considers the amount of risk the United States and frankly, the amount of treasure the United States is expending as well.
00:19:42:06 - 00:20:13:20
Mike Nagata
Still in Ukraine, in supporting Israel, in our readiness challenges in the Indo-Pacific regarding China. It's not impossible, but oh my God, this is going to be hard. So will the United States be willing to accept the risks and and absorb the costs necessary to take on Iran when they are possibly the strongest they have ever been? Maybe. But I'm a little dubious.
00:20:13:22 - 00:20:22:03
Rachel Dooley
All right. Thank you, Mike. I'm going to go to Dan Lamothe at The Washington Post. Dan, go ahead.
00:20:22:05 - 00:21:03:09
Dan Lamoth (Washington Post)
Hey, good morning. I appreciate your time today. I wanted to ask you about a DNI assessment that's out today in the media suggesting that roughly half -- just short of half of the munitions dropped by Israel since October 7th are, “dumb bombs.” I wondered how you thought strategically that plays in, how that might figure into the discussion we're having now about what's indiscriminate and what's not, and what makes sense going forward in terms of trying to guide or advise the Israelis, and also what American munitions, what makes sense in terms of assisting.
00:21:03:11 - 00:21:48:01
Mike Nagata
I'll I'll go first, given the fact that I've I and my colleagues have dropped a lot of bombs. I mean, I'm not a pilot, but I certainly directed a lot of ordnance to be dropped on terrorist positions and terrorist actors over the years. I have not seen that report, so I can't really comment about its contents. But I will say this: precision in any kinetic strike is derived from a lot of different factors and and only one of them is whether or not you're using a so-called smart munition.
00:21:48:03 - 00:22:24:12
Mike Nagata
An example would be some sort of very sophisticated piece of ordnance that has a camera or a sensor or its own internal. It's its its own ability to identify and and maneuver towards a specified target. I mean, that's ideally if you're looking for precision, that's the ideal circumstances to use a very intelligent weapon system. But they are incredibly expensive.
00:22:24:14 - 00:22:53:21
Mike Nagata
And so in all arsenals everywhere, including the arsenal in the United States, there's always going to be a higher proportion of weapons that are simply propelled by a are propelled by some kind of engine or just drop based on gravity. But they're not smart munitions. That's always going to be the preponderance of munitions in anybody's arsenal because smart bombs and smart missiles are incredibly expensive.
00:22:53:23 - 00:23:30:11
Mike Nagata
So that's number one. The fact that there are more, quote, dumb bombs being used by Israel than smart munitions is at least in some degree, just related to the fact that of this cost differential. Now, having said that, what I don't know, perhaps the DNI report illuminates this, but what I don't know is does Israel have the ability to use state of the art targeting practices before they release any kind of munition, whether it's a smart munition or a dumb bomb, as as most people describe them?
00:23:30:17 - 00:24:09:11
Mike Nagata
I don't know the answer to that. I do know that that Israel has very sophisticated targeting practices that they can use in certain situations. They've demonstrated this repeatedly over many years. But here again, the cost differential in manpower, expertise, technological sophistication, because you're often talking about very large volumes of digital data having having to be analyzed, processed and passed very, very quickly to ensure your the ordnance you're dropping lands precisely on what you are intending to hit.
00:24:09:13 - 00:24:26:20
Mike Nagata
And oh, by the way, you have the intelligence collection necessary to know with high confidence who are the people and what are the structures that you are bombing. Are you do have you assessed these properly? That's also a very expensive proposition. So here again, I'll make this my last word.
00:24:26:22 - 00:25:04:19
Mike Nagata
When it comes to any military, whether it's the Israeli military, the US military or anybody's military. In your military intelligence structure, in your targeting enterprise, you only have so much ability to do exquisite targeting. And when you've got lots and lots of targets that you feel an urgent need to strike, you have to make some very painful choices about where you're going to put your most exquisite targeting capabilities and everything else will get something less capable.
00:25:04:21 - 00:25:21:10
Mick Mulroy
So if I could jump in there, I think it's really important Mike said that to note that just about every military, if not every military in the world, has a mixture of these type of munitions. So in and of itself, it doesn't indicate any kind of culpability or I don't know if that's the right word, but certainly we would, too.
00:25:21:11 - 00:25:55:13
Mick Mulroy
So it does come down to I think and I think it was 40 to 45% of 29,000 munitions. It does come down to how you employ it. Right. So whether you're using a precision guided or a unguided air to ground munition. You still have to do everything under the laws of armed conflict to both identify a military target, to do everything you can to mitigate civilian casualties and take into account proportionality when it comes to any potential casualty.
00:25:55:13 - 00:26:20:10
Mick Mulroy
So that's what really matters. You could use a a dumb munition, if you will. It just depends on the terrain where it's used, the casualties around it. It all comes into the equation. So what I think is, is this comes out at a time when the president has has either said intentionally or unintentionally the indiscriminate word when it came to targeting.
00:26:20:10 - 00:26:45:12
Mick Mulroy
So I think it's going to get a lot more questions. I would I would also point out that now the troops are on the ground. Somebody like I said, Mike said it was I'm not a pilot. I would drop bombs, but I've been I've called them in and I've been standing next to them. The likelihood is they're going to use a lot more precision guided munitions as they move forward, as they do have troops on the ground and potentially danger close to where they're targeting.
00:26:45:12 - 00:27:10:03
Mick Mulroy
So that's when you really, really not just because you want to mitigate all the civilians, but also because you certainly don't want to cause fratricide. So I think probably going ahead, they might have kept a lot of their precision munitions for this type of really close in combat. I do think we saw and Mike and I talked about this the first time, a pretty heavy handed approach to the shaping phase of this operation.
00:27:10:05 - 00:27:32:23
Mick Mulroy
I think that has been, I think, documented fairly accurately and that they may not have been using the proportionality that we would have used when it came to targeting, that we would have likely not taken many of the shots that, you know, I reviewed for ABC News, for example. That's that's something that's going to be an issue. Hopefully they change going forward.
00:27:33:03 - 00:28:03:06
Mick Mulroy
It does put more of a risk on their troops. But certainly when it comes to when, you know, we'll get into the destruction of Hamas and whether it's possible or not, when it comes to the ideological destruction of Hamas, that's likely not possible. And it is likely to only exacerbate the issue if they if they if they feel like their mother, father, brother, sister, children were killed because of this heavy handed approach.
00:28:03:10 - 00:28:23:11
Mick Mulroy
You're going to create more people who want to join Hamas in the future. It's, you know, 10 to 1 situation. So I think it's not only the right thing to do under international law, it is in your own interest not to create more of a problem and a threat to to your, you know, your country. So I think there will be a lot more on that.
00:28:23:11 - 00:28:42:21
Mick Mulroy
I do think the president needs to clarify his statement because, again, the indiscriminate word indicates to most people that they're outside of the the requirements of engagement in international law of armed conflict, that that needs to be addressed. Thank you.
00:28:42:23 - 00:28:49:21
Rachel Dooley
Thank you both. And now I'm going to turn to Felicia Schwartz at the Financial Times. Felicia, go ahead.
00:28:49:23 - 00:29:34:18
Felicia Schwartz (Financial Times)
Hi. Thanks so much for doing this. I have two, I guess maybe following up a bit on what Mick said, which is just, if it's not entirely possible to militarily defeat Hamas, do you think Israel has a reasonable shot of getting at least a few of these senior leaders in the next few weeks or, you know, what might they be able to declare victory with since it seems like there is mounting pressure from from the U.S. and the rest of the world? And then I guess just like a second question is, you know, are there any signs that the Israelis are acting more precisely in the south or that they are following U.S. advice from where you sit?
00:29:34:20 - 00:29:36:18
Mick Mulroy
Did you want me to start Mike, you want to start?
00:29:36:20 - 00:29:38:23
Mike Nagata
You go ahead.
00:29:39:00 - 00:30:05:24
Mick Mulroy
Okay. So when it comes to the second question, Israelis, the way they're fighting now, I do think there's indications to me that they are taking this into account that they are that they are trying to limit the civilian casualties. I don't know that their tactics have been the best when it comes to this. They tend to keep moving civilians around from place to place.
00:30:06:01 - 00:30:26:22
Mick Mulroy
Some would argue that it would be more beneficial if they kept a persistent, safe zone, if you will, or a humanitarian aid would come in on interrupted and that the civilians would have to try to keep track of where they're supposed to go at a time when many of them don't have access to the Internet power. And and quite frankly, a lot of places they're being told to go
00:30:26:22 - 00:31:02:11
Mick Mulroy
there's no food, water there, so they don't want to go. I think if they did that more consistently, they would at least get people in a certain area and it might mitigate, mitigate the chances that they were, you know, collateral, if you will. I think that's something that the United States obviously is tracking very closely. You referenced we've talked about the DNI report that indicates to me that the U.S. is really focusing on the way they're carrying out this, and they will be in a good position to discuss there what they're doing right or wrong, at least from our perspective, going forward because of this focus.
00:31:02:13 - 00:31:08:06
Mick Mulroy
Now, the first if you could just help me out with the first question was about the indiscriminate combat or.
00:31:08:08 - 00:31:16:06
Felicia Schwartz (Financial Times)
Oh, no. The first question was just following up on your point about whether or not Israel can militarily defeat.
00:31:16:11 - 00:31:17:08
Mick Mulroy
Oh, yes.
00:31:17:10 - 00:31:26:09
Felicia Schwartz (Financial Times)
Assuming that they can, can they get somewhere in the next, you know, a few weeks or so where they might be able to bring this about to a different phase?
00:31:26:11 - 00:32:00:08
Mick Mulroy
Yeah. Thanks, Felicia. So I do think when you talk to IDF officers, which I do, they're they are very more nuanced when it comes to what they think they can and can't do this. This they don't use the term destruction of Hamas. They might on their spokesman might, but not not the not the ones when they're talking to people like Mike and I, at least in my experience, they want to mitigate as much as possible with the time they're going to be allowed to do this, with all the political pressure, their capacity to wage war against Israel.
00:32:00:08 - 00:32:24:10
Mick Mulroy
So they are going to do everything they can to destroy these tunnels. They consider that a significant military advantage for Hamas. And I think we can get into that already here. And discussions on the flooding of the tunnels. And there's a question of that'll be happy to discuss. They're going to try to destroy all the weapons caches and all their capacities to create, you know, small arms, which they developed.
00:32:24:10 - 00:32:48:07
Mick Mulroy
And they're currently in their tunnels for sure. And they will go after this. You know, obviously, Sinwar would be a huge gain for them to get. And I think they want to do that. Of course, that would be almost like their bin Laden capturing moment or killing moment. And he needs to go, quite frankly, because he has brought, as you know, this is all ultimately on him what's happening in Gaza.
00:32:48:09 - 00:33:19:01
Mick Mulroy
And he has shown a complete callous disregard for his own civilians by where he has placed his his men and where his place is military assets. I mean, he got the the term butcher of Khan Yunis because of his barbarity toward Palestinians, is my understanding. So that should indicate that. But I think they will, of course, try to get the leadership and that as we get closer to getting the leadership, that it might actually push them into a negotiation for a truce of hostages and hopefully that's the case.
00:33:19:01 - 00:33:36:14
Mick Mulroy
But I think that's their main effort is going to be destroy the tunnels, destroy as much as possible the ability to conduct attacks, which is mostly munitions and such soldiers, of course, as they get in the way of that and then of leadership. I think that's the ultimate three main objectives of the IDF in this conflict.
00:33:40:16 - 00:34:12:00
Mike Nagata
I agree with everything Mick just said, I'll just add a couple of things. One of the questions I think I jotted down you asked is does Israel have a shot at getting the leaders? They absolutely do. They've got already gotten some of them. I'm confident they'll get more if for no other reason, because the maneuver space for the whatever, whatever is remains of the Hamas leadership in Gaza, they're having to operate in a smaller and smaller and smaller space, which means targeting them will become easier and easier.
00:34:12:02 - 00:34:33:03
Mike Nagata
So, yes, they will decapitate more of the leadership of Hamas of that. I'm very confident, however, the effect will be temporary at best. This is something that people like Mick and I learned the hard way over many years. You know, it almost became a joke, you know, okay, we got, you know, number three in al Qaeda for the fifth or sixth time.
00:34:33:05 - 00:34:56:03
Mike Nagata
What's going to be different after we get the fifth, after we get the fifth or sixth number three in al Qaeda, the answer is not much, because they'll just find another guy to take his place. I am very confident that’s what will happen with Hamas. I'm not suggesting that is worthless or futile for the Israelis to try to decapitate as much of the Hamas leadership as they can.
00:34:56:05 - 00:35:27:17
Mike Nagata
But I'm sure they're experienced enough and they're they're they're realistic enough to know every single leader that they kill or capture will be replaced at some point. May not be as talented, may not be as good as his or her predecessor, but there's always the possibility they'll be better. I've seen that, too. So it it it's necessary. It's just not sufficient for Israel's stated goal of destroying Hamas, which I don't think is achievable anyways.
00:35:27:19 - 00:36:03:10
Mike Nagata
Now, all that said, the declaration of victory, this is going to be very interesting to watch because at some point Israel will have to declare victory. They have to. And it's for several reasons. One is they can't keep doing this forever. The international community pressure against them, which will just continue to grow and eventually they'll have to stop if for no other reason, because of the deterioration of Israel's relationships with much of the world.
00:36:03:12 - 00:36:24:14
Mike Nagata
There's also another reason: eventually they're going to run out of space to fight in, where enough of Hamas has gone to ground or been eliminated or left Gaza that there's just not enough left of Hamas to keep going that they can actually get at. I'm sure there will be sleeper cells. I'm sure they'll be underground networks of various kinds.
00:36:24:14 - 00:36:50:22
Mike Nagata
But there's going to be a point where Israel will have to culminate either politically, as I've already mentioned, or logistically, they'll they'll just run out of the ability to sustain what they've been doing at the pace they're currently at. Now, having said that, whatever that moment is, they declare victory. They cheer. They they they declare that their mission has been accomplished.
00:36:50:24 - 00:37:27:06
Mike Nagata
Practically, will that be true? In my view? No, it won't. No, it won't. Because Iran and its proxies, as well as whatever is left of Hamas, which will gradually recover over time. They're not going to surrender their goals against Israel. Their desire to eliminate the Israeli state, it will be unabated. So, yes, the Israelis must declare victory at some point, but it won't be the end. It won't even be the beginning of the end.
00:37:27:08 - 00:37:51:23
Rachel Dooley
All right. Thank you, guys. I'm going to turn to a question that Mike brought up a bit, which is good to talk a little bit about the decision to pour seawater into the tunnels. Certainly, you know, there are some concerns about hostages, but I think generally the focus is on targeting weapons storage and command centers. And can you discuss a bit more about what goes into this tactic and its utility right now?
00:37:52:00 - 00:38:20:06
Mick Mulroy
Sure. So I think primarily the issue with the tunnels has become compounded with the hostages. Right. So it they were built -- again, callous disregard for the civilian population -- under civilian centers, because most of their activity, of course, was indirect fire and responded against. So tunnels are very good for that matter. If they didn't have hostages, it would be a entirely different scenario.
00:38:20:07 - 00:38:42:02
Mick Mulroy
It's not that they would be easy to deal with tunnels, but there's a lot more kinetic means to do so if you're not worried about collateral damage to people in the tunnels. Right. So then it's how do you get down there? Both fight the enemy and recover the hostages. You know, obviously, hopefully alive, that that becomes a very difficult matter.
00:38:42:03 - 00:39:04:08
Mick Mulroy
I think the Israelis have been, you know, been doing things like use robots, U.S. military working dogs, having special special battalions that are kind of a combination of infantry and combat engineers. And I think they really have put a lot of thought into it, both as it's happening and before this happened. But again, the hostages have become an issue.
00:39:04:08 - 00:39:29:06
Mick Mulroy
When it comes to the sea water. So my understanding and I'm no expert on tunnels and sea water, etc., but I have talked to people that I think are as close to it as you’re going to get. If they flood these tunnels with seawater, it will destroy the tunnels. It will make the actual, all the electronics and everything, they’d be gone. And to put so much money into these tunnels by the infrastructure in Gaza, it'll destroy that.
00:39:29:06 - 00:40:01:02
Mick Mulroy
And not only that, it'll it'll destroy the structural integrity of the tunnel and it'll it'll eventually come in. So it'll be a way to do it that is very corrosive to the point where you couldn’t use tunnels. Now, then a question is what if there's hostages in it? So I've heard that they've looked at doing this incrementally where you could potentially, you know, if you think about it, that if the water keeps rising, but it doesn't flood all at once, so that human nature, you would try to push fighters out, preferably with hostages at the same time.
00:40:01:02 - 00:40:25:09
Mick Mulroy
And I don't know if they could do that. That's an engineering issue. But I do believe that they're they're looking at that. And if that was the case, that, you know, aside from using more kinetic means, obviously, you know, collapsing them or using some kind of gas and you can't do that if there's hostages in there. So this would be a way I don't know if it'll work, but I've certainly been told that they're looking at that.
00:40:25:15 - 00:40:46:00
Mick Mulroy
The last factor I bring up when it comes to the seawater in the tunnels and I don't know, somebody needs to get smarter me on this one needs to talk about there's a concern that if you flood all the tunnels with saltwater, that you will destroy the groundwater, it'll be contaminated with the salt. And, you know, there's already enough issues of food, water, and medicine in Gaza, and this would just compound it.
00:40:46:05 - 00:41:03:17
Mick Mulroy
I don't know if that's accurate. So I'm not it's a factor that I've heard are being talked about. I do not think that the IDF is going to carry and that's going to carry a lot of weight. Of course, the best way to do it would release the hostages and they wouldn't have to look at doing this. They could do that other ways.
00:41:03:20 - 00:41:21:22
Mick Mulroy
But certainly that's going to be a factor going ahead. I do. I do think the Israelis will ultimately destroy every every tunnel, every part of tunnel and seal ever exit and entrance as they can, because that's that's one of their main military objectives in this government.
00:41:21:24 - 00:41:58:18
Mike Nagata
I'll just add two things. Like, I'm not an expert in tunnels. The but number one that I don't think the Israelis had a choice about whether or not to either physically go into or use a tactic like flooding these tunnels. They didn't have an alternative. So much of Hamas's capability is command and control and just general activities are dependent on these tunnels that it this was an undeniable military objective that they had to take on.
00:41:58:20 - 00:42:33:24
Mike Nagata
Number two, I did a quick search this morning getting ready for this. I think something around 500 Israeli service members have been killed so far in combat in Gaza. If I use my standard military math of doubling or tripling that to calculate how many wounded have happened, we're probably talking well in excess of a thousand or even several thousand overall casualties that the Israeli military has had to absorb.
00:42:34:01 - 00:43:02:22
Mike Nagata
Whether or not that's accurate, it's probably in that ballpark. And if so, if you're a military commander or a political leader in Israel and you're watching these skyrocketing numbers of your own military casualties, you and then the question becomes, are we willing to pay the price, whether it is in terms of public international opprobrium or just the long term consequences of going in these tunnels?
00:43:02:24 - 00:43:24:05
Mike Nagata
My hunch is the the calculation that the average Israeli military commander or political leader has to make is we have to, no matter how ugly this becomes, no matter how awful the results downstream may be, we we literally don't have another choice. We have to go into these tunnels. And I'll just end it by saying those numbers really matter.
00:43:24:07 - 00:43:53:24
Mike Nagata
If fortunately, I don't think we ever had a case during our own global war on terror, we had this. But if you imagine what the American public's reaction would have been in a single month or slightly over a month, our government was reporting several thousand U.S. casualties in that period of time. What would the American public's reaction be? It would be over the top.
00:43:54:01 - 00:44:19:12
Rachel Dooley
All right. Thanks both. Another question from me. And so we've talked a lot about the mounting international pressure on Israel for a cease fire. And so, you know, in your opinion, how far does Israel have to go or maybe how much longer do they need to fight before we hit that breaking point? And kind of in the same vein, you know, in your experience, when does international political pressure translate into a different military strategy?
00:44:19:14 - 00:44:53:16
Mike Nagata
I’ll start. Since I mentioned this earlier, I think either geographically they'll culminate because they've come to dominate as much Gaza as they think they can, or they've gotten to the point that the political the outside political pressure for a cease fire or some kind of accommodation being reached, some sort of negotiated settlement becomes so high that Israel makes the political calculation, okay, now we have to stop it.
00:44:53:18 - 00:45:23:10
Mike Nagata
Whether or not we've actually achieved our goals, we can't keep paying this price. I think my impression is that will come sooner rather than later because they are now working on not the final pieces, but the last the last large pieces of trying to clear Gaza of Hamas to the degree they're able and the and the amount of international critical criticism of Israeli behavior is mounting so quickly that I think I don't think it will happen this week.
00:45:23:10 - 00:45:38:17
Mike Nagata
I don't think it will happen within the next 30 days. But it wouldn't shock me if three months from now we are not seeing some kind of very imperfect cease fire being declared.
00:45:38:19 - 00:46:00:04
Mick Mulroy
So when it comes to the ceasefire, obviously that's a big topic of discussion. And at the Doha Forum, both because of the veto in the Security Council by the United States and then the vote which happened really at the end in the General Assembly. On that, I think the issue for the United States and why we vetoed it was three fold.
00:46:00:06 - 00:46:37:02
Mick Mulroy
The first was the resolution, at least in the Security Council, didn't even acknowledge the attacks on October seven. And that's something I'm seeing, and I think a lot about the delegations out there was just unwillingness to even talk about, much less acknowledge the depravity on that day. And if you're not even willing to acknowledge and condemn that, it's it's hard to see how you could be a part of a productive way ahead discussion, to be frank, especially when you're talking to Israelis, let alone Americans.
00:46:37:04 - 00:47:08:05
Mick Mulroy
So that wasn’t there. The other part was it didn't acknowledge Israel's right to defend itself. Every every country has. So that was another issue. And that also was a discussion out there with people distinguishing this idea that if you're an occupier, that you have no right to self defense from those you occupy. But that was another and probably most importantly is they haven't destroyed their military, significantly depleted Hamas.
00:47:08:07 - 00:47:34:19
Mick Mulroy
So if a cease fire means like an end to the fighting, no country would just stop right at the end. And I think from the Israeli perspective, it was almost like a way to protect Hamas from the ultimate destruction. And, you know, the United States certainly wouldn't stop it. I don't know any country in the world that would take an attack like October seven and then halfway through defeating their enemy, they would just say, okay, we're going to stop.
00:47:34:21 - 00:47:57:23
Mick Mulroy
So that's that's an issue. I do think there is. To the point of your question, Rachel, there is a lot, and I mean, I’m stating the obvious here, a lot of international pressure to do so. So I think the United States is over there talking about weeks when it comes to major combat operations. And then there's a be a transition to more like a counterinsurgency special operation Intel led type effort.
00:47:58:00 - 00:48:17:16
Mick Mulroy
But I think the IDF is talking months, right. So that there's going to be there's going to be an issue in that. And it's not all about what is actually happening on the ground. It's also about incredible international pressure. And there's a reason for the international pressure. There's incredible human suffering right now in Gaza that needs to be recognized.
00:48:17:18 - 00:48:39:12
Mick Mulroy
There's you know, there's 1.8 million Palestinians in Gaza. Around 40,000 are in Hamas. So that leaves a lot that that are essentially caught in the middle of this. They have, you know, 18,000 dead is the number that we report. And I think it's really important that we do everything we can to mitigate that. So there's a lot going on here.
00:48:39:12 - 00:49:02:02
Mick Mulroy
But I do think that is going to be a contentious issue going ahead if there's not a understanding on just when major combat operations would end and when we could really move this to another phase of the conflict, which is less kinetic and therefore less casualty producing and problematic when it comes to delivery of aid.
00:49:02:04 - 00:49:32:07
Rachel Dooley
Thanks, Mick. Okay, this seems like a good place to wrap up our discussion. So thank you all for joining us for this on the record briefing. And if you have any additional ideas for topics, for future briefings or questions, go ahead and send us a note at communications@mei.edu. If you want to take a look at any of our additional resources on this topic, you can find them on our website at mei.edu. I want to thank our two distinguished panelists, Lieutenant General Michael Nagata and Mick Mulroy. Thank you both for your insight and thank you all for spending part of your day with us.