Nahum Admani

From the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City to U.S. army housing in Saudi Arabia, and perhaps even to TWA Flight 800 over the skies of New York, the United States is becoming a key target of terrorism, with acts of greater frequency and ever more deadly effect. While this is a relatively new phenomenon for Americans, it is something the people of Israel have grappled with for close to a half century. And in their continuing quest for security in an open society, Israelis turn first to their secret intelligence service, the Mossad.

The Mossad’s feats are the stuff of legend, even to battle-hardened Israelis. And to reach the top of this organization--one of the most respected jobs in Israel--requires not only a flair for derring-do, but also finely honed analytical skills. Nahum Admani combined these talents in serving as chief of the Mossad from 1982 to 1989. Yet, because of the Mossad’s culture of secrecy, most Israelis did not even know his name. In sitting down for this conversation, Admani spoke publicly for the first time about his 35-year career in intelligence.

When discussing the world of terrorists, Admani, 67, still combines the hands-on attitude of an operative with the mien of a scholar. For, before running the agency, Admani was involved in such daring anti-terrorist exploits as the raid on the Entebbe airport in Uganda, when an Israeli team rescued the passengers of a hijacked Air France jet on July 4, 1976.

Sitting with Admani for the interview were two former colleagues, who, earlier this year, along with several other ex-intelligence types, established a consulting firm specializing in Middle East political and business intelligence. During the talk, Admani sometimes called on his two colleagues, as more recent veterans of the clandestine world, to update him on a subject or confirm his analysis. They also served somewhat as in-house censors--since Admani would consult them when deciding whether he could divulge certain information. For example, when asked about his role in hunting down the killers of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, Admani turned to the two for guidance. After a brief consultation, he decided that Israel “did not admit to this.”

The father of two grown daughters, Admani lives with his wife, Nina, the executive director of the U.S.-Israel Chamber of Commerce, in a fashionable section of Tel Aviv, where many of Israel’s political elite reside. Former Prime Minister Shimon Peres lives down the street. The interview took place in a modest apartment, similar to the one in which Yitzhak Rabin’s widow, Leah, received world leaders after her husband’s assassination last year.

Though his reticence is ingrained, Admani could, nonetheless, be quite forthcoming on certain matters, ranging from his own experiences with Saddam Hussein’s henchmen in Iraq to his meeting with the former head of the Soviet KGB. He offered candid analysis and sympathetic advice for dealing with the perpetrators of this new kind of terrorism that Americans increasingly confront.

*

Question: What do you consider the most challenging or dramatic action in your career?

Answer: Entebbe. To understand what happened at Entebbe, you must go back to the origins--which was actually an attempt by one of the Palestinian organizations to down an El Al flight into Nairobi. They had a group of people there with two rocket launchers planning to actually shoot down an El Al aircraft coming from South Africa and landing in Nairobi on its way to Israel.

We succeeded in foiling that attempt with the help of the Kenyans. At that time we apprehended some of the Arabs, and some Germans helping them, as they were taking up positions outside of the airport . . . .

So the hijacking of the Air France plane that came later was done with the aim to release those guys that we managed to apprehend and had in jail [in Israel]. We now talk about it in three or four sentences but at the time it was quite a dramatic affair.

Q: But the terrorism and hijackings you faced then were different from today in many ways--beginning with the fact that it was done mainly by Palestinian Arabs and their allies. But wasn’t it during your tenure as head of the Mossad (1982-1989) that your major opponents became Muslim fundamentalists?

A: Absolutely . . . . It was during our involvement in Lebanon that Shiite terrorism became the major problem, although it was not the task of the Mossad to counter terrorism there . . . .

Actually, I think I witnessed the first instance of Shiite suicide terrorism as long ago as 1971. At that time we were helping the Kurdish revolt in Iraq, and I happened to be with the [then] chief of the Mossad in Iraq in the camp of [Kurdish rebel leader Masoud] Barzani.

One morning [Barzani] asked us to leave, as he had a visit from Shiite clergymen, who were sent to him by Saddam Hussein to discuss matters.

We left the area for several hours and on our way we saw a little commotion on the road. We asked what had happened and we were told that one of those Shiite clergymen had apparently some explosives on his body and during their meeting with Barzani, he detonated that explosive and was killed himself.

Barzani was only slightly hurt. A few minutes later we saw Barzani; he was still splattered with the blood and whatever--but the guy who detonated that was killed . . . . Later on we had a lot of instances of this in Lebanon.

Q: This new kind of terrorism, where does it come from and what are its aims?

A: The origins come from many different elements. Some who fought communism in Afghanistan. Some who are fighting their own regimes, like radical extremists in Egypt . . . . And the aim of terrorism, is, of course to terrorize, to frighten you.

Q: Then who are the people that have killed two-dozen Americans in separate attacks in Saudi Arabia trying to frighten--the U.S. or the Saudis? To what end? Have us leave Saudi Arabia like we left Beirut in 1983 after the suicide bombings killed hundreds of Americans?

A: First, let me say that I don’t believe America left Lebanon just because of terrorism. You came to the conclusion that your presence there would not solve anything.

And then, in addition to that, there was terrorism. And the American public started to ask, “What the hell are we doing there?”

Q: You don’t think the Saudis have a legitimate reason to fear that the American public would ask the same question about Saudi Arabia?

A: Yes, perhaps.

Q: Do you believe these groups work together?

A: Yes. We have to consider that these different groups are somehow, somewhere, helping each other.

Q: And the role of certain countries supporting them is--

A: Absolutely crucial. Without state assistance, these groups would not be able to operate.

Q: Which states? And if you could, place them in order of the contribution they make to international terrorism.

A: I would say Iran, Syria, Sudan and Libya.

Q: So you would say Iran is the No. 1 state supporter of terrorism.

A: More than that. Iran uses a two-prong arm of terrorism. One, the Iranian intelligence service, a state organ, is involved in terrorist activities. Secondly, they support and assist Hezbollah, which is an arm of terrorism [based in southern Lebanon]. So they do it both on a purely state level and by supporting a terrorist organization.

Q: I assume the distinction is important.

A: Yes. Let me tell you that some three years ago I had the occasion to meet the former head of the KGB. And during our conversation I told him that we always considered that the Soviet Union and the KGB were supporting the Palestinian terrorist organizations. He denied this vehemently. He said, “We never participate, never help.” In the technical sense of the word, he may be right--because we never had any concrete evidence that the KGB handed over explosives to the Palestinians with the knowledge that these explosives would be used in a specific terrorist act.

But I told him, “Listen, in the purely technical sense, your denial may be true, but who supplied them with the money, who supplied them with the military training, who supplied them with the weapons?” And he said, “Well, this is something else.”

Q: Is there not another difference between Palestinian terrorism and the Muslim fundamentalist kind? These new terrorists do not seek to claim responsibility. They stay anonymous. Why is this so?

A: Terrorists, in order to achieve something, they want to give you a reason, put forward their agenda. In these recent instances, nobody has taken claim and nobody ever came out with an explanation why it has been done.

In a way, the non-claimed terrorist activities are more frightening than the claimed ones. When you have a claimed one, you know who you are facing, why it is being done. When nobody takes credit, it keeps you off-balance. And the fact is that until today, as far as we know, nobody can say for sure who is behind these attacks in Saudi Arabia or TWA--if TWA was a terrorist attack. I think it was, but we are not sure of it.

Q: But, say an Iranian link was found to the recent bombing in Saudi Arabia and the U.S. decided to take military action. What do you think the consequences would be?

A: Well, President Clinton just signed a bill sanctioning European companies who do business with Iran. Unfortunately, it doesn’t get the support of Europe. The Europeans don’t go along with it. But the United States, I think, will have to take more severe action economically, not militarily, for the time being, against any state which they find involved in the support of terrorism against American targets. No doubt about it.

Q: Do you think the Europeans would support the United States if more evidence was presented to them?

A: I cannot say I would be terribly optimistic. President Bush succeeded in creating a wide coalition against Iraq. But this was not against terrorism and oil interests were involved. But if there was a wave of terrorism, then European public opinion will be swayed to some extent. For the time being, Europe doesn’t want to go along. And Europe has always been far behind the United States in its resolution to take action against terrorism, because of economic interests.

They don’t want to lose any business with the Arab countries and so on and so forth. France, Germany are all saying that if we take economic sanctions then we will suffer. If the French take economic sanctions, then the Germans will use it to increase business. They never really want to take resolute action. They are far behind the Americans in that.

Q: But some experts say, while the Europeans may be behind the U.S. in taking punitive actions, they are well ahead of the U.S. in taking security measures.

A: Oh, no, I don’t think they are. They’re behind America in that, too.

Q: What is your prognosis for terrorism?

A: It will continue.

Q: If that’s so, what advice can you give Americans dealing with an on going problem? After all, Israelis have had to learn to live with terrorism, to some extent.

A: I don’t think one gets used to it. We never got used to it. In spite of that fact we had a lot of terrorist activity here, each act of terrorism has its impact. Just look at what happened at the beginning of the year here in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem with the explosions on the buses. The public did not take it. It hit us very hard. One cannot get used to it. What you have to do is really find ways and means to combat it. Practical means and only through international cooperation. One cannot fight it by oneself because terrorism has no borders, no frontiers. It goes around and only through real cooperation, international cooperation, can you hope to limit it. Mind you, you can never put a stop to it.

Q: Well then, what practical advice can you offer?

A: You have to employ all your methods, starting with defensive methods. You have to out-guess the terrorists as to what targets they may want to hit and put defensive measures on these targets. It’s a lot of effort. It’s a lot of money and inconvenience. People will have to report at American airports two hours before flights. There will be a lot of pressure created in the American way of life.

Q: Why America, why now?

A: Because America is the target. But listen. Try to put it in proportion. As painful as these events have been, America has not suffered terribly from terrorism, partly because you took, in time, good measures, some defensive. American state interests abroad are defended. The United States has put a lot of intelligence efforts into preventing attacks. And you have had success. This is extremely important.

And don’t forget the United States has the power to retaliate in many ways. Therefore, you are not an easy target.