Intel's blunt take on the war in Gaza

The DNI's annual report on global threats offers a blunt, clear-eyed look at the war in Gaza

White House/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock

I will have a have a longer piece tomorrow on the Director of National Intelligence's annual global threats report and the opportunities it offers for a return to a bi-partisan approach to foreign policy.

Today I just want to offer a few thoughts about the section on Gaza. After reading it, you’ll have zero doubt about how the Biden administration really feels about Israel’s post-October 7 war with Hamas and how it could affect US national security interests.

We’ve seen President Biden’s rhetoric on Israel grow sharper as his frustration with Israel, particularly Prime Minister Netanyahu, increases. But this report does not contain diplomatic messaging or crowd-pleasing rhetoric to reassure a political base: It’s an intelligence assessment and it doesn’t pull any punches. This is the Biden administration unplugged on the Gaza war’s aftershocks.

The assessment is in stark contrast to last year's report that practically ghosted Hamas, Gaza, and the Palestinian conflict. Back then, Iran's threat to Israel got a nod, but this year, Israel's actions and their global reverberations are front and center.

It's clear: these past months have changed the game. We’ve got a report that doesn’t mince words: from inspiring terror groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda to fueling antisemitic and Islamophobic violence, and even sparking AI-generated propaganda for lone wolf attacks.

“The crisis has galvanized violence by a range of actors around the world. And while it is too early to tell, it is likely that the Gaza conflict will have a generational impact on terrorism,” Avril Haines, the director of national intelligence, told the Senate Intelligence Community at an annual hearing on global security threats to accompany the report. “We have seen how it is inspiring individuals to conduct acts of antisemitism and Islamophobic terror worldwide.”

The report takes a hard look at Israel's battle with Hamas’s underground networks and sees a long haul of resistance and surprise attacks ahead. It talks about Israel’s tight spot on the international stage as a result of the dire humanitarian scene in Gaza, pointing out the growing distaste for both Israel and the U.S. among global and regional players.

This isn’t the sugar-coated diplomacy we often hear from U.S. officials. Instead, the report calls out Netanyahu's shaky hold on power, predicting protests and possibly a shift towards a more moderate government.

It’s almost like reading the administration's diary, offering candid takes they'd never say out loud, like pointing out how the U.S. is already eyeing the "day after" Netanyahu scenario, highlighted by Benny Gantz’s VIP treatment in Washington.

Then there’s the blunt assessment of Israel’s hand in Gaza's humanitarian crisis, suggesting a severe enough screw-up (like mishandling a military operation in Rafah) could push the U.S. to pull back on weapon sales or UN diplomatic shields. CIA Director Bill Burns, in his no-BS style, underscored this, emphasizing Israel's need to minimize civilian suffering and the dire necessity of a ceasefire to get humanitarian aid through.

"I understand Israel's need to respond to the brutish attack that Israelis suffered on October 7 against Hamas, against a terrorist group,” Burns told the Senate hearing. ‘We all also have to be mindful of the enormous toll this has taken on innocent civilians in Gaza. It's very important for Israel to be extremely mindful of that and to avoid further loss of civilian life" Pushing back against Republican efforts to attack critics of Israel’s handling of the humanitarian crisis, Burns added

"The reality is that there are children who are starving. They're malnourished as a result of the fact that humanitarian assistance can't get to them. It's very difficult to distribute humanitarian assistance effectively unless you have a cease-fire."

This report lays bare the U.S. perspective on Israel's war strategy and Netanyahu's leadership, suggesting significant strains in the U.S.-Israel relationship and hinting at America’s readiness for a post-Netanyahu Israel. It's a clear-eyed, unvarnished look at where things stand, unfortunately far removed from the often polished rhetoric of U.S. diplomacy.