RSS
Why IDF Intelligence Needs to Be Better — And How to Improve It
Troops from the IDF’s 98th Division operating in Jabalia, the northern Gaza Strip, May 2024. Photo: Israel Defense Forces.
The IDF’s current mechanism for determining and providing intelligence assessments rigidifies the thinking of intelligence analysts, and increases the risk that they will not recognize changes in the behavioral patterns of the adversary that affect the predictive ability and relevance of the forecast. Providing assessments should be the beginning of the process, not the end. A structured, open, and ongoing discussion of an assessment can make both the process and the product more dynamic in the face of changing conditions.
The current intelligence assessment process increases the risk of forecast error
At the core of intelligence assessment stands the forecast. If the adversary’s behavioral dynamics form a linear regression — that is, they adhere to familiar patterns — then it is possible to draw a straight line from the present to the future and score high prediction levels (90% or better). This applies to most current and tactical engagements of intelligence. Assessment based on familiar patterns, combined with reasonable risk analysis, makes intelligence an effective support tool for political and operational decision-making.
Difficulties arise when the adversary’s behavior diverges from the expected. In this situation, the ability to predict decreases significantly; and the risk grows that the intelligence forecast will lead to decisions that do not correspond to reality. In such a situation, decision-makers must rely to a greater degree on risk management.
It is a serious problem when familiar patterns are disrupted and can no longer serve as a basis for assessment. To make matters worse, limitations on human thinking make it difficult for analysts to identify this problem when it arises. This increases the risk that intelligence predictions will actually serve the enemy, because our side will make decisions based on those predictions that the enemy is prepared to disrupt, circumvent, or even exploit.
Once an intelligence assessment has been formulated, it becomes an inflexible entity. Predictions about the future become a fixed reality (a “concept”) about the present. After the assessment is given to the client (the decision-maker, the commander), it becomes even more fixed among intelligence analysts. This is in order to prevent situations that are perceived as unprofessional, including changing the assessment as a result of dynamics with the client or frequently updating the assessment in a way that makes it difficult for the decision-maker to form policy decisions.
Because intelligence assessments tend to set like concrete after they have been turned over to the client, intelligence analysts generally shift their focus to the implications of the assessment for intelligence gathering, assimilating the assessment among the clients, and providing recommendations for policy and action stemming from it. All this activity diverts focus away from the implications of the assessment for the intelligence assessment process itself.
The problem can be summarized as follows: The mechanism for determining and providing intelligence assessments rigidifies the thinking of intelligence analysts, and increases the risk that they will not recognize changes in the behavioral patterns of the adversary that affect the predictive ability and relevance of the forecast.
A solution: Assessment as an ongoing process
To overcome this problem, the providing of an assessment should be viewed as the beginning of the process, not the end. To paraphrase Eisenhower on military planning, “Assessment is everything and nothing”. Intelligence analysts should remain within the assessment process even after providing it to the client.
What would this mean in practice? It would mean examining the assessment against many parameters and continuing to do so systematically, even after the assessment has been submitted. Discussions about the assessment should be open, transparent, and structured for the participation of both the intelligence analysts and the clients so that gaps in the forecast can be identified early.
Parameters for the ongoing review of an assessment can include:
- Verification and validity: These are recognized existing parameters within which the analyst examines whether developments with the subject strengthen or weaken the assessment. As we have seen many times, these criteria are the first victims of cognitive biases that make it difficult for the analyst to detach himself from the assessment.
- Evaluation context: What circumstances underlying the prediction are connected not to the adversary but to other circles, like the adversary’s partners, regional factors, international factors, and the internal context? Variations in the broader circumstances can affect the validity of the evaluation, even if no apparent change is identified in the subject.
- Assessment levels: If a strategic early warning has been issued, what are its implications for operational and tactical early warnings, and how does the sequence of forecasting change between levels? Does a sequence of tactical early warnings indicate a strategic early warning? Are the actions of the adversary consistent with its policy? What is the meaning of continuity or lack of continuity in the approach between different levels?
- Projection: This refers to the projection of an assessment of a particular issue onto assessments of other issues and topics. For example, is the predicted behavior of an adversary likely to affect the behavior of one of his allies? Is the predicted weakening of an adversary likely to lead to a deeper and broader change in other circles?
- Impact of responding to opportunities and risks: If the assessment indicates an opportunity, what are the implications of acting or not acting in response to it? Does inaction in response to the opportunity influence the forecast? And conversely, with regard to risks: If the assessment indicates a risk, is it a self-fulfilling prophecy? In other words, would caution in the face of the risk lead to its realization?
- Meaning of continuity or change: If the forecast indicates continuity, what are the indications if change in fact occurs? If the forecast indicates change, what needs to happen so that change does not materialize?
- The price of error: How does the cost of a prediction error affect the validity of the assessment? Isn’t the validity of a prediction that excludes extreme scenarios (military attack, nuclear weapons proliferation, regime collapse) weakened by the heavy cost of an error?
- Use of the assessment: What is the intelligence assessment being used for? If it is not used, or if, in the intelligence analysts’ view, its use is contrary to its content, what does that say about the assessment itself and its logic and clarity?
- Realization: If the prediction comes to pass, why did it do so? Did this show that the estimate was correct, or was it merely a coincidence? Conversely, does the failure of a prediction necessarily indicate that the estimate was incorrect?
Continuous engagement in the assessment process will improve its quality
A structured, open, and ongoing discussion of an assessment during and after its construction can free intelligence analysts from fixations, create more dynamism in the process and product, and improve and refine the product over time and in the face of changing conditions. This takes broader contexts than the adversary himself into account. It is not about changing estimates due to external influences. Rather, it is about developing a more comprehensive, broad, and rich view of the act of intelligence assessment.
The products of such an improvement could be more accurate and nuanced assessments, constant examination of the validity of assessments, continuous engagement with lower probability scenarios and not neglecting them after an assessment has been submitted, and expanding the potential for identifying problems in assessments as a result of more time spent on them.
Col. (res.) Shay Shabtai is a senior researcher at the BESA Center and an expert in national security, strategic planning, and strategic communication. He is a cyber security strategist and a consultant to leading companies in Israel. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Why IDF Intelligence Needs to Be Better — And How to Improve It first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
South Africa Distances Itself From Army Chief’s Pledges of Military, Political Support to Iran
Iranian Major General Amir Hatami and South African General Rudzani Maphwanya meet in Tehran to discuss strengthening military cooperation and strategic ties. Photo: Screenshot
South Africa’s army chief has faced domestic backlash after pledging military and political support to Iran during a recent visit, prompting government officials to distance themselves from his remarks over concerns they could harm Pretoria’s efforts to strengthen ties with the United States.
Members of South Africa’s governing coalition have denounced Gen. Rudzani Maphwanya, chief of the South African National Defense Force (SANDF), for his trip to Tehran earlier this week, describing his remarks as “reckless grandstanding.”
The Democratic Alliance (DA), South Africa’s second-largest party in the governing coalition, has called for Maphwanya to be court-martialed for breaking neutrality and violating military law, saying his comments had gone “beyond military-to-military discussions and entered the realm of foreign policy.”
“This reckless grandstanding comes at a time when South Africa’s relations with key democratic partners, especially the United States, are already under severe strain,” DA defense spokesperson Chris Hattingh said in a statement.
“The SANDF’s job is to lead and manage the defense forces, not to act as an unsanctioned political envoy. Allowing our most senior military officer to make partisan foreign policy pronouncements is strategically reckless, diplomatically irresponsible, and economically self-defeating,” he continued.
“South Africa cannot afford to have its international standing further sabotaged by political adventurism from the military’s top brass,” Hattingh said.
Iran and South Africa held high-level military talks earlier this week as both nations seek to deepen cooperation and strengthen their partnership against what officials called “global arrogance and aggressive colonial approaches.”
During a joint press conference with Iranian Maj. Gen. Amir Hatami, Maphwanya called for deeper ties between the two nations, especially in defense cooperation, affirming that “the Republic of South Africa and the Islamic Republic of Iran have common goals.”
“We always stand alongside the oppressed and defenseless people of the world,” the South African general said.
He also criticized Israel over the ongoing war in Gaza, expressed support for the Palestinian people, and told Iranian officials that his visit “conveys a political message” on behalf of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s administration.
However, shortly after Maphwanya’s remarks drew media attention, the South African government moved to distance itself from his comments, with the Foreign Affairs Ministry stating that his comments “do not represent the government’s official foreign policy stance.”
The Defense Department, which described Maphwanya’s comments as “unfortunate,” confirmed that he is now expected to meet with the Minister of Defense and Military Veterans, Angie Motshekga, upon his return to provide explanations.
Ramaphosa’s spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, clarified that the president was neither aware of the trip nor had he sanctioned it.
“The visit was ill-advised and more so, the expectation is that the general should have been a lot more circumspect with the comments he makes,” Magwenya told reporters during a press conference on Thursday.
“It is crucial to clarify that the implementation of South Africa’s foreign policy is a function of the presidency,” he continued. “Any statements made by an individual, or a department other than those responsible for foreign policy, should not be misinterpreted as the official position of the South African government.”
Maphwanya’s trip to Iran came after the Middle East Africa Research Institute (MEARI) released a recent report detailing how South Africa’s deepening ties with Tehran have led the country to compromise its democratic foundations and constitutional principles by aligning itself with a regime internationally condemned for terrorism, repression, and human rights abuses.
RSS
Democrat Pete Buttigieg Toughens Stance on Israel, Says He Backs Arms Embargo Following Left-Wing Pressure
Former US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg speaks during an appearance on the “Pod Save America” podcast on Aug. 10, 2025. Photo: Screenshot
Former US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a Democrat considered by many observers to be a potential 2028 presidential candidate, has recalibrated his stance on Israel, moving from cautious language to a far more critical position after facing backlash over recent comments on the popular “Pod Save America” podcast.
In his podcast interview on Sunday, Buttigieg called Israel “a friend” and said the United States should “put your arm around” the country during difficult times. He also sidestepped a direct answer on whether the US should recognize a Palestinian state, describing the question as “profound” but offering little elaboration beyond calls for peace.
That measured approach drew sharp criticism from progressives and foreign policy voices who argued that his words were too vague amid the ongoing war in Gaza and a shifting sentiment within the Democratic party base regarding Israel. Evolving fault lines within the Democratic Party over US policy toward its staunch Middle Eastern ally signal that the issue could loom large in the 2028 presidential primary.
Following Sunday’s interview, US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) urged Buttigieg to show “moral clarity,” while Ben Rhodes, former White House aide to President Barack Obama, said he was left uncertain where the Cabinet official stood. Social media critics accused Buttigieg of offering platitudes that dodged hard policy commitments.
In a follow-up interview with Politico published on Thursday, Buttigieg took a decidedly tougher line. He said he supports recognizing a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution and ending the decades-long practice of providing military aid to the Jewish state through sweeping, multi-year packages. Instead, he called for a case-by-case review of assistance, while emphasizing the need to stop civilian deaths, release hostages, and ensure unimpeded humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Perhaps most significantly, Buttigieg indicated support for a US arms embargo on Israel, saying he would have signed on to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s recently proposed resolution to prohibit arms sales to the Jewish state.
The shift places Buttigieg closer to the party’s progressive flank on foreign policy, a notable change for a figure often viewed as a bridge between the Democratic establishment and younger, more liberal voters. For a likely 2028 contender, the move reflects both the political risks of appearing out of step with an increasingly skeptical base and the growing influence of voices calling for sharper limits on US support for Israel.
Recent polling shows a generational divide on the issue, with younger Democrats far more likely to back conditioning aid to Israel and recognizing Palestinian statehood.
RSS
Former Algemeiner Correspondent Gidon Ben-Zvi Dies at 51
Gidon Ben-Zvi. Photo: Screenshot
Gidon Ben-Zvi, former Jerusalem Correspondent for The Algemeiner, has died at the age of 51 after a fight with cancer.
Ben-Zvi continued to write op-eds for The Algemeiner even after he left as a correspondent, including in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel.
An accomplished writer, Ben-Zvi left Hollywood for Jerusalem in 2009, moving back to Israel after spending 12 years in the United States. From 1994-1997, Gidon served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), in an infantry unit.
In addition to writing for The Algemeiner, Ben-Zvi contributed to the Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, CiF Watch, and blogged at Jerusalem State of Mind.
Ben-Zvi joined HonestReporting as a senior editor in June 2020, becoming an integral part of the editorial department and writing dozens of articles and media critiques for the watchdog group exposing anti-Israel bias. He moved with his family to Haifa at the end of 2022.
Ben-Zvi’s final article for HonestReporting was published in January 2025, before he took a leave of absence for health reasons. HonestReporting said in a newly published obituary that staff believed he would eventually return, noting the positivity and perseverance he exuded. The advocacy group said it learned of Ben-Zvi’s passing late last month.
Ben-Zvi leaves behind his wife, Debbie, and four young children.
All Ben-Zvi’s articles for The Algemeiner can be found here.
May his memory be a blessing.