
The Mossad inside Iran: where were the nine bullets?
Che Guevara once said, 'If you want to liberate a nation, load your gun with ten bullets — nine for the traitors within, and one for the external enemy. If not for the traitors, the enemy would never dare attack.' Guevara's statement encapsulates the Iranian dilemma. Tehran seems to have waited too long to aim those metaphorical nine bullets inward. Despite numerous arrests and even executions of alleged collaborators, the real players — those in influential positions — appear untouched.
In a striking moment in 2021, former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed in a televised interview that Iran's top counterintelligence official was himself an Israeli spy. He highlighted how Mossad agents managed to steal truckloads of sensitive documents, questioning how such an operation passed through checkpoints unnoticed.
The operation in question took place in January 2018, as confirmed by former Mossad chief Yossi Cohen in an interview with Israeli Channel 12. The stolen files related to Iran's nuclear and space programmes were later revealed by Israel as a major intelligence triumph. But rather than shake the Iranian establishment into a deep internal reckoning, these revelations were met with limited action. Assassinations of scientists continued. Explosions struck military sites. Israeli agents reportedly reached the very heart of Iran's Revolutionary Guard command.
Following the most recent Israeli air strikes, Iranian authorities announced the arrest of 18 alleged Mossad operatives in Mashhad, accused of manufacturing suicide and reconnaissance drones. Reports suggest the plan had been to eliminate senior Iranian figures on the ground while Israel launched air strikes from above. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf later admitted that 'a large part of the enemy's operations are carried out through infiltrators from within.'
While Tehran has now launched a campaign against espionage—with more than 700 arrests reported in 12 days — the sheer scale of infiltration points to a longstanding and well-entrenched network. The critical question now is: why do citizens become willing tools of foreign intelligence services?
Iranian media argue that Mossad exploits economic hardship and social marginalisation, particularly among minorities. The use of encrypted apps and cryptocurrency helps facilitate the secure transfer of intelligence. Recruits, reportedly trained in countries like Georgia and Nepal, are equipped with tools and knowledge to operate covertly. And while poverty may explain the motivations of some, the more unsettling reality is the presence of wealthy and influential collaborators — those whose betrayals are not born of desperation but opportunism.
Israel's deep interest in Iran is hardly a secret. According to Ronen Bergman's book 'Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations', Mossad's former chief Meir Dagan prioritised the Iranian nuclear threat when he assumed leadership in 2002. Dagan restructured the agency around two goals: preventing Iran's acquisition of nuclear capabilities and countering armed movements like Hezbollah and Hamas. His 2003 strategy included a combination of sabotage, assassinations, cyber warfare, support for opposition groups, and economic pressure.
The story is all there in Bergman's book — published in 2018, well before the recent strikes. This brings us to a troubling question: with so much information already public, why wasn't Iran prepared?
The conversation has now widened to include concerns across the region. Gulf nations are questioning their own security vulnerabilities, especially in light of reports that some Asian companies working in the Gulf have connections with Mossad. These revelations, surfacing after the Israeli strikes, raise alarm over potential breaches across multiple sectors, particularly as many Gulf states rely heavily on foreign contractors.
The Iranian breach — despite the country's strong military and intelligence capabilities—sends a sobering message to the Gulf. It's not just the strength of your military that ensures security, but your vigilance against traitors within. Gulf citizens have voiced growing concerns online about 'fifth column' elements operating under the guise of expatriate labour or business partnerships. The fear is not just espionage, but betrayal from those benefiting from the country's wealth while working for its enemies.
Ultimately, no foreign adversary can inflict such damage without help from within. It's not just the enemy at your door — it's the one already inside your house.
Translated by Badr al Dhafri. The original version of this article was published in Arabic in the print edition of the Oman Daily newspaper on July 14.
Zahir al Mahrouqi, Al Mahrouqi is an Omani writer and the author of 'The Road to Jerusalem'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Muscat Daily
6 hours ago
- Muscat Daily
Palestinian state is ‘a right, not a reward'
New York, USA – Oman is participating in a high-level conference on a two-state solution for Palestine, which will continue till Wednesday at the United Nations headquarters in New York. Oman's delegation to the conference is headed by H E Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al Hinai, Ambassador at large at the Foreign Ministry. Mandated by the General Assembly, the three-day meeting features plenaries, working groups and interventions from senior UN officials and member states. H E Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al Hinai, Ambassador at large at the Foreign Ministry During the session, UN Secretary-General António Guterres delivered a speech in which he emphasised that the establishment of a Palestinian state is 'a right, not a reward' and reiterated that the two-state solution is the only realistic, just and sustainable solution. 'For decades, Middle East diplomacy has been far more process than peace,' Guterres observed. Words, speeches and declarations have little meaning to those on the ground as 'destruction and annexation bulldoze ahead', stressing that 'the obligation is on all of us to prove that this effort is something different'. He urged, 'Let us reject the false choice between Palestinian statehood and Israeli security — there is no security in occupation.' Rather, Israel's legitimate security concerns must be addressed, he said — 'and so must the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people'. 'We cannot wait for perfect conditions — we must create them,' he added. The international conference opened with a high-level ministerial meeting of the conference's working groups, which discussed a number of topics to provide a platform for unifying key visions, highlighting the international consensus in support of the two-state solution across political, legal, economic and humanitarian tracks, and identifying concrete next steps.


Observer
6 hours ago
- Observer
UK to recognise Palestinian state unless Israel acts
Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced on Tuesday that the UK will formally recognise the State of Palestine in September unless Israel takes various 'substantive steps' in Gaza, including agreeing to a ceasefire. The potentially landmark move, part of a plan for 'lasting peace' that Starmer is putting forward, came after the UK leader recalled his cabinet from recess for urgent talks on the worsening situation in the besieged territory. Starmer told his ministers that London will formally recognise a Palestinian state in September if the Israeli government has not taken the steps demanded, his office said. They include ending 'the appalling situation in Gaza', reaching a ceasefire, making 'clear there will be no annexation in the West Bank', and committing 'to a long-term peace process that delivers a two-state solution,' it added. 'I have always said that we will recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to a proper peace process at the moment of maximum impact for the two-state solution,' Starmer later said in a Downing Street address. 'With that solution now under threat, this is the moment to act.' French President Emmanuel Macron said last week that his country would formally recognise a Palestinian state during the UN General Assembly meeting in September. Starmer said, 'The UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza'. Prime Minister Keir Starmer The two countries would be the first G7 nations to do so, with Macron's announcement last week drawing a strong rebuke from both Israel and the United States. However, Starmer is believed to have presented his plan for the long-running conflict in the Middle East to US President Donald Trump when the pair met in Scotland on Monday. Trump appeared to give his blessing for the recognition move, saying during a wide-ranging press conference lasting more than an hour that 'I don't mind him (Starmer) taking a position.' Speaking on Tuesday, Starmer also detailed several demands for the Palestinian group Hamas, which is holding Israeli hostages seized in its attacks on October 7, 2023. 'They must immediately release all of the hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza,' he said. The UK leader added that London 'will make an assessment in September on how far the parties have met these steps', adding: 'No one should have a veto over our decision.' Starmer has been under growing domestic and international pressure to formally recognise a Palestinian state, as the humanitarian situation in Gaza dramatically worsens. Macron publicly pressed for joint recognition of Palestine during his UK state visit earlier this month, while an increasing number of MPs in Starmer's ruling Labour party have been demanding action. — AFP


Observer
17 hours ago
- Observer
Scramble for critical minerals
The world's superpowers have developed a seemingly insatiable appetite for the critical minerals that are essential to the ongoing energy and digital transitions, including rare-earth metals (for permanent magnets), cobalt (for batteries), and uranium (for nuclear reactors). The International Energy Agency forecasts that demand for these minerals will more than quadruple by 2040 for use in clean-energy technologies alone. But, in their race to control these vital resources, China, Europe, and the United States risk causing serious harm to the countries that possess them. As it stands, China is leading the pack, having gained ownership or control over an estimated 60-80 per cent of the critical minerals that are needed for industry (such as for magnets) and the green transition. This control extends across the supply chain: China is heavily invested in mining across Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America, and has been building up its processing capabilities. For Western powers, China's quasi-monopoly over critical minerals looks like an economic and national-security threat. This fear is not unfounded. In December 2024, China restricted exports of critical minerals to the US in retaliation for US restrictions on exports of advanced microchips to China. Since then, US President Donald Trump has forced Ukraine to relinquish a significant share of its critical minerals to the US in what he presents as repayment for American support in its fight against Russia. Trump also wants US sovereignty over mineral-rich Greenland, to the dismay of Denmark. And he has suggested that Canada, with all its natural resources, become America's 51st state. The European Union, for its part, has sought its own mining contracts, such as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). From the Scramble for Africa in the nineteenth century to Western attempts to claim Middle Eastern oil in the twentieth century, such resource grabs are hardly new. They reflect a fundamental asymmetry: less industrialised developing economies tend to consume fewer resources than they produce, whereas the opposite is true for developed economies – and, nowadays, China. In principle, this asymmetry creates ideal conditions for mutually beneficial agreements: industrialised economies get the resources they desire, and non-industrialised economies get a windfall, which they can use to bolster their own development. But, in reality, vast natural-resource endowments have proven to be more of a curse than a blessing, with resource-rich countries often developing more slowly than their resource-poor counterparts. A key reason for this is that developed economies have more economic clout, advanced technology, and military might – all of which they bring to bear to acquire the resources they seek. For example, European imperial powers used steam-engine technology to help them explore and exploit Africa for resources like copper, tin, rubber, timber, diamonds, and gold in the nineteenth century. This, together with more advanced weaponry and other technologies, meant that, far from offering local communities fair compensation for their valuable resources, European powers could subjugate those communities and use their labour to extract and transport what they wanted. But even countries that are exporting their resources for a profit have often struggled to make progress on development, not only because of imbalanced deals with more powerful resource importers, but also because their governments have often mismanaged the associated bonanzas. It does not help that resource-rich countries and regions often grapple with internal and external conflicts. Consider the mineral-rich provinces of the DRC, such as Katanga and North Kivu, which have long suffered from violence and lawlessness, fuelled by neighbours such as Rwanda and Uganda. Today, the advance of the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels is fuelling bloodshed in eastern Congo – and creating an opportunity for outside powers to gain access to critical minerals. The DRC-Rwanda peace agreement brokered by the Trump administration promises precisely such access to the US, in exchange for security guarantees. But the resource curse is not inescapable, especially for countries with strong outward-facing institutions to manage the economy's external relations, including its resource sector's ability to attract investment and generate revenues for the state, and inward-facing institutions to govern how those revenues are used. If a country is to translate its resource endowments into economic development and improvements in human well-being, both have a critical role to play. Outward-facing institutions must negotiate fair and transparent mining contracts with multinational corporations and strengthen local governments' ability to do the same. Such contracts should include local-content requirements, which keep more high-value-added processing activities at home, increase local employment and strengthen the capacity of local suppliers and contractors. Since acquiring a 15 per cent stake in De Beers, Botswana has sought to ensure that diamond cutting – not just mining – occurs domestically, which requires inward-facing institutions to deliver adequate investment in these capabilities. Inward-facing institutions must also manage risks raised by resource extraction, from health and environmental damage (deforestation, biodiversity loss, pollution) to labour-rights violations (including child labour). Unfortunately, as it stands, many mineral-rich countries are falling far short, leading some to advocate boycotts of critical minerals coming from conflict zones or countries using forced labour. While such boycotts are unlikely to sway these governments, they could convince multinationals and foreign governments to demand better enforcement of environmental and social standards from countries with which they do business. Ultimately, however, it is up to mineral-rich countries to defend their interests and make the most of their endowments. This starts with efforts to strengthen institutions. @Project Syndicate, 2025