By South Florida Community Voice
A former Major General in the IDF and Israel’s National Security Advisor under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from 2011 to 2013, Amidror spent decades at the center of Israel’s intelligence and defense establishment. From Lebanon and Gaza to Iran and the country’s shifting regional alliances, he helped shape Israeli strategic thinking during some of the most consequential years in the nation’s history.
In an exclusive interview with South Florida Community Voice, Amidror offered a rare inside look into Israel’s security mindset, explaining how Israeli leaders view Iran, the aftermath of October 7, Hezbollah, Turkey, and the increasingly complicated relationship between Israel and the United States.
A Career Inside Israel’s Security Establishment
Amidror joined the IDF in 1966 and rose steadily through the ranks of military intelligence. Over the years, he held a series of senior intelligence posts, including head of the Assessment Division of IDF Intelligence, before later serving as secretary to the Minister of Defense and commander of the National Defense College.
But according to Amidror, it was his role as National Security Advisor that gave him the clearest understanding of Israel’s challenges.
“When you work in intelligence, you think intelligence is everything,” he said. “When you work in the Defense Ministry, you focus on military planning and budgets. But when you sit beside the Prime Minister, you suddenly see how everything connects — diplomacy, intelligence, military operations, America, the Arab world, and global politics.”
He stressed that outsiders often underestimate just how difficult Israeli decision-making really is.
“It’s very easy to criticize leaders when you don’t have all the information,” he explained. “When you do have all the details, you understand how cautious you need to be, because the situation changes constantly.”
Netanyahu Behind the Scenes
Amidror has known Netanyahu since 1969, when the two served together during military training in Tel Aviv.
“We used to run together,” Amidror recalled. “He was in better shape than me back then — and honestly, he probably still is.”
Asked whether being openly religious played a role in his appointment, Amidror dismissed the idea.
“I was probably the first two-star general who wore a kippah,” he said. “But I don’t think that had anything to do with Netanyahu’s decision.”
Instead, he emphasized that their relationship had been built over decades of trust and familiarity within Israel’s security establishment.
Iran: The Core Threat
Throughout the interview, Amidror returned again and again to one central theme: Iran. In his view, nearly every major regional conflict Israel faces today ultimately traces back to Tehran.
He described Iran’s strategy as a decades-long project built around three pillars:
- A nuclear program
- A massive long-range missile arsenal
- A “ring of fire” of proxy forces surrounding Israel
That ring, he explained, includes Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and Iranian-backed militias in Syria and Iraq.
“The Iranian strategy was very smart,” Amidror said. “The idea was that when the moment came, all these forces would attack Israel together, while Iran provided missile support and, eventually, nuclear protection.”
Amidror was especially critical of the Obama-era nuclear agreement, the JCPOA, which he believes fundamentally altered the trajectory of the Iranian threat.
“The Americans moved from trying to dismantle Iran’s nuclear project to simply postponing and monitoring it,” he said. “From our point of view, that was a huge mistake.”
October 7 Changed Everything
Amidror admitted he was shocked by the October 7 Hamas attacks, but he says that within days he came to see that the assault had unintentionally exposed an opportunity for Israel.
“I understood three or four days later that this was not just a Hamas attack,” he said. “This was an opportunity to dismantle the broader Iranian project.”
According to Amidror, Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar had expected the entire Iranian-led axis to join the war immediately and in full force. Instead, Hezbollah entered gradually and cautiously — a hesitation Amidror believes ultimately weakened the organization strategically.
For months, Israel and Hezbollah exchanged limited fire along the northern border while, according to Amidror, Israel quietly prepared for a much larger confrontation.
“We carried out more than seventy special forces operations inside Lebanon before the official ground invasion even began,” he revealed.
Those operations, he said, helped push Hezbollah’s elite Radwan forces farther north and degraded key infrastructure ahead of larger military action.
Why Israel Didn’t Immediately Open a Northern Front
One of the most debated questions in Israel during the war was why the government did not immediately launch a full-scale assault on Hezbollah while northern Israel remained under attack.
Amidror defended the decision firmly, crediting Netanyahu with resisting enormous pressure in the early months of the war.
“The strategy was to fight piece by piece,” he explained. “You concentrate your forces on one front first. You don’t spread yourself everywhere at once.”
Many Israelis, he argued, failed to grasp the military limitations the country was operating under.
“People don’t understand that the IDF needed more divisions,” he said. “People also don’t understand the importance of munitions, logistics, and coordination with the United States.”
Leadership, he insisted, had to think strategically rather than emotionally.
“Sometimes you delay an operation because the larger relationship with America matters more,” he said. “There are no free lunches.”
Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Current Reality
Despite the ongoing war, Amidror argued that Hamas no longer represents a major strategic threat to Israel.
“Hamas still exists inside Gaza,” he said, “but as a strategic threat to Israel, it is no longer relevant.”
Hezbollah, however, remains a far more serious concern. According to Amidror, the group still retains meaningful capabilities despite suffering major losses.
“It may only be twenty percent of what they once had,” he said, “but it is still dangerous.”
As for Iran itself, Amidror described the regime as “a wounded animal” — still dangerous, still ambitious, and still determined to reshape the Middle East. He suggested that long-term stability may ultimately require internal regime change within Iran, while acknowledging that such an outcome cannot simply be imposed from the outside.
Turkey: A Different Kind of Challenge
Amidror also addressed Turkey’s growing regional ambitions, describing them as a different kind of strategic problem than Iran’s.
“Turkey does not wake up every morning trying to destroy Israel,” he explained. “But it would absolutely prefer to see a weaker Israel.”
He pointed to Turkey’s expanding influence in Syria, its tensions with Greece, and its ambitions in the Eastern Mediterranean as potential future friction points.
“We need much better intelligence and long-term strategic thinking regarding Turkey,” he warned.
Still, he emphasized that Turkey’s goals remain fundamentally different from Iran’s ideological mission against Israel.
Why America Should Care
One of Amidror’s strongest messages was directed not at Israelis, but at Americans. In his view, stopping Iran is not only Israel’s battle — it is a critical American interest as well.
“If America retreats, its credibility around the world will be damaged,” he warned.
Iran’s ideological ambitions, he argued, extend far beyond Israel and the Middle East.
“The Iranian regime believes the current world order is wrong,” he said. “They believe Western democratic values should be replaced.”
He also cautioned that if Iran’s missile program continues unchecked, Iranian missiles could eventually threaten the United States directly.
“If the missile project is not stopped,” he said, “within a decade their missiles could potentially reach America.”
Beyond the military threat, Amidror believes an American retreat from the Middle East would dramatically shift the regional balance of power toward Iran, Russia, and China.
“If countries in the Middle East conclude that America cannot be trusted,” he said, “they will begin adjusting themselves to Iran instead.”
Looking Ahead
As the interview drew to a close, Amidror reflected on the future of the U.S.-Israel relationship. Despite growing political polarization in America, he expressed hope that support for Israel could eventually return to being bipartisan.
“I hope Israel can once again become a bipartisan issue in America,” he said. “Israel will need to do whatever it can to make that happen.”
For Amidror, the current war is not simply another round of fighting in the Middle East. In his eyes, it is part of a much larger battle over the future balance of power in the region — and potentially far beyond it.
