The political tension between Spain and Israel is being one of the priority monitoring issues, both by traditional media and social networks, that underworld of millions of people who, despite not having the necessary capacity and knowledge, opine on any matter, generating around it an inevitable, far from positive “noise”.
I believe it would be advisable, with the aim of informing correctly, that when specific issues related to defined professional fields are addressed, it should be the experts, the professionals in the field, those who possess experience and preparation in that field who give their opinion, being able to bring clarity to the message being transmitted. It is evident that when we evaluate a matter related to surgery, the informative value is provided by a surgeon, at the same time that when it comes to informing about mechanics, that same value is provided by a mechanic. What I don't quite see, and forgive me if I haven't perceived it correctly, is a youtuber, an instagramer or an influencer, with an undefined or non-existent profession and preparation, giving an opinion on intelligence operations, on open-heart operations or on the technique for tiling the floor of a house. Or do you prefer that the youtuber perform open-heart surgery on you, or tile the floor of your house?.
What is also not reasonable is that, as a result of the immediacy to which present times subject us, many media outlets and their journalists behave like them, joining the noise and the low informational quality. It's not about informing, but about being the first to arrive, it's not about being faithful to the truth, but about increasing the number of followers or readers, it's not about being professionals but about being pens or voices at the service more of disinformation than of information.
We live in a society that limits intelligence and critical thinking so that those who lack it are not inconvenienced or offended if you dare to mention it. It's impossible that this quote attributed to Dostoevsky doesn't come to mind: “Tolerance will reach such a level that intelligent people will be forbidden to think so as not to offend imbeciles”.
Do diplomatic relations affect the relationship between intelligence services?
In this regard, during these days I have been able to read and hear numerous statements regarding the relationship between a bad diplomatic and political relationship and an immediate impact on the relationship between the intelligence services of the countries, some even arguing, I imagine, with some hidden interest, that the bad relationship immediately determines a cut in relations between the intelligence services of those countries, something that is far from reality and that, as almost always, tries to lead us to the ground of fear and permanent concern.
The relations between Spain and Israel completed last January 40 years and it is true that currently they are perhaps in the worst moment of their history. We are in “low hours”, we cannot doubt this. In the year 2006 we already had our first attempt at fire when the confrontation between Israel and the terrorist group Hizbula occurred and Spain criticized the excessive use of force by Israel, which responded by accusing Spain of being an antisemitic country. Afterwards came multiple disagreements, the recognition by Spain of the State of Palestine, the withdrawal of Israel's ambassador in Spain, the flotilla, the call for consultations of our ambassador in September 2025 and her definitive dismissal on March 11, 2026, among other issues.
But this rarefied political and diplomatic climate does not mean that relations between intelligence services are broken, although, of course, they are affected, as a fundamental principle for intelligence, trust, is blown to smithereens. And we are not only talking about the two countries in conflict, but also about the other countries that are observing the situation and taking note, each in the sense they deem appropriate. This is true, but in no case does it imply the breakdown of relations between intelligence agencies, which are maintained for several fundamental reasons such as, among others, the absolute priority over national security and the establishment, precisely in these cases, of alternative communication channels, regardless of the political or diplomatic mess.
The fight against terrorism, organized crime, cybersecurity or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, are global elements, which depend on cooperation between intelligence services and police services worldwide, prioritizing this over the political or diplomatic tensions of the moment. The former director of the CNI, Jorge Dezcallar, stated in an interview “I intuit that, despite everything, the relationship between the Mossad and the CNI, especially regarding the fight against terrorism, surely remains”. And I, who served under his command at the CNI, intuit that Jorge Dezcallar knows something about this, as he possesses the preparation and knowledge as a career diplomat and as a former director of the Spanish intelligence service.
Intelligence agencies prioritize the defense of their State and the fight against common enemies above all else and maintain relations, building discreet and secret communication bridges, which corresponds to their activity. Often, in these circumstances, despite the fact that “leaks” have occurred, their job is to keep the ship afloat and wait for the storm to clear. This does not mean that intelligence services operate outside their governments, no, not at all, they are always directed by their governments, what I do want to say is that not everything is carried out on the table, much of the struggle takes place under it, not in plain sight of citizens.
The primary exchange of information in the current security model
The exchange of information is paramount in the current security model, in a global and interconnected world where threats are not usually only for one country, but affect many. This is why information is exchanged between services, regardless of the diplomatic or political situation. They act on the surface, issue declarations and counter-declarations, and agents act on the ground, directly perceiving the risks to our security. During the Cold War, Russian and American services had relations; before the attack on the Crocus City Hall shopping center, Western services informed the Russians of the possibility of an attack in a Moscow shopping center; before the Hamas attack on Israel, some services shared information about the possible preparation of that action. Another issue is that political power, having the information on the table, dismisses its value or does not take it into account, for whatever reasons, potentially causing tragic situations with the decisions made, but that is not my field, I am not a politician, but I have been a member of the intelligence service.
Sir John Sawers, who was director of MI6 between 2009 and 2014, and must know something about this, stated in an interview some interesting questions to reflect on this matter. He said literally: “When I was head of MI6, our top priority was to confront terrorism and disrupt terrorist threats. Today there are thousands, possibly tens of thousands of people who would have died or been maimed in terrorist attacks that were disrupted by intelligence agencies. And this was not the success of a single agency. It was a team effort between countries. As head of MI6, our closest collaboration was with the Americans and other Five Eyes countries (Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). But I also worked very closely with the Spanish, French, German, Italian, Turkish, Saudi, and Indian intelligence services, and we joined forces to disrupt terrorist attacks. I believe it was a great success.”
The CNI provides valuable information to the rest of the intelligence services
We are never going to be outside that circle with Israel because part of our security depends on them, at the same time that part of theirs depends on us. Our service, the CNI, seems, in view of what some publish, to be only a recipient of information, but that does not correspond to reality, our service provides valuable information to that network of intelligence organizations responsible for us being able to sleep peacefully and when we wake up and turn on the light the world is the same or better than yesterday. We collaborate in the fight against terrorism, against organized crime and in many other issues, and that does not disappear, despite the political or diplomatic situation becoming complicated, our security is above that.
At another point in that interview, he again informs us of something that I consider, in my humble opinion, very interesting: “When I was head of the service, my greatest concern, of course, was to preserve and protect the integrity of intelligence and the sources of that intelligence. Therefore, my job was to be conservative when it came to disclosing intelligence information due to the risk of endangering the lives of the people who bravely provided that information to free countries like the United Kingdom. I was not impressed that politicians wanted to use secret intelligence as a political means to gain support for their policies. Now, if you are a politician and you are trying to win over Parliament or public opinion, of course you want to use all available methods. So there is a tension between the heads of intelligence services and politicians about how much to expose in public to convince public opinion. I did not consider my role as head of the intelligence services to be doing the work of politicians. After making difficult decisions, they had to win over their parliamentary majority and not use me as a person to help them with that”.
Well, that, politics is one thing and intelligence a very different one, and they have absolutely different planes of action, some with the component of public exposure and others with the component of the secrecy of their actions.
