Sunday, May 19, 2019

Saturday, May 11, 2019

Shadow Strike

The right book to read vis-à-vis US-Iran tension

Shadow Strike is immensely readable and although much of the info had percolated down to the general public during these last 12 years, it well describes the politics of the Bush administration’s reluctance to bomb the reactor themselves.

It shows how ignorant some members of the Bush administration were about Israel’s predicament and that is especially true of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Vice President Dick Cheney seems to have been the most supportive of Israel, but he could not convince President Bush to attack the reactor himself.  John Bolton comes out as the only one who sensed that Syria was interested in nuclear weapons. We should remind everyone how wrong Joe Biden had been in attacking Bolton on this issue.   

The book also demonstrates how obsessed both the American and Israeli side were with the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process – the desire to construct the political perpetuum mobile  without them first doing their homework on Islam as both a religion and an ideology. Not that much has changed in this regard since.

I detect a certain positive bias towards the main protagonists Olmert, Barak, Peretz, Livni, Dagan, Ashkenazi, Yadlin and Halevy while the gibe is against Netanyahu for having two weeks after the strike congratulated Olmert on the successful strike and disclosed that Israel had done it.  In addition, Katz seems to take Meir Dagan and Gabi Ashkenazi’s side when they blocked Netanyahu and Barak’s order of placing the IDF on high alert and ready for the imminent attack on Iranian nuclear sites, a decision the consequences of which are still felt today with Secretary of State Pompeo cancelling his visit to Greenland and the cover of The Economist showing a photo of USS Abraham Lincoln and the headline “Collision course”

I learned about the balagan Israel is capable of.  

“On the plane [from Pyongyang], Halevy was surprised to run into Eytan Bentsur, the director general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry who had just wrapped his own visit to Pyongyang for talks with the North Koreans  on a similar topic .

It was a classic case of uncoordinated Israeli bureaucracy”

And what about Iran?

Yaakov Katz writes: “The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, for example, has a significant nuclear arsenal but Israel does not consider the possibility of launching an attack there. Why?

Meridor, one of the participants in the fateful 2010 Security Cabinet meeting, told me that for Israel to consider preemptive action against another country’s nuclear program, two criteria have to be met: the country has to be one of Israel’s enemies  and also have the potential to one day consider using a nuclear weapon against it . Syria fit both. Pakistan does not.”

Iran fits both too. Perhaps Meridor should be reminded what Bernard Lewis said:

 “In this context, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, namely M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction), would have no meaning.  At the End of Time, there will be general destruction anyway.  What will matter is the final destination of the dead-- hell for the infidels, and the delights of heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an inducement...”

Thursday, May 9, 2019

Collision course - MAD as Albert Wohlstetter put it in 1958

Secretary of State Pompeo cancelled his visit to Greenland and the cover of The Economist says Collision course. Time to reread Albert Wohlstetter: The Delicate Balance of Terror


"On the whole, I think the burden of the criticism of deterrence has been the inadequacy of a thermonuclear capability and frequently of, what is not really deterrence at all, the threat to strike first. But it would be a fatal mistake to confuse the inadequacy of strategic deterrence with its dispensability. Deterrence is not dispensable. If the picture of the world I have drawn is rather bleak, it could nonetheless be cataclysmically worse. Suppose both the United States and the Soviet Union had the power to destroy each others' retaliatory forces and society, given the opportunity to administer the opening blow. In this case, the situation would be something like the old-fashioned Western gun duel. It would be extraordinarily risky for one side not to attempt to destroy the other, or to delay doing so. Not only can it emerge unscathed by striking first; this is the only way it can have a reasonable hope of emerging at all. Such a situation is clearly extremely unstable. On the other hand, if it is clear that the aggressor too will suffer catastrophic damage in the event of his aggression, he then has strong reason not to attack, even though he can administer great damage. A protected retaliatory capability has a stabilizing influence not only in deterring rational attack, but also in offering every inducement to both powers to reduce the chance of accidental detonation of war. Our own interest in "fail-safe" responses for our retaliatory forces illustrates this. A protected power to strike back does not come automatically, but it can hardly be stressed too much that it is worth the effort."

"A deterrent strategy is aimed at a rational enemy."

Monday, May 6, 2019

Why is only Austria's Parliament discussing the Iranian threat? What about the Knesset?

The Jerusalem Post


Bassam Tibi

"If there is going to be a repeat of the Holocaust, it will not be in Europe - here people have matured - but in the Middle East."

The prominent German-Syrian Islam expert Bassam Tibi warned Austria’s Parliament on Friday that the Islamic Republic of Iran may carry out a second Holocaust against Jews in Israel.

During a memorial for the victims of Nazism, Tibi said: “When an atomic bomb is planned from Iran in the direction of Israel, that is a Holocaust. And who denies that must be penalized like every Holocaust denier.”

Tibi told Austria’s political class, including Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, “If there is going to be a repeat of the Holocaust, it will not be in Europe – here people have matured – but in the Middle East.”

Tibi, who was born in Damascus in 1944, relocated to Germany in 1962, and studied in Frankfurt with two leading German-Jewish philosophers, Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, he said in his speech “Adorno and Horkheimer changed my life.” He said later he had to flee the brutal Hafez al-Assad dictatorship in Syria.

A political scientist, Tibi has taught at Harvard University, Cornell University and the University of Göttingen.

He told the audience that whoever is against antisemitism must be “against all forms of antisemtism,” and that “today’s antisemitism not only comes from the Nazi corner but also comes much more from the Arab region as immigrant antisemitism in European Islamic communities.”

Tibi said contemporary antisemitism “often appears as criticism of Israel, which is personified as the ‘world Jew’ that needs to be wiped out.”

“We must fight Islamic antisemitism,” he continued. Tibi criticized the parallel between Islamophobia and antisemitism, declaring it “pure ideology,” and lamented that if one speaks about Islamic antisemitism, “You run risk of being labeled an Islamophobe.”

Tibi, who has written extensively about modern antisemitism, said “Jewish life is in danger in Europe,” adding “Many Jews are leaving France because they say it is more secure in Israel.”

In addition to highlighting the rise of Islamic antisemitism, Tibi noted growing left-wing antisemitism, citing the ongoing Jew-hatred scandals within Britain’s Labour Party.

Tibi also said the Muslim Brotherhood is a highly dangerous organization, noting that its Egyptian founder “Hassan al-Banna was  calling for the destruction of the Jews in the 1930s. That is terrorism.”

Tibi stressed that one must differentiate between Islam and Islamism.

On a side note, Tibi mentioned that in the US he met the late Middle East historian Bernard Lewis, commenting that “the Jewish historian was my mentor and friend,” and terming Lewis the “greatest historian of Islam.”

He credited Lewis’s book “The Jews of Islam” as a critical work for his knowledge about the Middle East. While in the US, he said he felt most at home with the American Jewish community.

Austria along with the European Union has refused to join US sanctions against Iran’s regime. The United States government classifies the Islamic Republic of Iran as the top state-sponsor of terrorism. Austria has also refused to outlaw the terrorist entity Hezbollah’s military wing. Hezbollah’s aim is the destruction of Israel.

John Bolton's clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime

Statement from the National Security Advisor Ambassador John Bolton

 Issued on: May 5, 2019

In response to a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings, the United States is deploying the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and a bomber task force to the U.S. Central Command region to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.  The United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime, but we are fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or regular Iranian forces.

Saturday, May 4, 2019

Be’er Sheva under rocket attack, n+1st time!

How long will this go on for? How many years must we go through this? 2008, 2009, 2012, 2014, 2018, now yet again!?  

I am fed up!  I am fed up with everyone's lack of courage to say the truth about Islamic ideology and their followers whom Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls “Medina Muslims” (who “see the forcible imposition of Shari’a as their religious duty”), as opposed to “Mecca Muslims” (i.e., “Muslims who are loyal to the core creed and worship devoutly, but are not inclined to practice violence”).

For centuries many have been trying to construct the perpetuum mobile - the perpetual motion machine - but without any success. Why have they all failed? Because the perpetual motion machine would violate the laws of thermodynamics.    

For decades many have been trying to come up with a Middle East peace plan. Why have they all failed? Because Middle East Peace, as defined by Western democracies, would violate one of the basic tenets of Islamic ideology – jihad. Islam is not only a religion but a political ideology as well. After all, Ayatollah Khomeini said: “Islam is politics or it is nothing.” 

So the real question is how does the Trump Peace Plan deal with the fact that the followers of Islamic ideology would always try to impose their Shari’a law on everyone else?

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Mikhail Gorbachev: The Madness of Nuclear Deterrence

The dangers have only become more acute in the decades since I tried to convince Thatcher.


By  Mikhail Gorbachev


‘Deterrence cannot protect the world from a nuclear blunder or nuclear terrorism,” George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn recently wrote. “Both become more likely when there is no sustained, meaningful dialogue between Washington and Moscow.” I agree with them about the urgent need for strategic engagement between the U.S. and Russia. I am also convinced that nuclear deterrence, instead of protecting the world, is keeping it in constant jeopardy.

I recall my heated discussions of this issue with Margaret Thatcher. We argued about many things and often found common ground, but on this question she fought to the last. Nuclear weapons, she insisted, prevented World War III.

I asked her: “Are you really comfortable sitting on a nuclear powder keg?” I showed her a diagram representing the world’s nuclear arsenals, grouped into hundreds of squares. Each square, I told her, is enough to eliminate human civilization as we know it. I was unable to persuade Margaret Thatcher. We hear the same arguments today, including in the U.S. and Russia.

Yet nuclear weapons are like a rifle hanging on the wall in a play written and staged by a person unknown. We do not know the playwright’s intent. Nuclear weapons could go off because of a technical failure, human error or computer error. The last alarms me the most. Computer systems are now used everywhere. And how many times have computers and electronics failed—in aviation, in industry, in various control systems?

Nuclear weapons might also be launched in response to a false alarm. If the flight time of the missiles is reduced, leaving less time to detect a false alarm, the probability of a mistaken retaliatory launch is bound to rise.

Nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists. And who knows what other “surprises” these weapons have in store for us?

Those who believe nuclear weapons can save the world from war should recall the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. A dispute over the placement of Soviet nuclear weapons put the world on the brink of war. Recently published documents show how close the world came to the fateful line. It was not nuclear weapons that saved the world, but the sobering up of the two countries’ leaders, John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev. I am sure they thought long and hard, then and afterward, and their perception of nuclear weapons changed a great deal.

What’s more, they reached agreement on ending nuclear tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water, thus slowing the qualitative weapons race as well as protecting the air from the deadly products of nuclear explosions.

The opportunity to continue progress in nuclear arms control was then squandered. The military-industrial complex won out over common sense. Only much later, toward the end of the 1980s, were we able to stop the arms race. Today, the U.S. and Russia are at a perilous crossroads. They must stop and think. The veterans of the Cold War have spoken. It is now up to our nations’ leaders to act.

Mr. Gorbachev is former president of the Soviet Union.