RSS
On Iran, Israel’s Policy of Nuclear Ambiguity Is Outdated and Dangerous
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei visits the Iranian centrifuges in Tehran, Iran, June 11, 2023. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
Israel’s nuclear posture remains “deliberately ambiguous.” In the past, this stance appears to have been sensible, even incontestable. Today, however, during a continuing Gaza War and following unprecedented missile aggressions from Iran, it requires fundamental reconsideration. In essence, there are compelling reasons to argue that Israel’s traditional “bomb in the basement” posture is no longer tenable.
There are clarifying particulars. A prudent nuclear posture for Israel should necessarily be based upon calculable assessments of all plausible options. At a minimum, any cost-effective changes of Israeli nuclear ambiguity would need to be readily identifiable but also not be gratuitously provocative. For a time, such changes might need to remain implicit in the small country’s codified military doctrine.
Israel, after all, is less than half the size of America’s Lake Michigan.
A comprehensive Israeli strategic doctrine represents the general framework from which any specific posture of deliberate nuclear ambiguity or selective nuclear disclosure would be extracted. More precisely, the principal importance of Israeli nuclear doctrine lies not only in the several ways that it can animate, unify, and optimize the state’s armed forces, but also in the more-or-less efficient manner in which it could transmit cautionary messages to enemy state Iran and sub-state surrogate Hamas.
Understood in terms of Israel’s many-sided strategic policy, any continuous across-the-board nuclear ambiguity could have existential consequences. This is because effective deterrence and defense policies call for a military doctrine that is at least partially recognizable by adversary states and terrorist proxies. Today, as Israel decides on whether to re-ignite a multi-front war with Iran — a war that could prove indispensable to preventing Iranian nuclear weapons — such “wise counsel” is conspicuously urgent.
For Israel, any ultimate and durable military success against Iran must lie in credibly-layered nuclear deterrence options, never in nuclear war-fighting. Recalling ancient Chinese military thought offered by Sun-Tzu in The Art of War, “Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” Soon, in the overriding matter of nuclear deterrence, Israeli decision-makers will need to acknowledge that there are occasions when too much further secrecy would degrade the country’s national security.
Israel’s nuclear weapons should always be oriented to deterrence ex ante, not revenge ex post. Nuclear weapons can succeed only in their calculated non-use. By definition, once they have been used for actual battle, nuclear deterrence will have failed, perhaps irremediably. Once they were used in any possible form, tactical or strategic, all traditional meanings of “victory” would immediately become moot.
Israel’s nuclear deterrence posture could have certain counter-terrorism benefits, but only with direct regard to Iran. Reciprocally, allowing itself to be weakened by Iran-backed terrorists (Sunni or Shia) could enlarge Israel’s existential vulnerabilities to the Islamic Republic. In evaluating such perplexing interconnections, Israeli planners will have to devote continuous attention to all possible synergies and “force multipliers.”
The original Cold War is over; still, “Cold War II” is underway between the United States, Russia, and (this time) China. If Iran is allowed to become nuclear, Israel’s deterrence relationship with Iran would never be comparable to what earlier was obtained between the US and the USSR. In such unique or sui generis circumstances, any unmodified continuance of total nuclear ambiguity could cause an already-nuclear Iran to underestimate or overestimate Israel’s nuclear retaliatory capacity. Either kind of misestimating could lead to catastrophic war.
The world is a system. Accordingly, various uncertainties surrounding Israel’s nuclear posture could lead other enemy states to reach similar kinds of misunderstanding. For example, Israel’s willingness to make good on any threatened nuclear retaliation could sometime be taken as inversely related to weapon system destructiveness. Ironically, therefore, if Israel’s nuclear weapons were thought “too destructive,” they might not deter.
Any continuing Israeli posture of deliberate nuclear ambiguity could cause terrorist-mentoring Iran to overestimate the first-strike vulnerabilities of Israel’s nuclear forces. This could be the result of a too-rigorous silence concerning measures of protection deployed to safeguard Israel’s nuclear weapons and infrastructures. Alternatively, such an over-estimation could represent the product of Israeli doctrinal opacity regarding the country’s potential for defense, an absence of transparency that would be wrongly interpreted as fragile or “porous” ballistic missile defense.
Though any such Iranian conclusion would seem preposterous after Israel’s extraordinary recent success at active defense, anything less than a 100% probability of interception would be inadequate vis-a-vis Iranian nuclear attacks.
To deter an enemy state attack or post-preemption retaliation against Israel, Jerusalem must always prevent a rational aggressor, via threats of unacceptably damaging retaliation or counter-retaliation, from deciding to strike first. Understood in such a “classic” context, Israel’s national security should now be sought by convincing a presumptively rational Iranian attacker that the costs of any considered attack on Israel would exceed the expected benefits.
Assuming that Iran values its national self-preservation more highly than any other preference or combination of preferences, and that it would always choose rationally among all alternative options, that enemy state will refrain from launching any attack on an Israel that is believed willing and able to deliver unacceptably damaging reprisals.
The “bottom line” should be clear in Jerusalem. Israel’s security posture of deliberate nuclear ambiguity is outdated and dangerous. With Israel’s operational nuclear forces and doctrine kept locked away in its metaphoric “basement,” Iran could conclude, rightly or wrongly, that a first-strike attack or post-preemption reprisal against Israel would be rational and cost-effective. But if relevant Israeli doctrine were made more obvious to Tehran, Israel’s nuclear forces could more reliably serve their existential security functions.
Another critical success factor of Israeli nuclear doctrine is “presumed willingness.” How can Israel convince Iranian decision-makers that it possesses the resolve to deliver an appropriately destructive retaliation or counter retaliation? The answer to this core question lies in antecedent strategic doctrine, in Israel’s estimated strength of commitment to carry out such an attack and in the tangible nuclear ordnance that would likely be available.
Any continued ambiguity over Israel’s nuclear posture could create the erroneous impression of a state that is unwilling to retaliate. Conversely, any doctrinal movement toward some as-yet-undetermined level of nuclear disclosure could heighten the impression that Israel is actually willing to follow-through on its pertinent nuclear threats.
What if Iran were ultimately allowed to become nuclear? To be deterred by Israel, a newly-nuclear Iran would need to believe that a critical number of Israel’s retaliatory forces could survive an Iranian first-strike and that these forces could not subsequently be prevented from hitting pre-designated targets in Iran. Concerning the “presumed survivability” of Israeli nuclear forces, continued sea-basing (submarines) by Israel would be self-evidently gainful.
If carefully articulated, expanding doctrinal openness or selective nuclear disclosure would represent a rational and plausibly imperative option for Israel. The operational benefits of such an expanding doctrinal openness would accrue from certain deliberate flows of information concerning Israeli weapons dispersion, multiplication or hardening of nuclear weapon systems and other technical weapon features. Most importantly, doctrinally controlled and orderly flows of information could serve to remove any intermittent or lingering Iranian doubts about Israel’s nuclear force capabilities and intentions. At some point, if left unchallenged, such doubts could undermine Israeli nuclear deterrence with unprecedented suddenness and lethality. This is the case, moreover, whether Iran were pre-nuclear or already-nuclear.
A summarizing thought dawns. As Israel confronts a state enemy that would best be countered while still in its pre-nuclear form, Jerusalem should understand that avoiding active warfare with Iran need not be in Israel’s best security interests. Ipso facto, if Israel could fight a law-based and comprehensive war against a still pre-nuclear Iran, it could plausibly avoid a nuclear war in the future. Under authoritative international law, such a defensive war could represent a fully permissible expression of “anticipatory self-defense.”
Looking ahead, Israel must do whatever possible and lawful to prevent a nuclear Iran. In this genuinely existential obligation, a pronounced shift in strategic posture from deliberate nuclear ambiguity to selective nuclear disclosure would represent Israel’s most expressly rational decision. By drawing upon such “wise counsel,” Israel could prudently plan for a no-choice war against a still non-nuclear Iranian foe.
The author is Emeritus Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. Educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), he is the author of twelve major books dealing with international relations, military strategy and world affairs. Dr. Beres was born in Zürich, Switzerland on August 31, 1945, and lectures and publishes widely on issues of terrorism, counter-terrorism, nuclear strategy and nuclear war. Professor Beres’ latest book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (2016; 2nd ed. 2018). A version of this article was originally published by Israel National News.
The post On Iran, Israel’s Policy of Nuclear Ambiguity Is Outdated and Dangerous first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Antisemitism at European Universities Has Created ‘Climate of Fear,’ New Report Finds
Krakow, Poland, October 5: Pro-Palestinian activists in front of the Institute of Sociology at Jagiellonian University in Kraków. Photo: Artur Widak via Reuters Connect
Antisemitism on European university campuses rivals what has ensued in the US since the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, fostering a “climate of fear” for Jewish students, according to a new report by two Jewish groups and a German watchdog.
B’nai B’rith International, the European Union of Jewish Students, and democ, a Berlin-based organization of academics and media professionals, on Tuesday published a comprehensive report titled “A Climate of Fear and Exclusion: Antisemitism at European Universities.”
“When Jewish students fear being violently harassed on campus, when in the most prestigious universities Jewish students might find swastikas or death threats on their personal property, when they are not allowed access to spaces and events due to their presumed Zionism — the free speech argument is a canard,” B’nai B’rith director of European Union affairs Alina Bricman said in a statement. “The lack of action on the part of academic institutions is shameful.”
The document recounts a slew of incidents that took place at the most prestigious higher education institutions across the continent, including Cambridge University, the University of Amsterdam, and Delft University of Technology. Some were perpetrated by extreme anti-Zionist groups tied to terrorist organizations while others struck as random acts of hatred, terrorizing in themselves for intimidating Jewish members of the campus community.
At the University of Strasbourg, someone assaulted a group of Jewish students while shouting “Zionist fascists”; the University of Vienna hosted an “Intifada Camp,” a pro-Hamas encampment; at the Free University of Brussels campus in Solbosch, a pro-Hamas group illegally occupied an administrative building and renamed it after a terrorist. Throughout Europe, anti-Zionists damaged property to the tune of hundreds of thousands of Euros, desecrated Jewish religious symbols, graffitied Jewish students’ dormitories with swastikas, and carried out gang assaults on Jewish student leaders.
In many cases, university leaders acceded to the demands of these pro-Hamas activists and terminated partnerships with Israeli institutions, as happened in Belgium.
“By renouncing limited partnerships with Israel, the authorities not only gave in to political pressure but also endangered freedom of expression and the diversity of ideas on their campuses,” the report’s authors wrote. “This attitude, far from protecting academic values, allowed ideologies to take precedence over fundamental principles of research and academic freedom.”
It continued, “These events are not isolated acts. They reflect a climate of siege-like hostility towards Israel that now permeates Belgium, from the media to universities, from the north to the south, from the right to the left. The Palestinian cause has gradually become the core of a genuine ‘civil religion’ or ‘secular religion.’”
The situation calls for a prompt defense of the university’s values, as well as the universal principles Europe claims to hold.
“The documentation gathered in this report makes it clear that we are dealing with highly coordinated, transnational networks that operate as part of a global movement,” said Grischa Stanjek, co-executive director of democ. “They strategically disguise an antisemitic agenda in the language of human rights to gain legitimacy. University leaders are making a grave mistake if they treat these events as local flare-ups instead of what they are: calculated manifestations of a global, anti-democratic campaign.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
RSS
Synagogue in Chile Vandalized With Antisemitic Graffiti, Prompting Outrage, Investigation
The gate of Santiago’s Bikur Cholim Synagogue defaced with red paint and antisemitic graffiti, including a poster targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Photo: Screenshot
Chile’s authorities launched an investigation after a synagogue in Santiago was defaced with antisemitic graffiti and slogans, an act that has sparked outrage in the local Jewish community.
On Friday night, the gate of Santiago’s Bikur Cholim Synagogue was vandalized with red paint and a poster depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a bullet hole in his forehead.
An unknown individual spray-painted antisemitic slogans, including “If you keep silent, you’re part of genocide,” an apparent reference to the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.
Israeli Ambassador to Chile Peleg Lewi condemned the outrage, noting that antisemitic incidents are rare in the country.
Vandalizacion y ataques a Sinagogas anoche en Santiago !
Estoy seguro que @GobiernodeChile luchará contra el antisemistismo en Chile! pic.twitter.com/feWR09cny1— פלג לוי – Peleg Lewi (@peleg_lewi) August 23, 2025
Since the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Lewi explained, Chile has seen only a few minor antisemitic incidents — a stark contrast to other countries around the world, which have experienced a surge in anti-Jewish hate crimes.
He also stressed the importance of maintaining calm and warned against bringing the Middle East conflict into Chile.
Local authorities have launched an investigation into the vandalism, but no arrests have been made so far.
The Jewish Community of Chile denounced the incident, stressing that such antisemitic acts cannot be accepted or tolerated.
“Acts of hatred cannot be downplayed, normalized, or justified by political or ideological slogans; they must be forcefully and universally condemned,” the group said in a post on X.
“Chile is a country that values freedom of worship, and that means we must respect, care for, and protect one another, regardless of our beliefs,” the statement read. “Vandalism of a holy site is not just an attack on a community but on the coexistence and peace of the entire country.”
Condenamos rotundamente el ataque a una sinagoga de Santiago. Lamentablemente no es la primera vez que ocurre.
Los actos de odio no pueden ser relativizados, normalizados o justificados bajo consignas políticas o ideológicas: deben ser condenados con fuerza y de manera… pic.twitter.com/CTAHqDs6yh
— Comunidad Judía de Chile (@comjudiachile) August 24, 2025
Alberto van Klaveren, Chile’s Foreign Minister, also condemned the vandalism of the Bikur Cholim Synagogue.
“No expression of hatred or violence can be normalized; there is no argument that justifies intimidation or discrimination,” Klaveren said in a post on X. “The only way to express dissent in a democracy is through open and respectful dialogue.”
On Sunday, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) warned that the incident in Chile was the latest reminder that antisemitism remains a global threat.
“No synagogue should ever be vandalized,” the statement read.
RSS
Trump Admin Reviewing Visas of ‘Terrorist Sympathizers’ Set to Appear at Palestinian Conference in Detroit
Marco Rubio speaks after he is sworn in as Secretary of State by US Vice President JD Vance at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, DC, Jan. 21, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
The Trump administration is reviewing and may block the visa applications of speakers scheduled to appear at the People’s Conference for Palestine in Detroit, Michigan later this week over links to terrorism, The Algemeiner has learned.
A spokesperson for the US State Department told The Algemeiner that officials have “noted” the gathering, set to take place from Aug. 29-31, and will closely monitor visa applications for invited international speakers, citing a preponderance of “terrorist sympathizers” on the program’s lineup.
“Given the public invite lists seems to include a number of terrorist sympathizers, we are going through and ensuring all international speakers slated to attend the conference are being placed on a ‘look out’ status for visa applications, so we are alerted if a request is submitted and can ensure they are appropriately processed,” the spokesperson said.
“In every case, we will take the time necessary to ensure an applicant does not pose a risk to the safety and security of the United States and that he or she has credibly established his or her eligibility for the visa sought, including that the applicant intends to engage in activities consistent with the terms of admission,” the spokesperson added.
The conference will feature dozens of radical anti-Zionist activists, academics, artists, and political organizers, including US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).
Tlaib’s appearance at last year’s iteration of the People’s Conference for Palestine sparked intense backlash, with critics pointing out the event’s connections to Wisam Rafeedie and Salah Salah, members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), an internationally designated terrorist organization.
The conference is convened by a coalition that includes the Palestinian Youth Movement, Al-Awda: The Palestine Right to Return Coalition, and the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, among others. Several of these groups have maintained ties with PFLP, openly supported boycott efforts against Israel, and called for an arms embargo in the wake of Israel’s military campaign against Hamas. The programming highlights sessions on “Documenting Genocide” and “Breaking the Siege,” rhetoric that critics argue mischaracterizes Israel’s actions as it seeks to defend itself against terrorist attacks following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel.
The Detroit gathering is expected to attract thousands of attendees, with dozens of speakers and activists scheduled to participate. Among the roster are well-known anti-Israel figures such as Linda Sarsour, Miko Peled, and Chris Smalls. Sarsour has erroneously compared Zionism to “white supremacy in America” and accused Israel of perpetuating “Jewish supremacy.”
Arabs comprise about 21 percent of Israel’s population and include full rights of citizenship, including the ability to serve in parliament and on the Supreme Court as well as the ability to protest openly against the government.
The planned presence of several foreign terror sympathizers has sparked outrage among observers.
Abed Abubaker, a self-described “reporter” from Gaza, is expected to make a physical appearance at the Detroit conference. Abubaker has repeatedly praised the Hamas terrorist group as “resistance fighters” on social media and won a “journalist of the year” award from Iran’s state-controlled media outlet PressTV. In a January 2025 post, he showered praise on long-time Hamas leader and Oct. 7 mastermind Yahya Sinwar, saying that the terrorist’s “love of resistance and land is seen very clearly.” In a March 2025 post, Abubaker posted that international supporters of the Palestinian cause should “attack your governments.” He also defended Hamas’s murdering of dissidents, saying that the victims were “collaborating” with Israel.
Some of the speakers have been convicted and imprisoned in Israel for terrorist activity.
Omar Assaf, a former member of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), and Lama Ghosheh, a Palestinian journalist from East Jerusalem, are scheduled to speak at the conference. Assaf spent eight years in jail for his role in the DFLP, which was previously a US-designated terrorist group, and Ghosheh received a three-year sentence from an Israeli court in 2023 for inciting violence and praising terrorism in the West Bank and Gaza.
Mosab Abu Toha, a Gaza-born writer, is also set to appear at the conference. Abu Toha’s social media posts reveal he has denigrated the Israeli hostages held in Gaza, denied the murder of the Bibas children, and spread fake news and antisemitic remarks. In other posts, he referred to Israeli soldiers as “killers” and criticized international media for “humaniz[ing]” them.
Perhaps most striking, Hussam Shaheen was slated to speak at the conference. He spent 27 years in prison for attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder but was released earlier this year as part of a temporary Israel-Hamas ceasefire that saw Palestinian prisoners released in exchange for Israeli hostages. However, Shaheen’s name no longer appears on the list of speakers on the conference’s website.
US-based speakers also have extremist associations. Hatem Bazian, for example, co-founded Students for Justice in Palestine, a group that has become notorious for intimidating Jews on university campuses, as well as American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), a nonprofit he now chairs which has sponsored a series of anti-Israel protests following Hamas’s Oct. 7 terrorist attacks. Bazian works as a senior lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley. On Tuesday, The Algemeiner reported on recent comments by Bazian in which he accused Jews of exploiting antisemitism to make money and claimed that Israel wants to conquer most of the Middle East, including Mecca and Medina, the holiest sites in Islam.
The event will also host Mahmoud Khalil, one of the leaders of the anti-Israel encampment movement at Columbia University. Khalil rose to national prominence after US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained him in March for what the Department of Homeland Security alleged to be leading “activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.” Khalil, who became a permanent US resident last year, was released from detention in June when a federal judge ordered his release. The activist also drew scrutiny last month after he refused to condemn Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities during a CNN interview.
Since returning to the White House earlier this year, the Trump administration has launched an overhaul of the US visa system, part of what officials describe as an effort to root out individuals sympathetic to terrorism or those espousing antisemitic views. The sweeping measures include expanded social media vetting for new applicants, continuous monitoring of the 55 million current visa holders, and the revocation of thousands of student visas.
Panels at this week’s conference in Detroit will touch on subjects such as US military aid, legal accountability, and grassroots organizing, all presented through an anti-Israel lens, according to the event website.