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On Iran, Israel’s Policy of Nuclear Ambiguity Is Outdated and Dangerous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
From Ashes to Action: Three Lessons From California’s Wildfires
Flames rise from a structure as the Palisades fire burns during a windstorm on the west side of Los Angeles, California, US, Jan. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ringo Chiu
The harrowing images of California’s wildfires have shaken us to our core. Fields, mountains, and residential areas are still burning with raging fires; homes and businesses have been reduced to dust and ashes; and the sky is darkened by heavy smoke and pollution.
“Sometimes, G-d is beyond understanding,” my beloved mentor, Rabbi Adin Even-Israel, once shared with me. Indeed, our finite, human minds will never fully comprehend the infinite G-d. Still, our hearts are shattered with pain.
Yet, within every tragedy, even the most unfathomable ones, there is a lesson to be drawn. And while we cannot reason and understand, we can — and must — learn and respond. So, here are three humble thoughts:
1. Are Fires Good or Bad?
As the California wildfires have demonstrated, fire can bring havoc and destruction to individuals and communities alike. But fires, such as bonfires and fireplaces in homes, can also bring warmth and comfort.
This also applies to the spiritual fires within ourselves. Sadly, some people spread flames of destruction with the gossip they spread, with the resentment and animosity they inflame, and with the negativity they spew. They forget that deep within lies a soul, a candle of G-d (see Proverbs 20:27), that yearns to shine and light up our world with goodness and kindness.
The choice is ours. Light a fire of hatred — with negative words and actions — and you will have engulfed our world with darkness and devastation. Ignite a fire of unconditional love — with positive words and actions — and you will have repaired our world with grace and a Divine light.
To paraphrase the words of our prayer: “Console us, O L-rd … My heart grieves for those killed; I am in anguish, I am in anguish for those killed. For You, O L-rd, consumed it with our fire (of hatred), and with our fire (of love) You will rebuild it…”
2. The Only Certainty Within Certainty
Amid the chaos, a powerful reminder emerges: What we may perceive as “certain” — our homes and our physical possessions — are all, in reality, temporary and fleeting.
After all, no one has ever taken their material wealth upon leaving this world. Indeed, after all is said and done, the only true “certainty” that will forever remain is the love that we have given, the kindness that we have shown, the wisdom that we have imparted, and the faith and dedication that we demonstrated in G-d and in fulfilling His everlasting teachings.
What about the rest? Well, everything that came from ashes, will eventually return to ashes (Genesis 3:19). In the words of my beloved Rabbi, Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz of blessed memory: “In the end, we will only own not what we took, but what we gave…”
3. “The House Is On Fire, And Our Children Are Inside”
My beloved Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of blessed memory, repeatedly shared these stirring words with profound urgency and deep pain. The Rebbe was referring to the rampant flames of immorality, lawlessness, and corruption that constantly threaten our world, while our children are trapped within it. Tragically, only a few seem truly moved to take action.
And so he implored us, time and time again, to rise, to roll up our sleeves, to enter the fray, and to rescue our young ones, and reconnect them with their holy souls, their rich heritage, and their Divine morals and values.
As we continue to watch thousands of people evacuating their homes and running to safety, let us do everything in our power to help them and all of our world’s children, physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
To help the thousands affected by the California wildfires, give generously to the wildfire rescue funds, and shake the heavens with your prayers.
To help the millions affected by our world’s wildfires of moral erosion, activate your soul, roll up your sleeves, and lift up a downtrodden spirit, heal a broken relationship, do a Mitzvah, invite people to your home for Shabbat dinners or a weekday lunch, visit the sick, listen to an aching heart, serve your community, and greet everyone with a smile. Make a positive impact in every place, at every moment, and with every interaction.
Our world, and its children of all ages, are waiting for you.
Rabbi Pinchas Allouche is the founding Rabbi of Congregation Beth Tefillah and the founding Dean of Nishmat Adin Hihh School in Scottsdale, Arizona.
The post From Ashes to Action: Three Lessons From California’s Wildfires first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Australia’s Decision to Cancel Hockey Tournament Shows Depth of Jew-Hatred in Country
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese speaks during a press conference at the Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, June 17, 2024. Photo: Lukas Coch/Pool via REUTERS
On January 7, in a stunning move that reflects a troubling global trend, Ice Hockey Australia canceled its plans to host a key international tournament — allegedly to “protect”‘ the Israeli national team from pro-Palestinian activists.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the cancellation was “unfortunate,” but offered little more than a dismissive comment about the sport’s limited popularity in Australia, while insisting that the Australian government has taken sufficient action to protect its Jewish population.
This meaningless, almost dismissive, statement by the Prime Minister demonstrates just how out of touch he and his Australian Labor government are when it comes to dealing with the scourge of antisemitism currently plaguing Australia.
By contrast, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has been stronger, rightly calling antisemitism “a national disgrace.”
The tournament’s cancellation highlights the broader failure of many Western governments, including Australia, to confront the surge of antisemitism that followed Hamas’ October 7 terror war.
On October 9, 2023, just two days after the attack, the Sydney Opera House was lit up in blue and white to show solidarity with Israel. Yet it was the deeply distressed Jewish community that was warned to stay away for their own safety — as violent anti-Israel protestors brazenly showed up burning Israeli flags and shouting antisemitic slogans.
The anti-Israel mob was also empowered by the police to take over the downtown area.
This set a terrible precedent. Since then, the Australian Jewish community has been under severe stress — with little confidence in federal and state governments or law enforcement agencies to protect them, and with good reason.
A report released late last year showed that between October 2023 and September 2024, there was a staggering 316% increase in antisemitic incidents reported in Australia for the previous period.
These figures don’t even include the fire bombing of the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne last month, or numerous recent cases of property damage in Sydney, including one from just a couple of days ago in which the words, “F**K the Jews,” was scrawled in bold black letters across a white car.
Other notable acts of appeasement and capitulation to hate since the October 7 massacre have been numerous.
In March, 2024, a world-renowned Israeli trauma expert was axed from a medical conference to be held in Australia, after organizers received threats from pro-Hamas agitators. Like the Ice Hockey Federation, the conference organizers were quick to concede to the antisemitic demands of these agitators in the name of “security.”
Most recently, the World Bowls Tour, an association for lawn bowling, banned Israelis from participating in international events due to “much pressure.” Appropriately, that blatantly discriminatory ban was revoked a short time later after “significant additional security measures” had ostensibly been put in place — though an international outcry also likely played a part.
This is not about lawn bowling, ice hockey, or medical conferences. It’s about a systematic campaign to intimidate and harass Israelis and Jews from participating in any international and public events.
This is a deliberate campaign to ostracise Jews from society and delegitimise Israel as a nation state — and it started long before the October 7 attacks.
For many years, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS), along with other international organizations, such as elements of the United Nations, have laid the groundwork for today’s antisemitic rhetoric. They have campaigned to exclude Israel from international events, accusing it of being a rogue state with no right to exist, and falsely labelling it “apartheid” or “colonialist,” or insisting that it is guilty of “ethnic cleansing.”
The October 7 attacks incentivized the haters to carry on this campaign by utilizing the undoubted suffering of Gaza — even though the war was one that Hamas initiated. Their slanderous claims of Israel committing “genocide” have often been amplified by the dedicated Israel-haters in the UN and the international media.
These intimidation tactics have succeeded in impacting the personal safety of Jews in Australia and across the world.
Earlier this year, Australian pro-Hamas activist Laura Allam was arrested for kidnapping and torturing a man, reportedly because he worked at a Jewish-owned business. A synagogue was firebombed with worshippers in the building.
As Israel’s ambassador to Australia ,Amir Maimon, correctly said, “By yielding to extremists and intimidation, you are proving that such tactics succeed.”
Governments need to recognize that appeasement only emboldens extremists, and sporting and other boycotts directed against Jews and Israelis are not free speech or political protest, but efforts to impose blatant ethnic discrimination as part of a global antisemitic movement.
Only a firm stand against these actions can ensure Jewish communities in Australia and around the world feel safe, supported, and protected.
Justin Amler is a policy analyst at the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC).
The post Australia’s Decision to Cancel Hockey Tournament Shows Depth of Jew-Hatred in Country first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The Middle East in 2025: The Beginning of a New Era — or a Year of More Chaos
Lebanon’s army chief Joseph Aoun walks after being elected as the country’s president at the parliament building in Beirut, Lebanon, Jan. 9, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
Following Hamas’ barbaric invasion on October 7, 2023, events initially seemed confined to yet another localized confrontation between Israel and the Gaza Strip. However, developments across the Middle East since then have proven otherwise.
Rapid political and military shifts are propelling regional actors into a whirlwind of change. In an era shaped by foreign interventions, demographic and cultural shifts, and the influence of social media, the Middle East is transforming before our eyes, presenting challenges that lead to a range of possibilities — many of which remain unclear.
Israel’s response to the October 2023 events, culminating in the elimination of much of Hamas’ leadership, extended beyond Gaza’s borders. Lebanon, under Hezbollah’s control, was drawn into the chaos. The targeted killing of Hassan Nasrallah in Operation “New Order” created a leadership vacuum, possibly setting the stage for Lebanon to reinvent itself. The election of Joseph Khalil Aoun, a Maronite Christian, as Lebanon’s new president, represents an effort to prevent the nation’s collapse, restore stability, and reinforce Western influence.
Yet Lebanon’s internal issues, coupled with resistance from extremist factions like Hezbollah, cast doubt on whether Aoun can restore balance to a country that has been deeply fractured for more than 50 years.
Meanwhile, Syria’s crisis deepened following the flight of Bashar al-Assad, a president whose long, bloody civil war shattered his country.
Despite his name –“The Lion” — Assad ultimately revealed himself as fearful in the face of external and internal threats.
The emergence of Abu Muhammad al-Julani, former leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, as Syria’s leader sparks both hope and concern, as the new regime is associated with extremist Islam. And Russia’s retreat in Syria, due to being bogged down in the Ukrainian quagmire, has significantly boosted Turkey’s influence.
Ankara is steadily becoming Syria’s new patron, following the decline of Iranian dominance, aligning with Erdogan’s ambitions to resurrect the glory of the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, Turkey’s control over northern Syrian territories and Israel’s incursions into southern Syria illustrate the shifting regional power map. The central question is how Syria’s new leadership will tackle these challenges, maintain internal stability, and strengthen its position in the region.
Not far away, Yemen continues to be the battleground for a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with the Iran-backed Houthis launching missiles and drones at Saudi targets. Joint Israeli-American strikes, supported by Saudi Arabia, against Houthi military infrastructure have raised the question of whether Iran’s influence in Yemen will wane or persist as a threat.
In this context, while military shifts introduce new challenges, it remains unclear whether they will lead to long-term stability or exacerbate the conflict.
The situations in Egypt and Jordan are fundamentally different, yet similarly characterized by internal pressures. Egypt, under Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, continues to suppress opposition, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. However, the ongoing economic crisis threatens to undermine the country’s stability. The economic crisis is not just a domestic issue but a regional and global one, as Cairo struggles to secure Western support, particularly through large-scale development and investment projects. Jordan, considered relatively stable in the Middle East, faces mounting internal pressures while striving to maintain economic and security stability. The Hashemite monarchy’s position may come under renewed scrutiny this year, especially as tensions grow between local and global interests.
What is clear is that the Middle East is undergoing a dramatic transformation, with military and political events intertwining with social and economic developments. Social media, which has rapidly proliferated, plays a decisive role in shaping public opinion both locally and globally. The flood of information and growing criticism on these platforms directly influence governmental actions and public sentiment.
Against this backdrop, it is difficult to predict whether the region is on the brink of a stable new era, or whether more regimes will collapse or undergo significant change. A key question remains how Israel, as a central and influential power in the region, will shape the Middle East’s near future. It is evident that Israel’s governmental decisions — whether economic, judicial, or political — will continue to significantly impact the trajectories of neighboring states and the directions their leaders choose to pursue.
Itamar Tzur is an Israeli scholar and Middle East expert who holds a Bachelor’s degree with honors in Jewish History and a Master’s degree with honors in Middle Eastern Studies. As a senior member of the “Forum Kedem for Middle Eastern Studies and Public Diplomacy”. Tzur leverages his academic expertise to enhance understanding of regional dynamics and historical contexts within the Middle East.
The post The Middle East in 2025: The Beginning of a New Era — or a Year of More Chaos first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login