RSS
As Threats Rise, Israel Must Get Rid of Its Nuclear Ambiguity
Listening to Iran’s repeated threats to initiate aggressive war with Israel, something seems to have been overlooked: Israel is a nuclear power; Iran is not. Iran is hardly in a credible strategic position to make such threats. After all, any actual follow-through on these arguably incoherent threats could produce potentially unendurable Iranian losses.
What is going on here? Why such an ironic disconnect between relative national power capacities and the country issuing existential threats? It seems that in any direct and protracted war with Iran, only Israel would be in a position of “escalation dominance.”
The factor that could substantially change such Israeli superiority would be direct North Korean military involvement. This is because Iran’s belligerent ally in Pyongyang is “already nuclear,” and because Israel is a “fifty target state.” In short, Israel is a geographically small adversary with no meaningful strategic depth. Absent a recognizable nuclear advantage, this is anything but an enviable survival position for an imperiled nation.
The remedy, for Israel, should be an immediate policy shift from “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” (Amimut in Hebrew) to “selective nuclear disclosure.
For decision-makers in Jerusalem, a core commitment of national strategic policy has always been to keep last-resort nuclear assets (aka “The Bomb”) shrouded in the “basement.” Until now, at least, nuclear ambiguity (sometimes called “opacity”) has managed to work. Though this success has seemingly done little to deter ordinary conventional aggressions or criminal acts of terror, it has succeeded in keeping the country’s enemies from launching any conceivable existential aggressions.
How should Israel accurately assess pertinent state and sub-state perils? In all such critical security matters, Israel has no science-based methods to determine useful probabilities. In science, such judgments must stem from the determinable frequency of relevant past events.
There are associated legal issues. Choosing the nuclear option as a last resort would not necessarily be a violation of international law. Among other things, this is because of an International Court of Justice (IJC) Advisory Opinion issued on July 8, 1996. This landmark ICJ ruling concluded that while “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict….,” this finding might not obtain “in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.”
Nonetheless, the most urgent considerations in any such impending narratives would be broadly operational, not narrowly jurisprudential. In more expressly military nuclear matters, any national security strategy based upon whispered or sotto voce threats would have conspicuous limits. Israel’s longstanding policy of deliberate nuclear ambiguity may not remain persuasive. To be reliably deterred, an Iranian nuclear adversary would require readily verifiable assurances that Israel’s nuclear weapons were effectively (1) invulnerable and (2) “penetration-capable.” This second expectation means that Israel’s nuclear weapons would not only be well-protected from adversarial first-strikes, but would also be able to “get through” Iran’s active defenses.
There is more. Any adversary’s judgments concerning Israel’s willingness to retaliate with nuclear weapons would depend in good measure upon useable foreknowledge of these weapons as well as their presumptive operational capabilities. There would also be some clarifying ironies.
Looking ahead, Iranian perceptions of only mega-destructive, high-yield Israeli nuclear weapons could effectively undermine the credibility of Israel’s nuclear deterrence. Expressed formally, in making such calculations, Israel’s strategic deterrence could sometime vary inversely with the perceived destructiveness of its nuclear arms. While seemingly counter-intuitive, this argument suggests not only that Israel should have available a wide range of nuclear retaliatory options, but also that it should take properly refined steps to ensure that such an expansive range of options be instantly recognizable.
In the future, if Iran should decide to share some of its offensive nuclear assets with a surrogate jihadist terrorist group (e.g., Hezbollah, Hamas, or the Houthis), Jerusalem would need to have prepared for the nuclear deterrence of assorted non-state adversaries. In all such scenarios, what will first need to be calculated, among other things, is the precise extent of subtlety with which Israel should be communicating its nuclear positions, intentions, and capabilities to Iran and various other categories of possible adversaries.
A refined doctrine is necessarily antecedent to any sound nuclear strategy. The core rationale for Israeli nuclear disclosure would inhere in the basic and immutable understanding that nuclear weapons can serve Israel’s security in several specific ways. Once it is faced with a nuclear fait accompli in Tehran or elsewhere, Israel would need to convince its then-relevant enemy or enemies that it possessed both the will and the capacity to make any intended adversarial nuclear aggression more harmful than gainful. By definition, however, no Israeli move from ambiguity to disclosure could help in the unprecedented case of an irrational nuclear enemy.
To protect itself against enemy military strikes, particularly those attacks that could potentially carry authentic existential costs, Israel should quickly and correctly exploit every aspect and function of its still opaque nuclear arsenal. In this connection, the success of Israel’s efforts will depend not only upon its carefully selected configuration of “counterforce” and “counter value” operations, but also on the extent to which this critical choice was made known in advance to Iran and certain Iranian sub-state/terrorist surrogates. The point of any shift from deliberate nuclear ambiguity to selective nuclear disclosure would be to signal that Israel’s “bomb” (1) is safely beyond any preemptive enemy reach; and (2) is calibrated to variously credible levels of enemy aggression.
In essence, removing the bomb from Israel’s basement could enhance the imperiled nation’s strategic deterrence only to the extent that it would heighten enemy perceptions of secure and capable Israeli nuclear forces. Any calculated end to deliberate nuclear ambiguity could also underscore Israel’s presumptive willingness to use its nuclear forces in sudden or incremental reprisal for enemy first-strike and/or retaliatory attacks.
In the final analysis, any Israeli shift from deliberate nuclear ambiguity to selective nuclear disclosure would need to convince Iran of Jerusalem’s ultimate willingness to use nuclear forces against a non-nuclear adversary with exterminatory intentions and capacities.
Though generally misunderstood and inexpertly discussed, a “Samson Option” could gainfully support this obligatory task of Israeli strategic dissuasion. An explicitly-revealed Samson Option would multiply and magnify the survival benefits of selective nuclear disclosure not by threatening gratuitous Israeli spasms of revenge-based harms, but by reminding Iran that Israel’s nuclear force calibrations would be operational even at the 11th-hour.
There is more. In assessing its optimal levels of deliberate nuclear disclosure, Israel should continuously bear in mind the country’s overriding strategic nuclear objective: This goal is deterrence ex ante, not revenge ex post.
If, however, nuclear weapons should somehow be introduced into an impending conflict with Iran (most plausibly, via military participation of North Korea), one form or other of nuclear war fighting could ensue. This conclusion would be unassailable so long as: (a) enemy state first strike attacks against Israel would not destroy the Jewish State’s second-strike nuclear capability; (b) enemy state retaliations for Israeli conventional preemption would not destroy Israel’s nuclear counter-retaliatory capability; (c) Israeli strikes would not destroy enemy state second-strike nuclear capabilities; and (d) Israeli retaliations for enemy state conventional first strikes would not destroy enemy state nuclear counter-retaliatory capacities. This means that Israel should promptly take appropriately steps to ensure the likelihood of (a) and (b), above, and the reciprocal unlikelihood of (c) and (d).
If for any reason Iranian nuclear deployments were permitted to take place, Israel could forfeit any non-nuclear preemption options. At that stage, Jerusalem’s only remaining alternatives to exercising a nuclear preemption option would be: (1) a no-longer viable conventional preemption; or (2) a decision to do nothing preemptively, thereby choosing to existentially rely upon some form or other of nuclear deterrence and the corollary protections of ballistic missile defense. Ipso facto, any prior decisions having to do with tangible shifts to “selective nuclear disclosure” and also a “Samson Option” would be all important.
For Israel, the time to end its traditional policy of “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” is now. The intellectually lazy argument that it has worked thus far and would therefore work in the future is a classic example of logical fallacy at its worst.
Left unrevised by a more carefully calculated and prudent Israeli nuclear policy, such fallacious reasoning could produce largely unimaginable levels of human harm. As all humans are ultimately creatures of biology, it could even bring millions into the predatory embrace of a “final epidemic.”
Louis René Beres was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is the author of many books, monographs, and scholarly articles dealing with military nuclear strategy. In Israel, he was Chair of Project Daniel. Over recent years, he has published on nuclear warfare issues in Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School); Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs; and more.
The post As Threats Rise, Israel Must Get Rid of Its Nuclear Ambiguity first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Argentina Busts Terror Cell Plotting Attacks on Jewish Community
Illustrative. The aftermath of the bombing of the AMIA building in Buenos Aires on July 18, 1994. Photo: File.
JNS.org – Argentine police have dismantled an “Islamist terrorist organization” planning attacks on the Jewish community in the city of Mendoza, the country’s National Security Ministry announced on Friday.
Seven members of the cell were arrested during raids against their homes that resulted in the seizure of firearms, knives and electronic devices, according to the ministry.
The cell had been disseminating attack plans along with content from terror groups such as Islamic State and the Taliban, added the ministry.
Argentine Security Minister Patricia Bullrich said the cell was uncovered after one of the members threatened a Jewish journalist from the local community.
“We are going to get rid of each and every one of these criminals who intend to sow fear in Argentines and they will pay,” Bullrich posted to social media.
7 TERRORISTAS ¡AFUERA!
Planeaban atentados en Mendoza. En 8 allanamientos la PFA desmanteló una peligrosa organización vinculada a un grupo terrorista radical islámico, identificado tras amenazar a un periodista de la comunidad judía. Esta organización usaba las redes para… pic.twitter.com/f0NMhBxwGA
— Patricia Bullrich (@PatoBullrich) August 16, 2024
In January, Argentine police arrested two Syrian and one Lebanese man for plotting to carry out a terrorist attack. The three men, who had arrived separately in the country, were apprehended in Buenos Aires and in the adjacent suburb of Avellaneda.
A 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires blamed on Hezbollah killed 85 people and wounded more than 300 others. Last year, an Argentine federal judge called on Interpol to arrest four Lebanese men believed to be connected to the bombing.
An earlier attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992 also attributed to Iranian-backed Hezbollah killed 29 people and wounded 242 others.
In July, Argentina designated Hamas an “international terrorist organization” following the Palestinian group’s Oct. 7 massacre of 1,200 Israelis.
“The Hamas group has been declared by the Argentine state as an international terrorist organization,” President Javier Milei said, citing “an extensive record of terrorist attacks on their behalf.”
Buenos Aires “has an unwavering commitment to recognize terrorists for what they are,” read the statement by Argentina’s President Javier Milei’s office, adding that “it’s the first time that there is a political will to do so. “Argentina must once again align itself with Western civilization,” the statement continued.
In February, Milei made a wartime visit to Israel, signaling a major shift in Argentina’s foreign policy toward the United States and Israel after decades of backing Arab countries.
The post Argentina Busts Terror Cell Plotting Attacks on Jewish Community first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Jewish NGOs to Host Sideline Events at Democratic National Convention
US Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and her running mate Minnesota Governor Tim Walz hold a campaign event in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, US, Aug. 7, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Mohatt
JNS.org – While presidential nominee Kamala Harris and running mate Tim Walz take hits from both right and left for their stances on Israel, the Democratic National Convention will feature a number of events tied to the American Jewish community.
The convention, which runs Monday through Thursday in Chicago, is expected to highlight divisions within the party on the issues of Israel and antisemitism.
Some analysts suggest as many as 100,000 protesters—many of whom support Hamas and have links to terrorist groups—will descend on the Windy City to disrupt the event in an effort to push Harris towards forcing a ceasefire in Israel’s war against Hamas, and to threaten to withhold their votes in November’s election if she doesn’t back an arms embargo on Jerusalem.
The so-called Uncommitted movement, which lodged protest votes in droves for no candidate in the Democratic presidential primaries in Palestinian, Arab and Muslim-heavy states such as Michigan and Walz’s domain of Minnesota, garnered 30 delegates, and various media reports state that Democratic insiders are fearful of a show of dissent to Harris’s Israel policies on the convention floor itself.
Harris reportedly told leaders of the Uncommitted movement recently that she was open to discussing with them an arms embargo, though her office and campaign rejected that interpretation.
Walz, meanwhile, is coming under increasing fire for exposed close ties to radical anti-Israel figures, including Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Imam Asad Zaman, also from Minnesota, who praised Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre.
The Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA), which is led by Halie Soifer, Harris’s former national security adviser, will hold a series of events on the DNC sidelines throughout the week. A number of members of Congress are scheduled to participate in panel discussions, including Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides will also participate, as will Wesley Bell, a St. Louis prosecutor who upended anti-Israel Squad member Rep. Cori Bush in this month’s Democratic congressional primary.
The American Jewish Committee, headed by former Rep. Ted Deutch, will also sponsor several events in Chicago. Those include a panel discussion featuring Nides, and another talk by a pair of Biden administration officials.
The Israeli-American Council, which has yet to be approved for a counter-protest permit by the city of Chicago, will host a Hostage Square display on Tuesday in an effort to draw attention to the condition of the remaining captives held in Gaza.
The public display, pieced together by a half-dozen Israeli artists, is being held on a private lot in the shadow of the United Center—the convention’s host arena—and therefore does not require a permit.
In contrast to last month’s Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, which highlighted the party’s relationship with Israel and featured a number of speakers discussing the state of antisemitism, the Democrats have not announced any focus on Israel for Chicago.
Doug Emhoff, Harris’s Jewish husband, is set to keynote on Tuesday. Republican nominee Donald Trump recently denigrated Emhoff’s Jewishness, calling him a “crappy Jew,” while critiquing American Jews who vote Democratic.
The Republican Jewish Coalition has issued a “Praise Israel” challenge, saying it would donate 1,800 trees to the Jewish state in honor of anyone who would address the Democratic convention from the main stage and ask the crowd to cheer for Israel.
The post Jewish NGOs to Host Sideline Events at Democratic National Convention first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Warns US Jews in Most Danger Since Holocaust
Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump raises his fist from the stage on Day 4 of the Republican National Convention (RNC), at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US, July 18, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Andrew Kelly
JNS.org – Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said on Saturday that Jews in the United States are facing their greatest threat since World War II.
“What’s happening with Israel and Jewish people, there has never been a more dangerous time since the Holocaust if you happen to be Jewish in America,” the former president told supporters at a rally in Wilkes-Barre in northeastern Pennsylvania.
He made similar remarks on Thursday at a “Fighting Antisemitism” event with Miriam Adelson at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey.
“What’s going on now is exactly what was going on before the Holocaust,” he said.
The New Jersey event, featuring prominent Jewish supporters, took place the day the Trump campaign launched an initiative to reach out to Jewish voters.
The former president announced Jewish Voices for Trump, which the GOP campaign describes as “a coalition of thought leaders, business trailblazers, former administration officials, authors, influencers and those within the Jewish community.”
According to the group’s mission statement, it seeks to stand up against “radical antisemitism.”
“While the world has fallen into chaos with [presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala] Harris, President Trump’s Abraham Accords chartered new territory in regional stability, not just for Israel, but for the world,” it states.
At the Wilkes-Barre rally, Trump also accused his opponent of not choosing the governor of the Keystone State, Josh Shapiro, as her running mate because he is Jewish, a charge that Shapiro has denied.
“They turned him down because he’s Jewish,” said Trump. “They turned him down for other reasons, but the primary reason is because he’s Jewish.”
Trump also said during his nearly two-hour campaign event at Mohegan Arena at Casey Plaza that “any Jewish person that votes for [Harris] or a Democrat has to go out and have their head examined.”
At the New Jersey event, Trump claimed that “instead of aggressively confronting these venomous antisemites in her party, Kamala Harris has maneuvered for their support.”
Pennsylvania is a critical swing state, with fierce competition to secure its 19 electoral college votes. The latest New York Times/Siena and Quinnipiac polls show a slight lead for Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who was announced in Philadelphia earlier this month.
Trump tapped Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance for the vice presidential nominee at the Republican convention in Milwaukee last month. The Democratic convention takes place in Chicago from Monday to Thursday.
The battleground states also include Arizona, North Carolina, Nevada and Georgia.
Trump’s comments come amid a surge in antisemitism in the United States and globally after Hamas started a war against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. According to the 2023 Antisemitism Worldwide report, released on May 1 by Tel Aviv University and the Anti-Defamation League, last year saw the highest number of antisemitic incidents in the United States ever recorded by the ADL.
Antisemitism has run rampant on college campuses, including pro-Hamas rallies featuring calls for genocide against Jews.
In the United States, the ADL recorded 7,523 incidents in 2023 compared to 3,697 in 2022. The number of assaults increased from 111 in 2022 to 161 in 2023, and incidents of vandalism rose from 1,288 to 2,106, per the ADL.
In New York, the city with the largest Jewish population in the world, the New York Police Department recorded 325 anti-Jewish hate crimes in 2023 in comparison to 261 in 2022.
In Los Angeles, the city’s police department recorded 165 antisemitic incidents, up from 86, and in Chicago, there were 50 up from 39.
The post Trump Warns US Jews in Most Danger Since Holocaust first appeared on Algemeiner.com.