RSS
Could a Nuclear War with Iran Really Happen?
Military personnel stand guard at a nuclear facility in the Zardanjan area of Isfahan, Iran, April 19, 2024. Photo: West Asia News Agency via REUTERS
For the moment, as Iran remains “pre-nuclear,” an Israel-Iran nuclear exchange is out of the question. Nonetheless, if Israel is able to maintain its asymmetrical nuclear advantage, a one-sided nuclear war would still be possible. Circumstances could sometime arise in which Israel felt compelled to launch parts of its “ambiguous” nuclear arsenal against Iran. The most plausible rationale of any such launch would be to (1) prevent Iranian “escalation dominance;” and (2) keep Iran from “becoming nuclear.”
In offering suitable explanations, recent history will show that during April 2024, Israel and Iran engaged in a brief but direct interstate conflict. Looking ahead, it would be reasonable to expect additional rounds of direct warfare between these two bitter adversaries. Conflict durations could be much longer and more protracted. It follows that Israel would be under expanding pressures to dominate escalation during periods of hyper-warfare with Iran and that such potentially existential pressures could precipitate an Israeli resort to nuclear weapons use.
Above all else, Israel’s strategic objective vis-à-vis Iran should be nuclear war avoidance. In a near worst-case scenario, Israel could calculate that nothing short of massive non-nuclear preemption would halt Tehran’s ongoing nuclearization.
An Israeli nuclear preemption is inconceivable. But even if Israel’s determination to launch a non-nuclear preemption were analytically correct and law-enforcing, its tangible results could still be catastrophic.
What should now be done by Jerusalem? How should principal Israeli decision-makers balance these dissuasive results against all calculable risks and benefits?
A best answer should be drawn from conceptual and theoretical fundamentals. Israeli strategists should always examine their country’s available security options as an intellectual rather than political task.
There will be pertinent details, both conspicuous and inconspicuous. Any tactically successful conventional preemption against Iranian weapons and infrastructures could come at more-or-less unacceptable costs. In 2003-2004, when this writer’s Project Daniel Group presented an early report on Iranian nuclearization to then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, prospective Iranian targets were already more directly threatening to Israel than Iraq’s nuclear Osirak reactor had been on June 7, 1981. That was the date of Israel’s law-based preemption, an operation code-named “Opera.”
To the extent that they could be estimated accurately, the risks of an Israel-Iran nuclear war would ultimately depend on whether the conflict was intentional, unintentional, or accidental. Apart from applying this critical three-part distinction, there would be no good reason to expect optimally useful strategic assessments from Tel Aviv (MOD/IDF).
Once applied, however, Israeli planners should fully understand that their complex subject is without any clarifying precedents, and that this absence would present an insurmountable prediction problem.
It will also be obligatory for Israeli strategists and war planners to bear in mind the timeless warnings of Prussian thinker Karl von Clausewitz on the role of “friction.” At its core, friction represents “the difference between war on paper and war as it actually is.”
Peremptory rules of logic and mathematics preclude any meaningful assignments of probability in matters that are unprecedented or sui generis. To come up with any logically-meaningful estimations of probability, these predictions would have to be based upon the determinable frequency of relevant past events. As there have been no occasions of an interstate nuclear exchange, there could be no relevant past events.
Competent Israeli strategic analysts must examine all current and future nuclear risks from Iran. Such a comprehensive examination should take special note of Iran’s radiation dispersal weapons and its potential capacity to attack Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor with non-nuclear missiles. Also worth emphasizing is that North Korea, bolstered by Russia and China, has been a clamorous ally of Iran, and could sometime allow its national nuclear forces to serve as Iranian proxies during a protracted war with Israel.
If any Israeli planners should assume that a “Trump II” presidency could help in such unpredictable scenarios, they ought first to recall Trump’s ambiguous summarizing message after the Singapore Summit: “We [Trump and Kim] fell in love.”
Following their Singapore meeting, Trump and Kim each seemed to assume the other’s decisional rationality and also the mutual primacy of decisional intent. If such an assumption had not existed, it would have made no logical sense for either president to strike existential retaliatory fear in the other. But what are the derivative lessons of “Singapore” for Israel vis-à-vis Iran? Should Israel also assume a fully rational adversary in Iran? Though any such assumption would be more or less reassuring in Jerusalem’s decision-making circles, it could also be incorrect.
On several occasions during his presidential tenure, Donald Trump praised pretended irrationality as a potentially promising US nuclear strategy. But such a strategic preference could never be purposeful for Israel. This is the case despite Moshe Dayan’s much earlier musing about Israel and its enemies: “Israel must be seen as a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.”
Though neither Israel nor Iran might prefer conditions of a steadily escalating war, either or both “players” could still commit catastrophic errors during their obligatory searches for “escalation dominance.” If Jerusalem and Tehran undertake competitive risk-taking in extremis, Israel’s only reliable “ace in the hole” will be its continuing nuclear monopoly.
An unintentional or inadvertent nuclear war between Israel and Iran could take place not only as the result of misunderstandings or miscalculations between rational leaders, but also as the unintended consequence of mechanical, electrical, or computer malfunction. This includes hacking interference and should bring to mind corollary distinctions between unintentional or inadvertent nuclear war and an accidental nuclear war.
Though all accidental nuclear war would be unintentional, not every unintentional nuclear war would be caused by accident. An unintentional or inadvertent nuclear war could sometime be the result of certain misjudgments about enemy intentions.
“In war,” says Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz famously in On War, “everything is simple, but the simplest thing is difficult.” Fashioning a successful “endgame” to any impending future nuclear confrontation with Iran, Israel’s leaders will need to understand that a crisis in extremis is inevitably about more than maximizing any “correlation of forces” or “missile-interception” capabilities. It will be about variously antecedent Israeli triumphs of “mind over mind.”
As a nuclear war has never been fought, what will be needed in Jerusalem is more broadly intellectual guidance than Israel could ever reasonably expect from even its most senior and capable military officers.
The reason is simple.
There are no plausible experts on fighting an unprecedented kind of war, not in Jerusalem, not in Tehran, not anywhere. It was not by happenstance that the first serious theoreticians of nuclear war and nuclear deterrence in the 1950s were academic mathematicians, physicists, and political scientists. Having to deal with matters that lacked usable historic or empirical data, these thinkers were forced to rely essentially on deductive logic, deriving their essential strategic theories from meticulously assembled abstractions.
There remains one final point about still-estimable risks of an Israel-Iran nuclear war. From the standpoint of Jerusalem, the only truly successful outcome would be a crisis or confrontation that ends with a reduction of Iranian nuclear war fighting intentions and capabilities. It would represent a serious mistake for Israel to settle for any bloated boasts of “victory” based upon a one-time avoidance of nuclear war. In this geo-strategic conflict with Iran, potentially existential dangers to Israel are foreseeably continuous.
The Israel-Iran strategic conflict is self-propelling. For Jerusalem, providing Israeli national security vis-à-vis a steadily-nuclearizing Iran ought never to become an ad hoc or “seat-of-the-pants” struggle. Without any suitably long-term plan in place for avoiding an atomic war, a nuclear conflict that is deliberate, unintentional or accidental could “sometimes happen.”
At every stage of its corrosive competition with Tehran, Israel should avoid losing sight of the only rational use for its presumptive nuclear weapons and doctrine. That limited use is to maintain Israeli “escalation dominance” during military crisis and to prevent an operationally usable Iranian nuclear force. More generally, nuclear weapons can succeed only as instruments of strategic deterrence and nuclear war avoidance. By reasonable definition, any actual use of a state’s nuclear weapons would “automatically” signify their failure. Israel ought to view ongoing “asymmetrical” conflict with Iran as the preferred context for preventing Iranian nuclear weapons.
There is something else. In the absence of such conflict, an already nuclear Israel could still exercise a preemption option against a pre-nuclear Iran, but only as a “bolt-from-the-blue” attack. Though this particular sort of action could fulfil all authoritative expectations of “anticipatory self-defense” under international law, it would be vastly more difficult to support in political and public relations terms.
What if Israel and Iran were both “already nuclear”? In such a next-to-worst case scenario, Israel, having failed to act in a timely fashion, could have to strike preemptively against a more menacing adversary. In a worst case scenario, Israel would fail to prevent a nuclear Iran, and Iran would become the first adversary to fire its nuclear weapons. Certain specific Arab states could rush to join the “nuclear club.” In all likelihood, these states — potentially joined by Turkey — would be Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Summarizing all these “strategy of conflict” issues in policy-relevant terms, Israel’s only cost-effective strategy would be to prevent Iranian nuclearization and correlative Arab state nuclearization by dominating escalations during a non-nuclear war or an asymmetrical nuclear war. Ideally, such a strategy would be exercised during the course of an already-ongoing armed conflict, though Israel could, as last resort, plan “bolt-from-the-blue” strikes against Iranian hard targets that are convincingly lawful expressions of national survival options. Under international law, these permissible strikes would be examples of “anticipatory self-defense.”
In the end, we are all creatures of biology. For Israel and Iran, a nuclear war would resemble any other incurable disease. For both, therefore, the only reasonable survival strategies must lie in prevention.
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; The Atlantic; Israel Defense; Jewish Website; The New York Times; Israel National News; The Jerusalem Post; The Hill and other sites. A different version of this article was originally published by Israel National News.
The post Could a Nuclear War with Iran Really Happen? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Australian Nurse Charged for Threatening Israeli Patients as Spy Chief Flags Antisemitism as Top Concern
Members of the Jewish community and supporters gather for a protest rally against rising antisemitism at Martin Place in Sydney, Jan. 21, 2025. Photo: AAP Image/Steven Saphore via Reuters Connect
An Australian nurse working at a hospital in Sydney has been charged with making threats after saying in comments caught on video that she would refuse to treat Israeli patients and instead kill them.
The latest legal step comes amid law enforcement’s scramble to combat a wave of antisemitic incidents in recent months that Australia’s spy chief has called his agency’s top priority.
On Tuesday night, 26-year-old Sarah Abu Lebdeh was arrested and charged with federal offenses, including threatening violence against a group and using a carriage service to threaten, menace, and harass, New South Wales (NSW) Police said in a statement. If convicted, she faces up to 22 years in prison.
The arrest follows an incident at Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital in Sydney, in which Abu Lebdeh and her fellow nurse, Ahmed Rashid Nadir, were seen in an online video posing as doctors and making inflammatory statements during a night-shift discussion with Israeli influencer Max Veifer.
The footage, which circulated widely, showed Lebdeh stating she would refuse to treat an Israeli patient and instead kill them, while Nadir used a throat-slitting gesture and claimed to have already killed many.
“It’s Palestine’s country, not your country, you piece of s—t,” Lebdeh told Veifer.
“One day your time will come, and you will die the most disgusting death,” she added in a sentence riddled with obscenities.
After reviewing patient records, the hospital found no evidence that Lebdeh or Nadir had harmed patients.
NSW’s Health Minister Ryan Park confirmed that both nurses had been suspended and would be permanently barred from employment within the state’s health system.
According to the NSW Police statement, Lebdeh was released on bail and is set to appear in court on March 19. At this time, Nadir has not been charged.
The incident is the latest in a surge of antisemitic acts across Australia since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza in October 2023, with Jewish institutions targeted in arson attacks and businesses defaced.
Law enforcement in Sydney and Melbourne, home to the majority of Australia’s Jewish population, is actively investigating hate crimes, including the recent discovery of a trailer containing explosives and a list of potential Jewish targets.
In a Senate committee hearing on Tuesday, Mike Burgess, the director-general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO), the country’s domestic intelligence agency, said that antisemitism is now the agency’s top priority.
“In terms of threats to life, [antisemitism is] my agency’s number one priority because of the weight of incidents we’re seeing play out in this country,” Burgess told the Senate. “Antisemitism and significant antisemitism acts are prominent in our investigation caseload at this point in time.”
In a recent 2025 threat assessment declassified by ASIO, Burgess warned that the surge in antisemitic attacks across Australia could escalate, as extremists are increasingly self-radicalizing and “choose their own adventure” toward potential terrorist activity.
“Threats transitioned from harassment and intimidation to specific targeting of Jewish communities, places of worship, and prominent figures,” he said. “I am concerned these attacks have not yet plateaued.”
After the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel, several Jewish sites in Australia have been relentlessly targeted with vandalism and even arson.
A recent report from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) found that antisemitism in Australia quadrupled to record levels following the outbreak of the Gaza war, with Australian Jews experiencing more than 2,000 antisemitic incidents between October 2023 and September 2024.
Burgess also described how narratives originally centered on “freeing Palestine” have expanded to include incitements to “kill the Jews.”
During the Senate hearing, Burgess praised the “strong law enforcement responses,” stating that the police “have done exceptionally well.” However, he also addressed criticism over delays in arrests and responses to antisemitic incidents, saying investigations take time and are necessary to fully grasp the problem.
The post Australian Nurse Charged for Threatening Israeli Patients as Spy Chief Flags Antisemitism as Top Concern first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
How an Oscar-Nominated Movie Stirs Up Hatred of Jews
Illustrative: A Palestinian man walks near Israeli military vehicles, during an Israeli raid in Jenin, in the West Bank, August 31, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
I’m currently in Oaxaca, a beautiful city in Southern Mexico known for its cultural festivals and distinctive cuisine.
Last weekend, Oaxaca hosted a film festival. To my surprise, it featured the movie No Other Land playing at a prominent venue in the center of town, in the most prime viewing slot both Friday and Saturday nights.
No Other Land is a documentary about the destruction of a Palestinian village in the West Bank by Israel’s armed forces in order to construct a training ground for tanks. The movie details the struggles of the village’s residents, along with an Israeli ally, to protect their homes. It features village residents frantically removing possessions as houses are destroyed, and children playing amongst the ruins.
I am not in a position to judge the accuracy of this particular movie, but unfortunately there is no question that Israel has at times violated the rights of West Bank residents. However, even if everything the movie depicts is correct, it’s bad for Israelis and Palestinians alike for it to be so widely shown.
Other than the one ally of the village, the movie portrays Israelis as violent land-grabbers who callously bring enormous suffering on the village. There is even a scene where a settler shoots a Palestinian at point blank range. The effect of seeing this will inevitably be to stir up yet more animosity towards Israelis and Jews. Considering the current torrent of antisemitic hatred we now face, anything that encourages more religious, national, or ethnic strife risks further violating the right of Jewish people to live securely, free of discrimination.
For example, in the center of Oaxaca stands the ornate and historic Santo Domingo Church, and Grand Catedral de la Asuncion stands in the central square of Mexico City. In both of these places, visitors are welcome to come view the astonishing architecture, elaborate artwork, and other treasures. I myself visited both sites — and was able to walk freely and safely.
However, on that same visit to Mexico City, I also tried to attend a synagogue on Shabbat morning. When I arrived at a shul in the Polanco neighborhood, I found it surrounded by an imposing fence and barbed wire. Numerous private guards absolutely refused to let me enter. Explaining that I was Jewish and passing through and even speaking Hebrew accomplished nothing. They were under strict orders: No one not known and vetted by the community enters the secure area inside the heavy fence.
And sadly, this is with good reason. We’ve recently seen synagogues attacked around the world and individuals merely appearing to be Jewish singled out for vicious violence. This stark difference between Jewish and Christian houses of worship gives us a simple lesson- Israel and Jews must be humanized and protected, not made the subject of yet more hate.
In his 19th century seminal work on lashon hara, or slanderous speech, the Chafetz Chaim makes clear that derogatory speech, even if it is factually true, falls squarely within the Torah’s prohibition of slander. In fact, he states that slander based on truth may even be worse than falsehoods (Chafetz Chaim negative prohibition 3:2). The reason is that all derogatory speech necessarily increases strife and anger.
Furthermore, this movie depicts a complete conflation between the two-sides. Any Jewish settler who commits an act of violence against a Palestinian civilian is seen as a murderer, and castigated by the Israeli judicial system. In the Palestinian territories, however, anyone who commits an act of violence against a Jew is seen as a heroic Martyr, and is paid a salary for life via the Palestinian Authority’s “pay-for-slay” program.
Of course, one may argue that publicizing violations of Palestinian rights is necessary as part of a constructive effort to right those wrongs. The Chafetz Chaim himself acknowledges that derogatory speech is permitted when needed to stop harm or prevent a loss — such as by giving a warning. But these warnings may not be given out of anger, intent to harm, or desire for revenge.
Maybe in Israel itself this movie could catalyze some change. But here in Mexico, what purpose does it serve? Portraying Israelis as violent, greedy land grabbers will obviously stir up yet more hatred, but how will it help the situation in the Middle East? Sadly, the movie’s creators seem to have shown no regard for the harm it may cause to Jewish communities, aiming to distribute it far and wide — and complaining bitterly that in spite of the film being nominated for an Oscar, major distributors have so far not picked it up.
To work towards a better future, we need to show the complexity of the conflict and humanize both sides. This is even more important in countries far from the Middle East, where audiences generally have less context and information upon which to base their opinions. In its zeal to help West Bank residents, this movie is only stirring up yet more anger that will hurt Jews and harden positions, making peace yet more elusive for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Shlomo Levin is the author of the Human Rights Haggadah, and he writes about legal developments related to human rights issues of interest to the Jewish community. You can find him at https://hrhaggadah.com/.
The post How an Oscar-Nominated Movie Stirs Up Hatred of Jews first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Most Americans Want Hamas Removed From Gaza, Support Strikes Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities, Poll Finds
Pro-Israel rally in Times Square, New York City, US, Oct. 8, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Jeenah Moon
Overwhelming majorities of American voters want Israel to permanently evict Hamas from Gaza, support Israel’s fight against the Palestinian terrorist group, and believe the Jewish state should carry out preemptive military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to a new Harvard CAPS/Harris poll.
The poll — conducted from Feb. 19-20 among registered US voters — found that the vast majority of Americans support Israel and hope the Jewish state succeeds in its defensive military operations against Hamas. The data undermines the notion that Israel’s war against Hamas has weakened its popularity among the American people.
A striking 78 percent of Americans believe Hamas should be permanently removed from the Gaza Strip and “not allowed to govern” the Palestinian enclave, the survey found. In comparison, just 22 percent of respondents said they believe the terrorist group should be allowed to maintain its governing role in Gaza.
The findings were consistent across political parties, with 81 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of Democrats stating that Hamas should be replaced as the governing body of Gaza. In contrast, 26 percent of Democrats and 19 percent of Republicans indicated that Hamas’s governing capabilities should not be dismantled.
Meanwhile, 76 percent of respondents agreed that Iran’s nuclear facilities, which US and Israel officials believe are designed to build nuclear weapons, “should be destroyed.” Conversely, 24 percent believe the Iranian nuclear sites, which the regime claims are for peaceful purposes, should be kept intact.
Furthermore, 57 percent of Americans said they agree that the US “should support Israel in airstrikes to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities.” In contrast, 43 percent believe the US should not support such preemptive attacks.
The poll also found that 43 percent of Americans hold a “favorable” view of Israel, compared to 30 percent who hold an unfavorable view of the Jewish state. Hamas, the terrorist group that runs Gaza, is massively unpopular, garnering “favorable” responses from only 8 percent of respondents and “unfavorable” responses from 63 percent.
Only 13 percent of Americans hold a “favorable” opinion of the Palestinian Authority (PA) — the governing entity that runs parts of the West Bank. Around 46 percent of Americans have an “unfavorable” opinion of the PA, according to the poll.
More than three-quarter of Americans support Israel over Hamas in the Gaza war and believe Hamas should immediately release the remaining hostages it kidnapped during its invasion of the Jewish state on Oct. 7, 2023.
Indeed, 77 percent of Americans indicated they support Israel, compared to 23 percent who support Hamas. Though both main US parties strongly support Israel, Republicans are more solidly aligned behind the Jewish state. Among Democrats, 69 percent said they support Israel and 31 percent support Hamas. Republicans displayed firmer backing of Israel, with 85 percent supporting the Jewish state and 15 percent supporting Hamas.
Likewise, 79 percent of the American public believe Hamas “must release all remaining hostages without any conditions or face serious consequences.” About 74 percent of Democrats and 86 percent of Republicans believe that the terrorist group should hand over the remaining captives in Gaza. In contrast, 25 percent of Democrats and 14 percent of Republicans believe that Hamas should not face serious consequences for failing to release the hostages.
The post Most Americans Want Hamas Removed From Gaza, Support Strikes Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities, Poll Finds first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login