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
Herzog Confirms Behind-the-Scenes Negotiations with Hamas – Deal ‘Possible’
Israeli President Isaac Herzog looks on during a meeting with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, not pictured, in Washington, DC, on Oct. 25, 2022. Stefani Reynolds/Pool via REUTERS
i24 News – President Isaac Herzog revealed on Sunday that contacts are ongoing between Israel and Hamas for a ceasefire and hostage release deal.
In a conversation with Yael Alexander, the mother of the abductee Edan Alexander who has been held captive for 422 days by Hamas, Herzog said that “there are negotiations behind the scenes – and it is possible.”
“I reiterate the call – now, after the agreement in Lebanon, it’s time to make a deal and bring the captives home,” Herzog said.
His meeting comes after Hamas released a video over the weekend showing Edan Alexander, an American-Israeli who was captured on October 7, 2023, while serving in the IDF. The video showed him pleading for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President-Elect Donald Trump to secure a deal.
“There are negotiations with a bitter and cruel enemy whose entire purpose in the video was to demoralize us all,” he said. “On the contrary – I think this video gave us a lot of strength.”
“I had a sleepless night,” Yael Alexander said – “Edan, his voice. and the video which plays continuously. You can see from the video that Edan is going through hell, he is screaming and his eyes look sad, but this gave me a lot of strength – Edan strengthened us with his call to us. We released this video, so everyone can see – Edan is alive, and many other captives are alive and the time has come to do something and release them.”
Out of the 101 hostages held in Gaza, estimates range as to the number still living, with some going as low as two dozen.
The post Herzog Confirms Behind-the-Scenes Negotiations with Hamas – Deal ‘Possible’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The Voice of Jacob
Chabad Rabbi Zvi Kogan. Photo: @Chabad/X.
JNS.org – The Jewish world is grieving the horrific murder of Rabbi Zvi Kogan in the United Arab Emirates. A gentle ambassador of Judaism, his young life was snuffed out by the perpetrators of evil. We grieve with his young widow, his parents and his family. May God grant them strength, solace and only simcha (“happiness”) in the future.
In this week’s Torah portion, Toldot, we read of the birth of twin sons to Isaac and Rebecca. These twins could not have been less identical. Genesis 25:27 tells us, “The boys grew; Esau became an expert hunter, a man of the field, while Jacob was a guileless man, dwelling in the tents (of Torah).”
Esau was a wild man, hunting animals as well as women. Jacob was a student of Torah. One was a gladiator, the other a sage. Esau would become the father of Rome, the destroyers of our temple, while Jacob went on to become one of the founding fathers of our faith, the patriarch who fathered the 12 tribes of Israel.
Who should we want our children to emulate: the wild warrior or the gentle scholar?
“The voice is the voice of Jacob, and the hands are the hands of Esau,” said Isaac when he was going to bestow the all-important blessings to his son and heir apparent. Jacob is forever represented by the soft voice of the Torah, of wisdom, reason and ethics. Esau, however, is not symbolized by the voice but by the violent hands that strike out and hurt others.
Jewish heroes have always been the peaceful giants of philosophy, wisdom, ethics and morals. Violent murderers are the antithesis of everything we stand for.
I feel that there is a danger today, when our heroes are our Israel Defense Forces soldiers, pilots and naval officers, as they surely should be. They are superheroes of body and soul. Every time a young man or woman puts on a Tzahal uniform, they put their lives on the line. They are prepared to give their lives to defend our homeland and our people. The most secular kibbutznik becomes a tzaddik, the holy of holies, when he makes that courageous commitment.
In fact, the Sheloh—Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz (1558-1628)—wrote that at the holiest moment of the year, on Yom Kippur, at the very climax of the Neilah service when we shout out Shema Yisrael (“Hear O Israel”), we should have in mind to give our life for God, Al Kiddush Hashem “to sanctify his name,” and it will be considered as if we actually did.
Those courageous chayalim make that pledge daily. And far too many have sacrificed their lives in the current war against terror. So it is entirely appropriate that they should be our superheroes. But the inherent danger here is that our children and the younger generation idealize war and military action, heroic though it may be. These wars of defense are a regrettable necessity in our neck of the woods. And today, sadly, Jews everywhere need to be able to defend themselves.
While we honor, cherish and admire our chayalim, they themselves would much rather be at their desktops, in the library or the yeshivah instead of on the front lines.
We dare not forget who we really are, the children of Jacob, B’nai Yisrael. Jacob is our eternal role model. Esau is the antithesis of everything we stand for.
Yes, believe it or not, Jews are pacifists. We are peace-loving people despite the scandalously libelous claims of genocide against us. Our enemies at the United Nations won’t acknowledge it, but it’s who we are.
Yes, we need the IDF, and we need it to be strong and fearless. But that is an unfortunate necessity, not an ideal.
Rabbi Zvi Kogan was a faithful scion of Jacob. His life was cut short by the hands of Esau. Perhaps the appropriate response to this tragedy would be to emulate his ways and enhance our own observance of this sacred ideal or to encourage another to embrace it.
May the voice of Jacob forever drown out and overpower the tumultuous, blood-stained hands of Esau. And may our reluctant warriors be able to go home and resume their gentle lives in peace and security.
The post The Voice of Jacob first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Unable to Destroy Israel Militarily, Its Enemies Resort to Lawfare
An exterior view of the International Criminal Court in the Hague, Netherlands, March 31, 2021. Photo: REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw
JNS.org – Jerusalem has decided to appeal the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) decision to issue warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant. Israel submitted an announcement to the ICC on Wednesday regarding its intention, along with a demand to delay the warrants’ implementation.
In its decision, the ICC said there were reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu and Gallant were criminally responsible for acts including murder, persecution and starvation as weapons of war as part of a “widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza.”
Netanyahu has called the accusation a “modern Dreyfus trial.”
Once again, the Jews have been placed in the docket, this time as antisemites seek to punish Israel on trumped-up charges of “genocide” against the Palestinian people, he said.
Netanyahu met in Jerusalem on Wednesday with U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who updated him on the efforts he is advancing in Congress against the ICC and countries that cooperate with it.
Amb. Alan Baker, director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs and the head of the Global Law Forum, told JNS that practically, “assuming states agree to honor the arrest warrants, despite their being inherently invalid and ultra vires [running against] the ICC statute, they could theoretically try to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant if they enter their territory.”
In a statement published on Wednesday, the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office said Jerusalem’s notice of appeal “shows in detail to what degree the decision to issue the arrest warrants was baseless and without any factual or legal foundation whatsoever.”
Israel denies the authority of the ICC and the legitimacy of the warrants issued against the prime minister and the former defense minister, the statement continued.
Should the court reject the appeal, it will underscore to Israel’s friends in the United States and elsewhere the ICC’s bias against the Jewish state, it added.
The court lacks jurisdiction in the case for several reasons.
First, Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute that established the court, and second because Israel has its own independent, robust judiciary. Third, Palestine is not a state and does not meet the criteria for statehood under international law.
By calling for the arrest of Israel’s leaders, the ICC is violating the Rome Statute, which clearly states that complementarity is the crucial factor in such a decision.
Since Israel has a robust judicial system, it is unnecessary and unlawful for the ICC to involve itself in Israel’s internal matters, and by doing so the court breaches its foundational principles.
Furthermore, as a recent Wall Street Journal editorial noted, “The charge of deliberate starvation is absurd. Israel has facilitated the transfer of more than 57,000 aid trucks and 1.1 million tons of aid [into Gaza], even though Hamas’s rampant theft means Israel is provisioning its battlefield enemy, something the law can’t require.”
The warrant also, absurdly, calls for the arrest of Hamas leader Ibrahim al-Masri, otherwise known as Mohammed Deif, whom Israel and Hamas both say was killed in an Israeli airstrike in July.
By naming him together with Israel’s leaders and thereby feigning even-handedness, the ICC has only demonstrated morally repugnant equivalence.
The Wall Street Journal also highlighted the case of Alice Wairimu Nderitu, the U.N. Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide. After she declared that the war against Hamas does not meet the qualifications for genocide, the United Nations announced that her contract will not be renewed, though it has denied the two things are linked.
According to Nderitu, the term “genocide” encapsulates the Holocaust, the Hutus’ mass murder of Tutsis in Rwanda, the Serbian attacks on Bosnian Muslims and the killings being carried out in Sudan.
“As a legal matter, establishing a pattern of violence as a genocide requires demonstrating intent. Israel’s campaign of self-defense doesn’t qualify,” the Journal‘s editorial noted.
The court’s baseless case against Israel’s leaders, coupled with Nderitu’s dismissal, demonstrates that the ICC is abusing the law for political means.
Several world leaders, including President Joe Biden, have harshly criticized the ICC decision.
Biden stated on Thursday evening that warrants were “outrageous.”
Rep. Mike Waltz, tapped by President-elect Donald Trump as National Security Advisor, tweeted, “The ICC has no credibility and these allegations have been refuted by the U.S. government. Israel has lawfully defended its people & borders from genocidal terrorists. You can expect a strong response to the antisemitic bias of the ICC & UN come January.”
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has invited Netanyahu to visit his country, assuring him he faces no risk of arrest.
While ambiguous at first, France has declared it will not enforce the warrants as Israel is not a signatory to the ICC.
Some analysts have questioned whether France’s decision was linked to the ceasefire announced Wednesday between Hezbollah and Israel.
Famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz has announced he is assembling a “dream team” to defend Israel in The Hague.
This support is crucial because so much of the international community has fallen for the widespread anti-Israel propaganda.
Hala Rharrit, a former U.S. State Department diplomat who has made her anti-Israel opinions well known, said in an Al-Jazeera interview that most of the world is feeling that “finally, finally, there is a sense that the international community is taking action, far little too late.”
She said that in the State Department, “secretly, many American diplomats are celebrating this.”
Rharrit resigned in April in protest over Biden’s support for Israel.
Several world leaders have condoned the ICC decision.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called the ICC warrants “courageous.”
European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said, “The states that signed the Rome convention are obliged to implement the decision of the court. It’s not optional.”
Some experts have questioned whether the warrant and its implications could prevent civilized nations from fighting terrorism.
“If this progresses to a large-scale issuance of arrest warrants for a wider range of military people and politicians, it could certainly serve as a warning to states involved in fighting terror,” said Amb. Baker.
“But this issue is more of a blatant Israel-directed issue and would not necessarily be used against other states fighting terror,” he added.
According to Natasha Hausdorff, legal director of UK Lawyers for Israel Charitable Trust, “Every phrase of every sentence” in the court’s warrant “was in fact false.”
In a conversation with Matt Frei of Leading Britain’s Conversation (LBC), Hausdorff provided a stinging rebuke to the ICC. “One example is that in furtherance of this allegation of starvation, the prosecutor relied on a report that suggested that famine might come to parts of the Gaza Strip,” she said.
“That report was subsequently debunked by a Famine Review Committee report that indicated it had been based on insufficient or incomplete information and it drew implausible conclusions,” she said.
“The overall conclusion of that process and also from the press release the court put out on Thursday is that they have made that determination to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant on the basis of this slew of false information,” she said.
Should Israel be approaching this challenge differently?
According to Baker, Israel needs to show the countries that are party to the ICC statute “that the issuance of the warrants is ultra vires the terms of the statute since the ICC cannot exercise jurisdiction in the territory of a non-state entity that has no sovereign territory.”
He added that it is “widely acknowledged that no state of Palestine exists, and the fact that the Palestinian leadership has manipulated the United Nations and ICC to treat them as if they are a state doesn’t alter the basic legal and political fact that there is no state of Palestine. Hence the ICC cannot be given jurisdiction by a non-state, and cannot issue arrest warrants.”
“Also,” he said, “as Israel is not a party to the ICC statute, its senior officials enjoy state and diplomatic immunity and thus cannot be arrested.”
The post Unable to Destroy Israel Militarily, Its Enemies Resort to Lawfare first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login