RSS
Is the Prospect of Nuclear War Really a Risk of the Past?
Military personnel stand guard at a nuclear facility in the Zardanjan area of Isfahan, Iran, April 19, 2024, in this screengrab taken from video. Photo: WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
In an impressively-prepared television documentary, The Fog of War, one-time US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara warned about the limits of rationality in world politics — and nuclear war. McNamara summarized succinctly: “Rationality won’t save us.”
International crises and confrontations are essentially inevitable, and the only way for powerful states like the United States to remain powerful is by demonstrating capacity and willingness to dominate high-value escalations. To best ensure such a perceived capacity, this country will need to take exceptional risks, but — simultaneously — avoid nuclear warfare.
How should the incumbent American president proceed? In protecting the United States from deliberate nuclear attack, American strategists will need to accept core assumptions of enemy rationality. Critical dangers could be created by enemy hacking operations, computer malfunctions (accidental nuclear war), or decision-making miscalculation (whether by the enemy, the United States, or both). In the plausibly indecipherable third-case scenario, damaging synergies could arise that would prove difficult or even impossible to reverse.
Historical Context and Present Threats
In these matters, history deserves some evident pride of place. Since 1945, the global balance of power has been transformed, in considerable measure, to a “balance of terror.”
The more-or-less transient “solution” is to manage all prospectively nuclear crises at their lowest possible levels of destructiveness. Wherever feasible, of course, it is best to avoid such crises altogether and maintain reliable “circuit breakers” against strategic hacking and technical malfunction. At the same time, especially in furtherance of nuclear war avoidance, hope can never be a correct strategy.
Accordingly, US defense planners should focus more explicit policy attention on the expected consequences of President Donald Trump’s breach with NATO over Ukraine and on Israel’s changing ties with certain Sunni Arab states. These Israeli-Sunni Arab ties center on preventing a common enemy — Shiite Iran — from “going nuclear.”
Israel’s own nuclear security decisions will have serious implications for the United States. Though Israel currently has no nuclear adversaries, the rapidly accelerating approach of a nuclear Iran could encourage nuclearization by Saudi Arabia, Egypt and/or Turkey.
Moreover, non-Arab Pakistan will likely become a more direct adversary of the United States and Israel. Pakistan is an already nuclear Islamic state with close ties to China. Like Israel, Pakistan is not a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).
Furthermore, nuclear China has never renounced its right or intention to “recover” Taiwan by military force.
What is the probabilistic difference between a deliberate or intentional nuclear war and one that would be unintentional or inadvertent? Without carefully considering this core distinction, little of pragmatic use could be said about the calculable likelihood of any nuclear conflict. Though with greater “informality,” capable analysts and decision-makers will still have to devise optimal strategies for predicting and averting a nuclear war.
A Double-Edged Sword
Designed to guard against a US preemption, adversarial protective measures could involve the attachment of “hair trigger” launch mechanisms to nuclear weapon systems and/or the adoption of “launch on warning” policies, possibly coupled with certain pre-delegations of launch authority.
This means, incrementally, that the US could sometime find itself endangered by steps taken by an enemy state to prevent or minimize an American preemption. Plausibly, the United States would do everything possible to prevent such adversarial steps because of the expanded risks of accidental or miscalculated attacks against American populations.
Nonetheless, such steps could become a fait accompli, and Washington could calculate that a preemptive strike would be legal and cost-effective. Ironically, in this case, the American preemption would have been generated by enemy failures of “anti-preemption” measures. In principle, at least, this same ominous scenario could be played in the other direction. Here, a security-seeking United States, by deploying similarly destabilizing anti-proliferation safeguards, would spur mistaken or premature preemptive attacks by aptly apprehensive enemy states.
More fundamental issues will need to be analyzed in Washington. Above everything else, such existential matters should never be approached by American national security policy-makers as a narrowly political or tactical problem. Rather, informed by in-depth historical understandings and refined analytic capacities, US military planners should prepare to deal with a large variety of overlapping threat-system hazards. At times, the analyzed intersections could prove “synergistic” or force-multiplying.
Staying the Collision Course or Advancing Beyond “Dumb Luck”
In any global “state of nature,” there is little likelihood that the corrosive dynamics of nuclear risk-taking and nuclear deterrence would fade away on their own. Operating rationally in our centuries-old world system of belligerent nationalisms, the US president and his counterparts in Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, and elsewhere will seek to prevail in multiple and possibly-interrelated struggles for “escalation dominance.” Amid unrelenting global anarchy, these leaders would have no real choice but to stay tethered to a “scripted” geopolitical course.
Over time, no matter how carefully, responsibly and rationally each state’s security preparations are carried out, an international order based on incessant power struggles will fail.
For the moment, the principal risk of such catastrophic failures stems from unintentional nuclear war. It follows, recalling Sun-Tzu’s timeless wisdom, that such existential risk “must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed.” Properly, this analytic task is a matter solely for disciplined thinkers and strategic theorists. Under no circumstances should any primary intellectual responsibilities be handed off to politicians or government officials. Next time around, prima facie, America could run out of McNamara’s “dumb luck.
Prof. Louis René Beres was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is the author of many books and scholarly articles dealing with international law, nuclear strategy, nuclear war, and terrorism. In Israel, Prof. Beres was Chair of Project Daniel (PM Sharon). His 12th and latest book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016; 2nd ed., 2018).
The post Is the Prospect of Nuclear War Really a Risk of the Past? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Syria’s Sharaa Says Talks With Israel Could Yield Results ‘In Coming Days’
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa speaks at the opening ceremony of the 62nd Damascus International Fair, the first edition held since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, in Damascus, Syria, Aug. 27, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi
Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa said on Wednesday that ongoing negotiations with Israel to reach a security pact could lead to results “in the coming days.”
He told reporters in Damascus the security pact was a “necessity” and that it would need to respect Syria’s airspace and territorial unity and be monitored by the United Nations.
Syria and Israel are in talks to reach an agreement that Damascus hopes will secure a halt to Israeli airstrikes and the withdrawal of Israeli troops who have pushed into southern Syria.
Reuters reported this week that Washington was pressuring Syria to reach a deal before world leaders gather next week for the UN General Assembly in New York.
But Sharaa, in a briefing with journalists including Reuters ahead of his expected trip to New York to attend the meeting, denied the US was putting any pressure on Syria and said instead that it was playing a mediating role.
He said Israel had carried out more than 1,000 strikes on Syria and conducted more than 400 ground incursions since Dec. 8, when the rebel offensive he led toppled former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Sharaa said Israel’s actions were contradicting the stated American policy of a stable and unified Syria, which he said was “very dangerous.”
He said Damascus was seeking a deal similar to a 1974 disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria that created a demilitarized zone between the two countries.
He said Syria sought the withdrawal of Israeli troops but that Israel wanted to remain at strategic locations it seized after Dec. 8, including Mount Hermon. Israeli ministers have publicly said Israel intends to keep control of the sites.
He said if the security pact succeeds, other agreements could be reached. He did not provide details, but said a peace agreement or normalization deal like the US-mediated Abraham Accords, under which several Muslim-majority countries agreed to normalize diplomatic ties with Israel, was not currently on the table.
He also said it was too early to discuss the fate of the Golan Heights because it was “a big deal.”
Reuters reported this week that Israel had ruled out handing back the zone, which Donald Trump unilaterally recognized as Israeli during his first term as US president.
“It’s a difficult case – you have negotiations between a Damascene and a Jew,” Sharaa told reporters, smiling.
SECURITY PACT DERAILED IN JULY
Sharaa also said Syria and Israel had been just “four to five days” away from reaching the basis of a security pact in July, but that developments in the southern province of Sweida had derailed those discussions.
Syrian troops were deployed to Sweida in July to quell fighting between Druze armed factions and Bedouin fighters. But the violence worsened, with Syrian forces accused of execution-style killings and Israel striking southern Syria, the defense ministry in Damascus and near the presidential palace.
Sharaa on Wednesday described the strikes near the presidential palace as “not a message, but a declaration of war,” and said Syria had still refrained from responding militarily to preserve the negotiations.
RSS
Anti-Israel Activists Gear Up to ‘Flood’ UN General Assembly
US Capitol Police and NYPD officers clash with anti-Israel demonstrators, on the day Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of Congress, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, DC, July 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Umit Bektas
Anti-Israel groups are planning a wave of raucous protests in New York City during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) over the next several days, prompting concerns that the demonstrations could descend into antisemitic rhetoric and intimidation.
A coalition of anti-Israel activists is organizing the protests in and around UN headquarters to coincide with speeches from Middle Eastern leaders and appearances by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The demonstrations are expected to draw large crowds and feature prominent pro-Palestinian voices, some of whom have been criticized for trafficking in antisemitic tropes, in addition to calling for the destruction of Israe.
Organizers of the demonstrations have promoted the coordinated events on social media as an opportunity to pressure world leaders to hold Israel accountable for its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, with some messaging framed in sharply hostile terms.
On Sunday, for example, activists shouted at Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon.
“Zionism is terrorism. All you guys are terrorists committing ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza and Palestine. Shame on you, Zionist animals,” they shouted.
BREAKING: PRO-PALESTINE PROTESTORS CONFRONT “ISRAELI” AMBASSADOR DANNY DANON AT THE UNITED NATIONS
1/5 pic.twitter.com/4G1VYEMGzV
— Within Our Lifetime (@WOLPalestine) September 14, 2025
The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), warned on its website that the scale and tone of the planned demonstrations risk crossing the line from political protest into hate speech, arguing that anti-Israel activists are attempting to hijack the UN gathering to spread antisemitism and delegitimize the Jewish state’s right to exist.
Outside the UN last week, masked protesters belonging to the activist group INDECLINE kicked a realistic replica of Netanyahu’s decapitated head as though it were a soccer ball.
US activist group plays soccer with Bibi’s mock decapitated HEAD right outside NYC UN HQ
Peep shot at 00:40
Footage posted by INDECLINE collective just as UN General Assembly about to kick off
‘Following the game, ball was donated to Palestinian Genocide Museum’ pic.twitter.com/TQ84sgZhKr
— RT (@RT_com) September 9, 2025
Within Our Lifetime (WOL), a radical anti-Israel activist group, has vowed to “flood” the UNGA on behalf of the pro-Palestine movement.
WOL, one of the most prolific anti-Israel activist groups, came under immense fire after it organized a protest against an exhibition to honor the victims of the Oct. 7 massacre at the Nova Music Festival in southern Israel. During the event, the group chanted “resistance is justified when people are occupied!” and “Israel, go to hell!”
“We will be there to confront them with the truth: Their silence and inaction enable genocide. The world cannot continue as if Gaza does not exist,” WOL said of its planned demonstrations in New York. “This is the time to make our voices impossible to ignore. Come to New York by any means necessary, to stand, to march, to demand the UN act and end the siege.”
Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), two other anti-Israel organizations that have helped organize widespread demonstrations against the Jewish state during the war in Gaza, also announced they are planning a march from Times Square to the UN headquarters on Friday.
“The time is now for each and every UN member state to uphold their duty under international law: sanction Israel and end the genocide,” the groups said in a statement.
JVP, an organization that purports to fight for “Palestinian liberation,” has positioned itself as a staunch adversary of the Jewish state. The group argued in a 2021 booklet that Jews should not write Hebrew liturgy because hearing the language would be “deeply traumatizing” to Palestinians. JVP has repeatedly defended the Oct. 7 massacre of roughly 1,200 people in southern Israel by Hamas as a justified “resistance.” Chapters of the organization have urged other self-described “progressives” to throw their support behind Hamas and other terrorist groups against Israel
Similarly, PYM, another radical anti-Israel group, has repeatedly defended terrorism and violence against the Jewish state. PYM has organized many anti-Israel protests in the two years following the Oct. 7 attacks in the Jewish state. Recently, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) called for a federal investigation into the organization after Aisha Nizar, one of the group’s leaders, urged supporters to sabotage the US supply chain for the F-35 fighter jet, one of the most advanced US military assets and a critical component of Israel’s defense.
The UN General Assembly has historically been a flashpoint for heated debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Previous gatherings have seen dueling demonstrations outside the Manhattan venue, with pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups both seeking to influence the international spotlight.
While warning about the demonstrations, CAM noted it recently launched a new mobile app, Report It, that allows users worldwide to quickly and securely report antisemitic incidents in real time.
RSS
Nina Davidson Presses Universities to Back Words With Action as Jewish Students Return to Campus Amid Antisemitism Crisis
Nina Davidson on The Algemeiner’s ‘J100’ podcast. Photo: Screenshot
Philanthropist Nina Davidson, who served on the board of Barnard College, has called on universities to pair tough rhetoric on combatting antisemitism with enforcement as Jewish students returned to campuses for the new academic year.
“Years ago, The Algemeiner had published a list ranking the most antisemitic colleges in the country. And number one was Columbia,” Davidson recalled on a recent episode of The Algemeiner‘s “J100” podcast. “As a board member and as someone who was representing the institution, it really upset me … At the board meeting, I brought it up and I said, ‘What are we going to do about this?’”
Host David Cohen, chief executive officer of The Algemeiner, explained he had revisited Davidson’s remarks while she was being honored for her work at The Algemeiner‘s 8th annual J100 gala, held in October 2021, noting their continued relevance.
“It could have been the same speech in 2025,” he said, underscoring how longstanding concerns about campus antisemitism, while having intensified in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, are not new.
Davidson argued that universities already possess the tools to protect students – codes of conduct, time-place-manner rules, and consequences for threats or targeted harassment – but too often fail to apply them evenly. “Statements are not enough,” she said, arguing that institutions need to enforce their rules and set a precedent that there will be consequences for individuals who refuse to follow them.
She also said that stakeholders – alumni, parents, and donors – are reassessing their relationships with schools that, in their view, have not safeguarded Jewish students. While supportive of open debate, Davidson distinguished between protest and intimidation, calling for leadership that protects expression while ensuring campus safety.
The episode surveyed specific pressure points that administrators will face this fall: repeat anti-Israel encampments, disruptions of Jewish programming, and the challenge of distinguishing political speech from conduct that violates university rules. “Unless schools draw those lines now,” Davidson warned, “they’ll be scrambling once the next crisis hits.”
Cohen closed by framing the discussion as a test of institutional credibility, asking whether universities will “turn policy into protection” in real time. Davidson agreed, pointing to students who “need to know the rules aren’t just on paper.”
The full conversation is available on The Algemeiner’s “J100” podcast.