RSS
On Iran, Israel’s Policy of Nuclear Ambiguity Is Outdated and Dangerous
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei visits the Iranian centrifuges in Tehran, Iran, June 11, 2023. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
Israel’s nuclear posture remains “deliberately ambiguous.” In the past, this stance appears to have been sensible, even incontestable. Today, however, during a continuing Gaza War and following unprecedented missile aggressions from Iran, it requires fundamental reconsideration. In essence, there are compelling reasons to argue that Israel’s traditional “bomb in the basement” posture is no longer tenable.
There are clarifying particulars. A prudent nuclear posture for Israel should necessarily be based upon calculable assessments of all plausible options. At a minimum, any cost-effective changes of Israeli nuclear ambiguity would need to be readily identifiable but also not be gratuitously provocative. For a time, such changes might need to remain implicit in the small country’s codified military doctrine.
Israel, after all, is less than half the size of America’s Lake Michigan.
A comprehensive Israeli strategic doctrine represents the general framework from which any specific posture of deliberate nuclear ambiguity or selective nuclear disclosure would be extracted. More precisely, the principal importance of Israeli nuclear doctrine lies not only in the several ways that it can animate, unify, and optimize the state’s armed forces, but also in the more-or-less efficient manner in which it could transmit cautionary messages to enemy state Iran and sub-state surrogate Hamas.
Understood in terms of Israel’s many-sided strategic policy, any continuous across-the-board nuclear ambiguity could have existential consequences. This is because effective deterrence and defense policies call for a military doctrine that is at least partially recognizable by adversary states and terrorist proxies. Today, as Israel decides on whether to re-ignite a multi-front war with Iran — a war that could prove indispensable to preventing Iranian nuclear weapons — such “wise counsel” is conspicuously urgent.
For Israel, any ultimate and durable military success against Iran must lie in credibly-layered nuclear deterrence options, never in nuclear war-fighting. Recalling ancient Chinese military thought offered by Sun-Tzu in The Art of War, “Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” Soon, in the overriding matter of nuclear deterrence, Israeli decision-makers will need to acknowledge that there are occasions when too much further secrecy would degrade the country’s national security.
Israel’s nuclear weapons should always be oriented to deterrence ex ante, not revenge ex post. Nuclear weapons can succeed only in their calculated non-use. By definition, once they have been used for actual battle, nuclear deterrence will have failed, perhaps irremediably. Once they were used in any possible form, tactical or strategic, all traditional meanings of “victory” would immediately become moot.
Israel’s nuclear deterrence posture could have certain counter-terrorism benefits, but only with direct regard to Iran. Reciprocally, allowing itself to be weakened by Iran-backed terrorists (Sunni or Shia) could enlarge Israel’s existential vulnerabilities to the Islamic Republic. In evaluating such perplexing interconnections, Israeli planners will have to devote continuous attention to all possible synergies and “force multipliers.”
The original Cold War is over; still, “Cold War II” is underway between the United States, Russia, and (this time) China. If Iran is allowed to become nuclear, Israel’s deterrence relationship with Iran would never be comparable to what earlier was obtained between the US and the USSR. In such unique or sui generis circumstances, any unmodified continuance of total nuclear ambiguity could cause an already-nuclear Iran to underestimate or overestimate Israel’s nuclear retaliatory capacity. Either kind of misestimating could lead to catastrophic war.
The world is a system. Accordingly, various uncertainties surrounding Israel’s nuclear posture could lead other enemy states to reach similar kinds of misunderstanding. For example, Israel’s willingness to make good on any threatened nuclear retaliation could sometime be taken as inversely related to weapon system destructiveness. Ironically, therefore, if Israel’s nuclear weapons were thought “too destructive,” they might not deter.
Any continuing Israeli posture of deliberate nuclear ambiguity could cause terrorist-mentoring Iran to overestimate the first-strike vulnerabilities of Israel’s nuclear forces. This could be the result of a too-rigorous silence concerning measures of protection deployed to safeguard Israel’s nuclear weapons and infrastructures. Alternatively, such an over-estimation could represent the product of Israeli doctrinal opacity regarding the country’s potential for defense, an absence of transparency that would be wrongly interpreted as fragile or “porous” ballistic missile defense.
Though any such Iranian conclusion would seem preposterous after Israel’s extraordinary recent success at active defense, anything less than a 100% probability of interception would be inadequate vis-a-vis Iranian nuclear attacks.
To deter an enemy state attack or post-preemption retaliation against Israel, Jerusalem must always prevent a rational aggressor, via threats of unacceptably damaging retaliation or counter-retaliation, from deciding to strike first. Understood in such a “classic” context, Israel’s national security should now be sought by convincing a presumptively rational Iranian attacker that the costs of any considered attack on Israel would exceed the expected benefits.
Assuming that Iran values its national self-preservation more highly than any other preference or combination of preferences, and that it would always choose rationally among all alternative options, that enemy state will refrain from launching any attack on an Israel that is believed willing and able to deliver unacceptably damaging reprisals.
The “bottom line” should be clear in Jerusalem. Israel’s security posture of deliberate nuclear ambiguity is outdated and dangerous. With Israel’s operational nuclear forces and doctrine kept locked away in its metaphoric “basement,” Iran could conclude, rightly or wrongly, that a first-strike attack or post-preemption reprisal against Israel would be rational and cost-effective. But if relevant Israeli doctrine were made more obvious to Tehran, Israel’s nuclear forces could more reliably serve their existential security functions.
Another critical success factor of Israeli nuclear doctrine is “presumed willingness.” How can Israel convince Iranian decision-makers that it possesses the resolve to deliver an appropriately destructive retaliation or counter retaliation? The answer to this core question lies in antecedent strategic doctrine, in Israel’s estimated strength of commitment to carry out such an attack and in the tangible nuclear ordnance that would likely be available.
Any continued ambiguity over Israel’s nuclear posture could create the erroneous impression of a state that is unwilling to retaliate. Conversely, any doctrinal movement toward some as-yet-undetermined level of nuclear disclosure could heighten the impression that Israel is actually willing to follow-through on its pertinent nuclear threats.
What if Iran were ultimately allowed to become nuclear? To be deterred by Israel, a newly-nuclear Iran would need to believe that a critical number of Israel’s retaliatory forces could survive an Iranian first-strike and that these forces could not subsequently be prevented from hitting pre-designated targets in Iran. Concerning the “presumed survivability” of Israeli nuclear forces, continued sea-basing (submarines) by Israel would be self-evidently gainful.
If carefully articulated, expanding doctrinal openness or selective nuclear disclosure would represent a rational and plausibly imperative option for Israel. The operational benefits of such an expanding doctrinal openness would accrue from certain deliberate flows of information concerning Israeli weapons dispersion, multiplication or hardening of nuclear weapon systems and other technical weapon features. Most importantly, doctrinally controlled and orderly flows of information could serve to remove any intermittent or lingering Iranian doubts about Israel’s nuclear force capabilities and intentions. At some point, if left unchallenged, such doubts could undermine Israeli nuclear deterrence with unprecedented suddenness and lethality. This is the case, moreover, whether Iran were pre-nuclear or already-nuclear.
A summarizing thought dawns. As Israel confronts a state enemy that would best be countered while still in its pre-nuclear form, Jerusalem should understand that avoiding active warfare with Iran need not be in Israel’s best security interests. Ipso facto, if Israel could fight a law-based and comprehensive war against a still pre-nuclear Iran, it could plausibly avoid a nuclear war in the future. Under authoritative international law, such a defensive war could represent a fully permissible expression of “anticipatory self-defense.”
Looking ahead, Israel must do whatever possible and lawful to prevent a nuclear Iran. In this genuinely existential obligation, a pronounced shift in strategic posture from deliberate nuclear ambiguity to selective nuclear disclosure would represent Israel’s most expressly rational decision. By drawing upon such “wise counsel,” Israel could prudently plan for a no-choice war against a still non-nuclear Iranian foe.
The author is Emeritus Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. Educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), he is the author of twelve major books dealing with international relations, military strategy and world affairs. Dr. Beres was born in Zürich, Switzerland on August 31, 1945, and lectures and publishes widely on issues of terrorism, counter-terrorism, nuclear strategy and nuclear war. Professor Beres’ latest book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (2016; 2nd ed. 2018). A version of this article was originally published by Israel National News.
The post On Iran, Israel’s Policy of Nuclear Ambiguity Is Outdated and Dangerous first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US-France Tensions Rise Over Antisemitism as New Data Shows Sharp Increase in French Attacks

US President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron react on the day of a press conference, at the White House in Washington, DC, US, Feb. 24, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
As Washington presses Paris over its handling of antisemitism, new data shows anti-Jewish hate crimes in France remain far above pre–Oct. 7, 2023, levels nearly two years after the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel.
On Monday, the French Foreign Ministry summoned US Ambassador Charles Kushner after he accused Paris of failing to act decisively against rising antisemitism targeting France’s Jewish community.
In a letter to French President Emmanuel Macron, Kushner voiced his “deep concern over the dramatic rise of antisemitism in France” and criticized the French government for its “lack of sufficient action” to confront it.
However, French authorities rejected such claims as “unacceptable” and warned that Kushner’s letter violated international law.
“The rise in antisemitic acts in France since Oct. 7, 2023, is a reality that we deplore and to which the French authorities are responding with total commitment, as these acts are completely unacceptable,” the French Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
Aurore Bergé, France’s minister for combating discrimination, stood by the government’s efforts to protect its citizens, saying its fight against antisemitism is “unequivocal.”
“This matter is far too serious. In my view, it is too important to be handled through the courts in a diplomatic context,” she said in an interview with Europe 1-CNews.
France’s Jewish community has faced a troubling surge in antisemitic incidents and anti-Israel sentiment since the Oct. 7 atrocities. Jewish leaders have consistently called on authorities to take swift action against the rising wave of targeted attacks and anti-Jewish hate crimes they continue to face.
This latest diplomatic row comes as new figures from the French Interior Ministry show 646 antisemitic incidents were recorded from January to June this year — a drop from the previous year’s first-half record high but a 112.5 percent increase compared with the same period in 2023, when 304 incidents were reported.
The wave of anti-Jewish hatred has continued unabated.
Earlier this month, for example, an olive tree planted in memory of Ilan Halimi, a young French Jewish man who was tortured to death in 2006, was vandalized and cut down in one of the latest antisemitic acts to spark outrage within the local Jewish community.
“In France, we are no longer safe, neither alive nor dead,” Halimi’s sister, Anne-Laure Abitbol, told RTL on Monday, adding that public denunciations are no longer enough and urging concrete action.
“I feel less safe in France,” she said. “By recognizing a Palestinian state, Macron is encouraging antisemitism and failing to take action against antisemitic attacks in the country.”
Last month, Macron announced that France will recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly in September as part of its “commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”
Israeli officials have criticized the move, which was followed by several other Western countries, calling it a “reward for terrorism.”
RSS
Israel Files Complaint After British Wheelchair Basketball Players Snub Israeli Opponents During ‘Hatikvah’

Members of Great Britain’s wheelchair basketball team, right, turning their backs as Israel’s national anthem plays at a game on Aug. 16 at the Wheelchair Basketball Nations Cup in Cologne, Germany. Photo: Screenshot
Israel’s Paralympic Committee filed a formal complaint with the International Wheelchair Basketball Federation after players of the British national team turned their backs when Israel’s national anthem “Hatikvah” played at a game earlier this month, Israel’s Channel 13 reported.
The incident took place on Aug. 16 at the start of a game held as part of the Wheelchair Basketball Nations Cup in Cologne, Germany. Israel claimed the move violates rules that ban political protests at sports competitions and said athletes who exhibit the same behavior should face sanctions. Moshe Matalon, chairman of the Israel Paralympic Committee, condemned the”shameful” behavior in an interview with Chanel 13 while members of the Israeli team called the behavior “embarrassing.”
Israeli wheelchair basketball player Ilay Yarhi described their actions as “an attack on our dignity as players” in an interview with the Jerusalem Post. He added that the Israeli team “felt like they were bringing unrelated issues onto the court and humiliating us.”
Yarhi told the Post that after the incident, some of the Israeli players approached their opponents and asked why they turned their backs when “Hatikvah” played the start of the game.
“A few of them answered that it was a protest and a way of supporting world peace, that they were not in favor of war,” Yarhi recalled. “Some wanted to come and talk and apologize, but we didn’t agree to that, because if you don’t respect us, you don’t deserve any respect in return.”
A spokesperson for British Wheelchair Basketball told The Telegraph: “British Wheelchair Basketball is aware of the incident during the Israeli national anthem at the Nations Cup. We are continuing discussions internally after conversations with ParalympicsGB, IWBF, and the Israeli Paralympic Committee.”
Britain ultimately won the game against Israel 74-64. The two teams are likely to face each other again at the IWBF European Championships in October in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
RSS
Irish Eurovision Singer Bambie Thug Boycotts Own Song Until Israel Kicked Out of Song Contest

Bambie Thug performing “Red Rum” at the Lowlands Festival while her dancers hold up two flags, including a Palestinian flag, as an audience member waves a massive Palestinian flag. Photo: Screenshot
Irish singer Bambie Thug is boycotting the song they used to compete in the 2024 Eurovision Song Contest until Israel is kicked out of the international competition, the musician announced during a recent performance.
The non-binary singer-songwriter, whose real name is Bambie Ray Robinson, represented Ireland in the 2024 Eurovision Song Contest with the song “Doomsday Blue.” During a performance at the Lowlands Festival in the Netherlands earlier this month, the artist told the audience they will not perform the Eurovision entry as long as Israel continues to compete in the international song contest.
“I know that some of you guys know me from that competition. The Eurovision. And I know some of you might want to have heard ‘Doomsday Blue,’” Bambie Thug said on stage. “But, because of the state of the world and because of the state of that competition, I don’t play that anymore. I’m boycotting that song, just like that competition.”
“If one day they get their acts together and kick Israel out of that f–king competition, then I’ll sing it again. But till then,” the artist added, before showing the audience the middle finger. The singer then performed their latest song “Red Rum,” describing it on stage as a “protest song.” Bambie Thug further said that “Red Rum” is “also a song to say more Blacks, more dogs, more Irish, more Palestinians, more Ukrainians, more Iranians, more Sudanese, more Congolese … and more solidarity and more humanity.”
At the conclusion of the song, two dancers on stage held up flags toward the audience, including a Palestinian flag, while standing behind Bambie Thug. The musician then led the audience in chanting “Free, free Palestine.” Footage from the concert also showed an audience member waving a massive Palestinian flag during the performance. Bambie Thug additionally had behind the stage a screen that displayed their stage name in red, white, and green – the colors of the Palestinian flag.
The Lowlands Festival took place Aug. 15-17.
In “Red Rum,” Bambie Thug sings: “Pride is a protest/Rise of the oppressed/Pick a side are you peaceful or possessed … Doom scroll on your screens/While they load the guns/Casualties casually adding up in sum … Missile strikes/Colonial types/Zombies on a mission with a bark and a bite.”
In Malmö, Sweden, during the 2024 Eurovision Song Contest, Bambie Thug was ordered by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which organizes the competition, to remove pro-Palestinian messaging that was written on the artist’s body as part of their costume for the performance. Bambie Thug had written in the early medieval Irish alphabet Ogham the words “Ceasefire” and “Free Palestine” on their face and legs but was told the remove the words before stepping on stage.