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On Iran, Israel’s Policy of Nuclear Ambiguity Is Outdated and Dangerous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
Rome Synagogue Defaced With Nazi Graffiti as New Report Reveals Antisemitic Prejudice Rampant Across Italy
Security footage of the alleged assault of a Jewish boy in Rome on Jan. 29, 2025. Photo: Screenshot/Castelli Notizie
A masked vandal struck a synagogue in Rome on Saturday shortly before midnight, security camera footage shows, using black marker to leave behind a swastika and antisemitic statements — “Sieg Heil” and ”Juden Raus”— on a sign outside the building’s entrance.
Rabbi Menachem Lazar discovered the crime at Beis Shmuel the next day and filed a report with law enforcement which resulted in the opening of an investigation by Italian law enforcement. Clean-up work and restoration began shortly after uncovering the antisemitic vandalism.
The incident came before a report released on Wednesday by Eurispes — an Italian research institute that focuses on politics, economics, and social issues — revealed the extent of antisemitism in Italy today. The research came as part of an agreement signed in April with Pasquale Angelosanto, the national coordinator for the fight against antisemitism.
The researchers polled a representative sample of the country’s population and found that 37.9 percent of Italians think that Jews “only think about accumulating money” while 58.2 percent see Jews as “a closed community.” In January, the Anti-Defamation League released the newest results of its Global 100 survey which found that 26 percent of Italians — 13.1 million adults — embrace six or more antisemitic stereotypes.
A sizable minority also misperceived the number of Jews in the country: 23.3 percent believed 500,000 Jews lived in Italy while 16.5 percent thought Jews numbered 2 million, both groups amounting to nearly 40 percent of the population misinformed. The Institute for Jewish Policy Research estimates the number of Jews in Italy as ranging from 26,800 to 48,910 depending on which standards of observance one selects. Eurispes places the number at 30,000 with 41.8 percent of respondents answering correctly.
Likewise, a minority of respondents believed historically false ideas about the Holocaust. While 60.4 gave the correct number of 6 million Jewish Holocaust victims, 25.5 believed the number only reached two million and others said even smaller figures, amounting to approximately 40 percent of the population with an inaccurate understanding of the scope of the Nazi-perpetrated genocide.
The report also showed elevated levels of anti-Israel belief among younger Italians, with 50.85 percent of those 18-24 thinking that “Jews in Palestine took others’ territories.” This figure contrasted with 44.2 percent of the general population and tracked alongside ideological self-descriptors as 50 percent of center-left voters agreed while 35 percent of center-right and right-wing voters did.
A majority of respondents — 54 percent — regarded antisemitic crimes as isolated incidents and not part of any broader trend, contrary to the findings of the Antisemitism Observatory of the CDEC Foundation in Milan which saw a surge of 877 reported antisemitic incidents in 2024. Between the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack on southern Israel and the end of that year, Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi says the government counted 135 antisemitic incidents.
The wave of antisemitic incidents, often fueled by anti-Israel animus, has continued into this year.
In Italy’s Tuscany, for example, the regional council just voted to cut ties with Israel, a decision that came alongside the country’s president condemning conditions in Gaza as “inhumane and dangerous” while warning that Palestinian suffering would increase global antisemitism.
Last month, a restaurant in Naples ejected an Israeli family, telling them “Zionists are not welcome here.”
In November, a hotel manager in Rome canceled an Israeli couple’s booking a day before the start of their trip. He wrote to them, “Good morning. We inform you that the Israeli people as those responsible for genocide are not welcome customers in our structure.” The manager offered that the hotel “would be happy to grant free cancellation.”
On Jan. 29, a homeless Egyptian man in Rome attacked a Jewish boy and wounded the shopkeeper who intervened. At a protest on Jan. 11 in Bologna, demonstrators vandalized a synagogue, painting “Justice for a free Gaza.” Jonathan Peled, who serves as Israeli ambassador to Italy, described the incident as a “serious antisemitic attack which must be condemned with absolute firmness.”
In April, Tel Aviv University’s Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry and the Irwin Cotler Institute for Democracy, Human Rights, and Justice published an analysis naming Australia and Italy as two of the countries with the largest post-Oct. 7 bursts of antisemitism.
The report’s co-author Dr. Carl Yonker said that “in Italy, you see large drive in terms of anti-Israel activism, anti-Zionism activism that manifested itself as antisemitism in Italy.”
The post Rome Synagogue Defaced With Nazi Graffiti as New Report Reveals Antisemitic Prejudice Rampant Across Italy first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
‘US/Zionist Attack’: Pro-Hamas Campus Groups Condemn Israeli Strikes on Iran
Rescuers work at the scene of a damaged building in the aftermath of Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 13, 2025. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters Connect.
Pro-Hamas campus groups denounced Israel’s military strikes on Iran on Friday while declaring solidarity with the Islamic Republic in a series of social media posts which called on far-left extremists to flood the streets with riotous demonstrations, reprising a role they played following Hamas’s Iran-backed massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
The Israel Defense Forces carried out preemptive strikes on Iran’s military installations and nuclear facilities to neutralize top military leaders and quell the country’s efforts to enrich weapons-grade uranium, the key ingredient of their nuclear program. The move appears to have been a success, as Iranian state-controlled media confirmed that Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Hossein Salami — as well as several other senior military leaders — and nuclear scientists Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani and Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, are dead.
While many observers have cheered the strikes as a necessary act of deterrence which bolsters the credibility of the Western powers’ insisting that no measure will be spared to prevent Iran’s procuring nuclear weapons, pro-Hamas groups on US campuses accused both Israel and the US of inciting an unjust war.
“We reject the US/Zionist attack on Iran, and affirm Iran’s right to self-defense, sovereignty, and self-determination,” Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), one of higher education’s most notorious campus pro-Hamas student organizations, said on X following the strikes. “No to the imperialist was of encroachment — from Syria to Lebanon to Iran — and YES [sic] to the people’s struggle for Palestinian liberation.”
At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) implored its followers to express their disapproval of the strikes by amassing at the John F. Kennedy Building in the Government Center section of Boston.
“No war with Iran, emergency rally,” the group said.
Meanwhile, at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), SJP shared on Instagram a post by the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), which, in addition to holding documented ties to the US-designated terrorist organization the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), is a key organizer of anti-Israel campus activities.
“Reject the US-Israel war of aggression on Iran,” PYM wrote. “The Zionist occupation launches a series of air strikes across the Tehran [sic], an act of war that seeks to dramatically escalate Zionist and US aggression across the region.”
Off-campus groups embedded in the global network of pro-Hamas groups weighed in as well. In the United Kingdom, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) demanded that Parliament proscribe weapons transfers to Israel.
“As Israel carpet bombs and starves Gaza, intensifies its land grabs and attacks in the West Bank, and now launches major attacks in Iran, the responsibilities on the British government could not be clearer,” PSC said. “It must impose a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel.”
The statements are reminiscent of the hours following the Oct. 7 attack, in which pro-Hamas groups cheered the Palestinian terrorists and rooted for Israel to fail and be overrun by its enemies.
As scenes of Hamas terrorists abducting children and desecrating dead bodies circulated worldwide and invoked global outrage, dozens of SJP chapters at institutions such as Brown University, the University of Maryland, Tufts University, and UCLA described the attacks as a form of “resistance,” demanding acceptance what they said is “our right to liberate our homeland by any means necessary.”
Additionally, 31 student groups at Harvard University issued a statement blaming Israel for the attack and accusing the Jewish state of operating an “open-air prison” in Gaza, despite that the Israeli military withdrew from the territory in 2005.
“We, the undersigned student organizations, hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence,” said the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee. “In the coming days, Palestinians will be forced to bear the full brunt of Israel’s violence.”
These activities are facilitated by an array of methods the campus groups use for spreading their extremist worldview, according to a new report published by the Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism at Indiana University, Bloomington.
The report — titled “Anti-Israel Campus Groups: Online Networks and Narratives” — explored the ways in which pro-Hamas student groups draw in the world beyond the campus to create an illusion of inexorable support for anti-Zionism. Key to this effort, the report explained, is a vast and ambitious network of non-campus anti-Israel organizations which ply them with logistical and financial resources that significantly boost their capabilities beyond those of normal student clubs.
“Social media platforms, particularly Instagram, play a critical role in mobilizing these groups, spreading radical narratives, and coordinating actions at both local and national levels,” report authors Gunther Jikeli and Daniel Miehling wrote. “Social media shapes perceptions of the Israel-Hamas conflict in significant ways, often through highly emotive and polarizing content that fuels activism and, at times, incitement.”
Social media, which has modernized the manufacturing and distribution of political propaganda by reducing complex subjects to “memes” — some involving humor or contemporary cultural references which appeal to the sensibilities of the youth — are the cheapest and most effective weapons in the arsenal of the pro-Hamas movement, the report went on, noting that this was true before the Palestinian terrorist group’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel precipitated an explosion of anti-Israel activity online.
From 2013 to 2024, Students for Justice in Palestine, pro-Hamas faculty groups, and others posted over 76,000 posts on social media which were analyzed by the Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism. Over half, 54.9 percent, included only a single, evocative image.
“In contrast, Reels (5.3 percent) and Videos (4.9 percent) are used far less frequently,” the report continued. “Based on these descriptions, we see a strong preference among campus-based anti-Israel groups for static visual formats, suggesting that this type of bimodal content represents the highest form of shareability within activists networks.”
To boost their audience and reach, pro-Hamas groups also post together in what Jikeli and Miehling described as “co-authored posts,” of which there were over 20,000 between 2013 and 2024. The content they contain elicits strong emotions in the individual users exposed to it, inciting incidents of antisemitic discrimination, harassment, and violence, the report continued. Such outrages increase in proportion to the concentration of anti-Israel groups on a single campus, as the report’s data showed a relationship that is “particularly strong.”
Of all the groups responsible for fostering a hostile campus environment, SJP stands out for being “the most frequent collaborator with other anti-Israel organizations,” the report went on. The group’s closest ally appears to be the Palestinian Youth movement.
“This close collaboration not only broadens SJP;s audience but also suggests that PYM’s radical anti-Zionist rhetoric and visual language may shape elements of SJP’s discourse,” Jikeli and Miehling explained. “PYM’s posts frequently incorporate imagery associated with socialist iconography, national liberation movements, and Islamist martyrdom. Such content often features slogans that reject the legitimacy of the Israeli state, depict convicted Palestinian terrorists imprisoned in Israel as political prisoners, and glorify members of terrorist groups.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post ‘US/Zionist Attack’: Pro-Hamas Campus Groups Condemn Israeli Strikes on Iran first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hezbollah Holds Fire After Israeli Strike on Iran, Signaling Weakened Posture Amid Pressure From Lebanese Gov’t
Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem delivers a speech from an unknown location, Nov. 20, 2024, in this still image from video. Photo: REUTERS TV/Al Manar TV via REUTERS.
The Iran-backed terrorist organization Hezbollah announced it will not carry out a retaliatory strike against the Jewish state in support of Tehran, following a warning from the Lebanese government not to drag the country into a wider confrontation.
“Hezbollah will not initiate its own attack on Israel in retaliation for Israel’s strikes,” the Lebanon-based Islamist group told Reuters.
Israel launched a broad preemptive attack on Iran overnight on Friday, targeting military installations and nuclear sites across the country in what officials described as an effort to neutralize an imminent nuclear threat as nuclear negotiations between the United States and Tehran appear on the brink of collapse.
In an unexpected turn, the choice of Hezbollah, which for decades has been Iran’s chief proxy force in the Middle East, to hold back from retaliating against Israeli strikes on the Islamic regime reveals just how weakened the group is following last year’s Israeli operations in Lebanon — despite its threat of retaliation once serving as a key deterrent against attacks on Iranian nuclear sites.
Last fall, Israel decimated much of Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, which ended with a ceasefire that concluded a year of fighting between the Jewish state and the terrorist group.
In a statement released on Friday, Hezbollah condemned the Israeli attack on Iran, describing it as a dangerous escalation by “an enemy that understands only the language of killing, fire, and destruction.”
The Lebanese group also accused Washington of directly facilitating the attack and called on regional governments to show solidarity with the Iranian people.
“This aggression would not have taken place without direct US approval, coordination, and cover,” a Hezbollah official said in a statement, claiming the strikes are part of a broader effort to advance US and Israeli “hegemony.”
“Washington is now attempting to distance itself to avoid consequences,” the statement read. “If this aggression is not met with rejection, condemnation, and support for Iran and its people, this criminal entity will grow more aggressive and tyrannical.”
Iranian state television confirmed that the attack killed Hossein Salami, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and Chief of Staff Mohammad Bagheri, along with several other high-ranking military officials.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) also said that the entire top command of Iran’s air force was killed, as well as the IRGC commander responsible for overseeing last year’s drone and missile attacks against Israeli territory.
In a separate statement, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem warned that Israel’s massive attack on Iran “will have major repercussions on the region’s stability, seeing as it will not pass without a response and punishment.”
“We in Hezbollah and our Islamic resistance and mujahid people are holding onto our approach and resistance, and we support the Islamic Republic of Iran in its rights and stance, and in any steps and measures it takes to defend itself and choices,” Qassem said.
According to the Saudi news outlet Al-Arabiya, Lebanon’s government informed the Iranian terrorist proxy that it would not tolerate its involvement in Tehran’s response against Israel, warning it would bear responsibility for dragging the country into war.
“The time when the organization bypassed the state in deciding to go to war is over,” the terrorist group was told, according to the report. “The decision of war and peace is exclusively in the hands of the Lebanese state.”
Before Israel’s military operations against Hezbollah last year, the terrorist group enjoyed major political and military influence across Lebanon.
The post Hezbollah Holds Fire After Israeli Strike on Iran, Signaling Weakened Posture Amid Pressure From Lebanese Gov’t first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login