RSS
What Would a Palestinian State Mean for Regional Security, and a War with Iran?
FILE PHOTO: The atomic symbol and the Iranian flag are seen in this illustration, July 21, 2022. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
Though significant, connections between Palestinian Arab statehood and nuclear war remain generally ignored. For Israel, the seemingly discrete perils of war with Iran and Palestinian Arab statehood are potentially intertwined and mutually reinforcing. This means that continuing to treat these issues as separate security problems could represent an especially grievous policy error.
There are variously clarifying particulars. Once established, a Palestinian state could tilt the balance of power between Israel and Iran. For the moment, there is no law-based Palestinian state (i.e., no Palestinian Arab satisfaction of authoritative requirements delineated at the Montevideo Convention of 1934). But if there should sometime come a point where Palestinian statehood and a direct war with Iran would coincide, the effects could prove determinative. In a worst case scenario, the acceleration of competitive risk-taking in the region would enlarge the risks of unconventional warfare.
For the moment, any direct war between Israel and Iran would be fought without any “Palestine variable.” Ironically, however, one more-or-less plausible outcome of such a war would be more pressure on Israel to accept yet another enemy state. To be sure, Iran’s leaders are unconcerned about Palestinian Arab well-being per se, but even a continuously faux commitment to Palestinian statehood would strengthen their overall power position.
Additionally, any formal creation of “Palestine” would be viewed in Tehran as a favorable development regarding wars fought against Israel. While nothing scientifically meaningful can be said about an unprecedented scenario (in logic and mathematics, true probabilities must always be based upon the determinable frequency of pertinent past events), there are persuasive reasons to expect that “Palestine” would become a reliably belligerent proxy of Iran.
A “Two-State Solution” would enlarge not “only” the jihadist terror threat to Israel (conventional and unconventional), but also prospects for major regional war. Even if such a war were fought while Iran was still pre-nuclear, it could still use radiation dispersal weapons or electromagnetic pulse weapons (EMP) against Israel and/or target the Dimona nuclear reactor with conventional rockets. In a worst case scenario, Iran’s already nuclear North Korean ally would act in direct belligerency against the Jewish State.
In these complex strategic assessments, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations ought never be confined to “general principles.” Rather, variously specific issues will need to be addressed head-on: borders; Jerusalem; relations between Gaza and the “West Bank;” the Cairo Declaration of June 1974 (an annihilationist “phased plan”); and the Arab “right of return” and cancellation of the “Palestine National Charter” (which still calls unambiguously and unapologetically for the eradication of Israel “in stages”).
Not to be overlooked by any means, any justice-based plan would need to acknowledge the historical and legal rights of the Jewish people in Judea and Samaria. Such an acknowledgment would represent an indispensable corrective to lawless Hamas claims of “resistance by any means necessary” and to genocidal Palestinian calls for “liberating” all territories “from the river to the sea.” On its face, the unhidden Palestinian Arab expectation is that Israel would become part of “Palestine.” But this ought not to come as any surprise. All Islamist/Jihadist populations already regard Israel as “occupied Palestine.”
“Everything is very simple in war,” warns classical Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz in On War, “but the simplest thing is still very difficult.” American presidents have always insisted that regional peace be predicated on Arab recognition of the Jewish people’s right to security in their own sovereign nation- state.
Concurrently, most Arab leaders in the Middle East secretly hope for a decisive Israeli victory over Hamas in Gaza and over Hezbollah in Lebanon.
What about North Korea and future Middle Eastern war? Pyongyang has a documented history of active support for Iran and Syria. Regarding ties with Damascus, it was Kim Jung Un who built the Al Kibar nuclear reactor for the Syrians at Deir al-Zor. This is the same facility that was preemptively destroyed by Israel in its “Operation Orchard” (also known in certain Israeli circles as “Operation Outside the Box”) on September 6, 2007.
For Israel, nuclear weapons, doctrine and strategy will remain essential to national survival. In this connection, the country’s traditional policy of “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” or “bomb in the basement” should promptly be updated. The key objective of such dramatic changes would be more credible Israeli nuclear deterrence, a goal that will correlate closely with “selective nuclear disclosure.” Despite being counter-intuitive, Iran will need to become convinced that Israel’s nuclear arms are not too destructive for purposeful operational use. Here, in an arguably supreme irony, the credibility of Israel’s nuclear deterrent could vary inversely with its presumed destructiveness.
For Israeli nuclear deterrence to work longer-term, Iran will need to be told more rather than less about Israel’s nuclear targeting doctrine and about the invulnerability of Israel’s nuclear forces/infrastructures. In concert with such changes, Jerusalem will also need to clarify its still opaque “Samson Option.” The point of such clarifications would not be to suggest Israel’s willingness to “die with the Philistines,” but to enhance the “high destruction” pole of its nuclear deterrence continuum.
If the next US president maintains America’s support of Palestinian statehood, Iran will more likely consider certain direct conflict options vis-à-vis Israel. At some point in these considerations, Israel could need to direct explicit nuclear threats (counter-value and/or counter-force) toward the Islamic Republic. As policy, this posture could represent a “point of no return.”
For Israel, the unprecedented risks of Palestinian statehood could prove irreversible and irremediable. These risks would likely be enlarged if they had to be faced concurrent with an Israel-Iran war. It follows that Jerusalem’s core security obligation should be to keep Iran non–nuclear and to simultaneously prevent Palestinian statehood. From the standpoint of authoritative international law, meeting this two-part obligation would be in the combined interests of counter-terrorism, nuclear war-avoidance and genocide prevention. Prime facie, meeting this overriding obligation would be in the interests of regional and global justice.
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 version of this article appeared in Israel National News.
The post What Would a Palestinian State Mean for Regional Security, and a War with Iran? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Top US General Makes Unannounced Middle East Trip as Iran Threat Looms
US Air Force General C.Q. Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaks at a conference of African chiefs of defense in Gaborone, Botswana on June 25, 2024, the first time a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top U.S. military officer, has visited sub-Saharan Africa in 30 years, according to the Pentagon. Photo: REUTERS/Phil Stewart/File Photo
The top US general began an unannounced visit to the Middle East on Saturday to discuss ways to avoid any new escalation in tensions that could spiral into a broader conflict, as the region braces for a threatened Iranian attack against Israel.
Air Force General C.Q. Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, began his trip in Jordan and said he will also travel to Egypt and Israel in the coming days to hear the perspectives of military leaders.
His visit comes as the United States is trying to clinch an elusive Gaza ceasefire-for-hostages deal between Israel and Palestinian militant group Hamas, which Brown said would “help bring down the temperature,” if achieved.
“At the same time, as I talk to my counterparts, what are the things we can do to deter any type of broader escalation and ensure we’re taking all the appropriate steps to (avoid) … a broader conflict,” Brown told Reuters before landing in Jordan.
US President Joe Biden’s administration has been seeking to limit the fallout from the war in Gaza between Hamas and Israel, now in its 11th month. The conflict has leveled huge swathes of Gaza, triggered border clashes between Israel and Lebanon’s Iranian-backed Hezbollah movement and sparked attacks by Yemen’s Houthis on Red Sea shipping.
Meanwhile, US troops have been attacked by Iran-aligned militia in Syria, Iraq and Jordan. In recent weeks, the U.S. military has been bolstering its forces in the Middle East to guard against major new attacks by Iran or its allies, sending the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group into the region to replace the Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group.
The United States has also sent an Air Force F-22 Raptor squadron into the region and deployed a cruise missile submarine.
“We brought in additional capability to send a strong message to deter a broader conflict … but also to protect our forces should they be attacked,” Brown said, saying safeguarding American forces was “paramount.”
IRANIAN RESPONSE
Iran has vowed a severe response to the killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, which took place as he visited Tehran late last month and which it blamed on Israel. Israel has neither confirmed or denied its involvement.
Hezbollah has also threatened a response after Israel killed a senior Hezbollah commander in Beirut last month.
Iran has not publicly indicated what would be the target of an eventual response to the Haniyeh assassination but U.S. officials say they are closely monitoring for any signs that Iran will make good on its threats.
“We stay postured, watching the (intelligence) and force movements,” Brown said. On Friday, Iran’s new Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told his French and British counterparts in telephone conversations that it was his country’s right to retaliate, according to the official IRNA news agency.
On April 13, two weeks after two Iranian generals were killed in a strike on Tehran’s embassy in Syria, Iran unleashed a barrage of hundreds of drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles towards Israel, damaging two air bases. Israel, the United States and other allies managed to destroy almost all of the weapons before they reached their targets.
Brown did not speculate about what Iran and its allies might do but said he hoped to discuss different scenarios with his Israeli counterpart.
“Particularly, as I engage with my Israeli counterpart, how they might respond, depending on the response that comes from Hezbollah or from Iran,” Brown said.
The current war in the Gaza Strip began on Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists stormed into Israeli communities, killing around 1,200 people and abducting about 250 hostages, according to Israeli tallies.
The post Top US General Makes Unannounced Middle East Trip as Iran Threat Looms first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Gaza Talks Resume in Cairo
Illustrative. Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian meets with Qatari Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, in Tehran, Iran July 6, 2022. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS.
Gaza ceasefire and hostage negotiators discussed new compromise proposals in Cairo on Saturday, seeking to bridge gaps between Israel and Hamas as the UN reported worsening humanitarian conditions, with malnutrition soaring and polio discovered in the Palestinian enclave.
A Hamas delegation arrived on Saturday to be nearer at hand to review any proposals that emerge in the main talks between Israel and the mediating countries Egypt, Qatar and the United States, two Egyptian security sources said.
Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani was expected to attend.
A US official said negotiators from the United States met with Egypt then bilaterally with Egypt and Qatar on Saturday, and believed that representatives from Egypt and Qatar were meeting with Hamas.
Months of on-off talks have failed to produce a breakthrough to end Israel’s military campaign in Gaza or free the remaining hostages seized by Hamas in the terrorist group’s Oct. 7 attack that triggered the war.
The Egyptian sources said the new proposals include compromises on outstanding points such as how to secure key areas and the return of people to north Gaza.
However there was no sign of any breakthrough on key sticking points, including Israel’s insistence that it must retain control of the so-called Philadelphi Corridor, on the border between Gaza and Egypt.
Hamas has accused Israel of going back on things it had previously agreed to in the talks, which Israel denies. The group says the United States is not mediating in good faith.
In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has locked horns with Israeli ceasefire negotiators over whether Israeli troops must remain all along the border between Gaza and Egypt, a person with knowledge of the talks said.
A Palestinian official familiar with mediation efforts said it was too soon to predict the outcome of talks.
“Hamas is there to discuss the outcome of the mediators’ talks with the Israeli officials and whether there is enough to suggest a change in the Netanyahu stance about reaching a deal,” the official said.
The post Gaza Talks Resume in Cairo first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Soldier Killed in Central Gaza, Bringing IDF Death Toll to 696
Sgt. First Class (res.) Evyatar Atuar was killed in action in Gaza City, Aug. 23, 2024. Photo: IDF.
JNS.org – An Israel Defense Forces soldier was killed and several others were wounded on Friday morning when Hamas terrorists detonated an explosive device in Gaza City.
The slain soldier was named as Sgt. First Class (res.) Evyatar Atuar, 24, of the 16th “Jerusalem” Infantry Brigade’s 6310th Battalion, from Rosh Haayin.
The brigade, part of the 252nd “Sinai” Division, was involved in expanding the IDF’s Netzarim Corridor, which separates Gaza’s north and south.
According to an initial probe, terrorists remote-detonated a bomb planted on a building’s outer wall after soldiers had entered to search it in the Zeitoun neighborhood.
At least four soldiers outside the structure were seriously wounded and three others were moderately hurt, the IDF said.
On Thursday, Sgt. Ori Ashkenazi Nechemya, 19, a member of the 401st Armored Brigade’s 46th Battalion, was killed battling Hamas terrorists in the southern Gaza Strip.
A preliminary probe found that he was killed by anti-tank missile fire in Rafah.
Earlier this week, Lt. Shahar Ben Nun, 21, from the Paratrooper Brigade’s Reconnaissance Battalion, was killed by an IAF missile that malfunctioned during a strike in southern Gaza.
The death toll among Israeli troops since the start of the Gaza ground incursion on Oct. 27 now stands at 333, and at 696 on all fronts since the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre, according to official military data.
Additionally, Ch. Insp. Arnon Zamora, a member of the Border Police’s Yamam National Counter-Terrorism Unit, was fatally wounded during a hostage-rescue mission in Gaza in June, and civilian defense contractor Liron Yitzhak was mortally wounded in May.
The post Soldier Killed in Central Gaza, Bringing IDF Death Toll to 696 first appeared on Algemeiner.com.