Why is Iran’s birth rate plummeting?

The Palestinian Authority is just as bad as Hamas

The message: Neutralizing Iran comes befor normalization with Riyadh

Saudi Arabia offers to renew aid to PA 

Beyond Hasbara: A Strategic Doctrine for Winning the Battle of Ideas

Beyond Hasbara: A Strategic Doctrine for Winning the Battle...
Turkey’s rising regional ambitions put Israel on alert
Israel on ‘high alert’ ahead of possible Iran campaign
Rock-solid Israeli consensus on security
The Revolutionary Logic of the Iranian Regime
A New Stage in the US-Iran Conflict
Home » opinion » Page 12
Category:

opinion

image_pdfimage_print
opinion

The myth of demilitarization

David M. Weinberg
David M. Weinberg

Since the dawn of the Oslo peace process, Israel has insisted on Palestinian demilitarization. This meant that any degree of Palestinian independence from Israel in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza was predicated upon the prevention of symmetrical and asymmetrical military threats against Israel – including conventional warfare, terrorism, and guerrilla warfare – from and via the territory of an autonomous Palestinian Authority or a prospective Palestinian state.

It was explicit in every Israeli-Palestinian deal signed since 1993 that the Israeli public would not countenance living alongside a Palestinian entity that houses a terrorist infrastructure or active, hostile military forces. The definite Israeli assumption was that the IDF could deny or block the massive military armament of a Palestinian government. The unequivocal Israeli expectation was that massive military armament would not be sought by a peaceful Palestinian government.

Alas, three decades of Palestinian terror and missile attacks from Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, the Hamas attack on southern Israel two months ago, and the gargantuan caches of weaponry since discovered in Gaza have blown these assumptions and expectations out of the water.

My conclusion is that demilitarization is a myth. In any territory evacuated by Israel, it is neither possible to enforce nor reasonable to expect that.

The attendant conclusion is clear too: only full Israeli military control of the territories adjacent to Israel has any chance of preventing enemy military buildup, and even then, it would remain an ongoing and difficult challenge.

THE IDF has confiscated more than 30,000 rifles, rockets, RPGs, IEDs, and attack drones from Hamas terrorists and hideouts in Gaza over the past two months and destroyed at least 250,000 other such items, along with hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition. It has also captured millions of shekels of cash used for weapons purchases and documents that expose tens of millions more expended on weapons purchases. This does not include the billions apparently spent on building and equipping Hamas’s terror attack tunnel network, an underground network that seems to be 500% more extensive than IDF intelligence knew or presumed to know before the war began.

According to an IDF Special Forces briefing this week, “the scope of the captured munitions is unprecedented. The volume of weaponry, especially anti-tank missiles, is on a scale reminiscent of and even beyond that of the warfare of global jihadist organizations in Syria and Iraq.”

A lot of this weaponry was smuggled into Gaza through tunnels beneath the Philadelphi corridor or through Egyptian-controlled border crossings in Rafah. Additional weaponry was manufactured in Gaza, using machinery and civilian supplies repurposed for weapon manufacture that were imported into Gaza with Israeli approval and even support.

(The same applies to the millions of tons of cement Israel allowed into Gaza for construction and rehabilitation after previous rounds of conflict, much of which was poured into the terror attack tunnels.)

And today, weapons can be produced with 3-D laser printers in any basement hideout; no large and identifiable manufacturing facility is necessary.

Again, all this means that the demilitarization of zones where Palestinians assume governance over themselves is a myth. It is neither possible to enforce from afar nor reasonable to expect it in any territory evacuated by Israel. Only the Israeli military can and will permanently demilitarize Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

And again, even then, demilitarization will remain a challenge. Consider Jenin, for example. The Palestinian Authority has long lost effective control of the Jenin refugee camp and similar terrorist headquarters in Samaria, forcing the IDF to operate deep inside these areas in full battle array with heavy equipment, almost like Gaza.

Hundreds of professional-grade weapons (not just homemade, ragtag weaponry) were discovered and confiscated this month in Jenin, including the beginnings of a West Bank missile manufacturing capability. Much of this was smuggled in via the porous Israeli border with Jordan. (No, the “moderate” Jordanians are not doing nearly enough to interdict such massive smuggling, and neither is the IDF.)

But the only reason that Katyushas and Kassams are not raining down every day from Kalkilya and Jenin on Gush Dan (Greater Tel Aviv) is that the IDF maintains overall security control of the West Bank envelope; direct military control over Areas B and C, which is 80% of the West Bank; and acts aggressively (“full freedom of operation,” in formal terms) to keep the terrorists off base in Area A, which is the remaining 20% where the PA was accorded “full security control” to supposedly prevent militarization and terror.

IT IS IMPORTANT to recognize that this grim situation is very far from the idealized, empty theoretical framework of demilitarization and peace imagined by the Oslo Accords. Was it obvious from the start and inevitable that the PA would become a failed state and serve as a base for terrorist infrastructure? I don’t know. But was the notion of full demilitarization of the territories by Palestinians a fallacy from the very beginning? Apparently so.

Remember that from day one, Yasser Arafat financed, directed, and equipped 16 competing Palestinian Authority militias, providing nearly 60,000 “security forces” with weapons – through local manufacturing and smuggling – that were prohibited in the Oslo agreements. He gave these forces all the trappings of an army (i.e., organizational structure, operational functions, unit names, ranks, etc.), expanding them well beyond what had been agreed upon. Since then, many Palestinian Authority military men and policemen have turned their guns against IDF troops and Israeli civilians, and some reports have them now organizing for Hamas-style raids into Israeli towns too.

According to an analysis written back in 2014 for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, an Israeli think tank, by Maj. Gen. (res.) Aharon Ze’evi Farkash, former chief of IDF military intelligence, the Oslo Accords unambiguously stipulated that no Palestinian army or military capabilities that could constitute a threat would be established. Moreover, the “strong police force” allowed by Oslo was to “ensure demilitarization” by preventing terrorism, dismantling terrorist infrastructures and armed militias, preventing arms smuggling and terrorist infiltration, preventing armed or ideological interference in the proper workings of the Palestinian state by radical extremists and opponents of peace, preventing incitement to terrorism, and building a “culture of peace.” 

This was to include neutralizing all channels of support for terrorist organizations (such as the transfer of funds to and activities conducted by extremist associations disguised as organizations established to help the needy) as well as eliminating school curricula as well as sermons in mosques and other religious and cultural institutions that encourage violence, martyrdom, and suicide.

Alas, almost none of this has happened. Arafat and his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, never ripened into partners for peace. Abbas has not uttered one dash of distaste, never mind a clear condemnation, of the October 7 Hamas attack, and he continues to “pay for slay” (to pay rewards to the families of terrorists).

So, the suggestions to give the Palestinian Authority more authority to expand territory in the West Bank or to bring it back as ruler of Gaza are both outrageous and dangerous. Abbas and his Fatah party never have and never will ensure demilitarization of the territories, not to mention real peace with Israel. And the suggestions to pose a broader pan-Arab security force in Gaza to ensure the demilitarization of Gaza going forward are similarly unrealistic.

Published in The Jerusalem Post 29.12.2023 and Israel Hayom 01.01.2024.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterWhatsappTelegramEmail
opinion

Ready the rapid-response squads everywhere

David M. Weinberg
David M. Weinberg

On Simchat Torah October 7, the “Black Sabbath,” some 3,000 Palestinian terrorists broke through the Gaza border fence in 29 places, swarming into nearby Israeli communities to commit mass murder. The frontline Hamas fighters were heavily armed and penetrated as far as Ofakim. The military and civilian Israeli defenders on hand, sparse and skeletal as they were, fought desperately and heroically until reinforcements arrived, in most cases much too late.

There are hundreds of Israel cities, towns, villages, and neighborhoods along Israel’s northern, eastern, and southern borders, straddling the Green Line in the center of the country, in Judea and Samaria, and in the Jerusalem environs that are similarly threatened. Exposed, insufficiently defended, and unprepared.

Therefore, the training and equipping of civilian rapid-response security squads on a massive scale everywhere in this country is more necessary and urgent than ever. This requires both government investment and volunteer civilian mobilization.

The threat is real. Hamas only beat Hezbollah to the punch, with the latter known to have long planned a broadscale invasion of northern Israel. The Jordanian army has been practicing offensive maneuvers right-up on the Jordan River border for months. Israeli Arabs previously have rioted and blocked major arteries in the Negev and Galilee – locking-down Israeli-Jewish townships.

Most stark of all is the threat of Palestinian swarm attacks on settlement communities in Judea and Samaria and on cities straddling the Green Line in the center of the country like those in the Emek Hefer region. This is not an imaginary scenario. It is a clear and present danger.

Just this week, the IDF conducted a drill simulating an October 7-style attack in Judea and Samaria. The drill was dictated by the escalation of Palestinian terrorist attacks over the past two months.

In the nine weeks since Hamas launched its cross-border attack from the Gaza Strip, there have been 1,388 Palestinian terrorist attacks in Judea and Samaria, including 569 stoning assaults, 287 attacks with explosives, 143 fire-bombings, and 70 drive-by shooting attacks. Three Israelis (a civilian, a soldier, and a Border Police officer) have been murdered in Judea and Samaria since October 7 and at least 52 Israelis sustained injuries.

On Monday, 27-year-old Mevaseret Cohen was wounded when terrorists fired on the car in which she, her husband, and their six-week-old baby were traveling near the Jewish town of Ateret in Samaria. Her baby and husband were unharmed. The terrorist, who fired at least six bullets at the car, escaped, despite being fired back at by the bold husband/driver.

(But of course, the international media covers none of this. Like biased UN agencies and hostile so-called “human rights” NGOs, the media is instead obsessed with practically and comparatively non-existent “settler violence” against Palestinians.)

According to investigative journalist Nadav Shragai of Israel Hayom, the Palestinian Authority itself is preparing for battle against Israel, right under our noses. A scenario whereby Palestinian Authority Security Forces (PASF) turn their guns against IDF troops and Israeli civilians is rapidly developing into actuality.

Dozens of terrorist attacks on IDF forces and the civilian population in Judea and Samaria have been propelled since the beginning of 2023 by Palestinian policemen, by members of the Preventive Security Forces, and members of other PA units.

A similar picture arises in relation to counter-terrorist activity too. Alongside the considerable number of successful targeting operations carried out by the IDF and the Shin Bet security agency against Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) members over the course of the last year, dozens of Fatah “fighters” have also been killed. This has involved Fatah’s al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which since 2021 has taken up arms once again, and prior to the October 7 massacre in the Gaza envelope communities made an express appeal for mass killing of Israeli Jews.

Shragai points out that since the outbreak of the current war some 2,200 Palestinians have been arrested in Judea and Samaria, with 1,100 of them being Hamas-affiliated activists or terrorists. No information is available regarding the organizational affiliation of the other 50 percent.

One must dive deep into reports on the Palestinian side to understand that alongside members of the PIJ and “unidentified individuals,” many of them belong to organizations affiliated with Fatah, the beating heart of the PA, or its security forces. 

Israel blurs or covers-up this information because it seeks to preserve what minimally remains of security cooperation with the PASF and to discourage attacks by additional members of the PASF.

But as Palestinian Media Watch has showed, the PA itself makes no attempt to conceal the escalated involvement of its institutional “martyrs” in attacks on Israelis. In fact, it is rewarding them with “pay for slay” stipends and formal PA military funerals. Declarations in support of the October 7 massacre and the express desire for a similar slaughter assault in Judea and Samaria have become standard discourse in the PA-controlled media over the last two months, with top PA officials joining the melee. Palestinian social media are inundated with AI-generated videos of terrorist swarm attacks into Samarian settlements, mimicking the Gaza envelope attacks.

And one cannot just ignore the unmistakable offensive military exercises conducted in recent weeks by PASF battalions, which now number 45,000 men: exercises to conquer installations and infiltrate settlements, commando incursions into urban territory, etc. This is a far cry from the “strong police force” imagined by the Oslo Accords tasked with merely guaranteeing “public order and internal security.”

A not-yet-published analysis by Professors Kobi Michael and Gabi Siboni of the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy assesses that Israeli cities and settlements need professionally trained and well-equipped rapid response platoons with the ability to fend-off invaders for up to six hours (before arrival of military troops and helicopter gunships). They attempt an initial mapping and categorization of Israeli cities by level of immediate threat and make a rough estimation of the concomitant force structure required.

Maj. Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan, a former deputy IDF chief-of-staff and OC Central Command, similarly has written about the need to develop “active defensive capabilities” for settlements and even for “pre-1967” Israeli cities like Kfar Saba and Rosh HaAyin to initially defend themselves, with serious training and tight incorporation into IDF defense planning.

Again, this will require significant government investment. But also volunteer civilian mobilization. Where will all the volunteers come from? Well, part of the answer ought to be, needs to be, hopefully can be – from the haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) community, which until now has refused any national security service.

But as Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer of The Tikvah Fund haredi division and haredi journalist Yakov Plevinsky have shown, there is an awakening at least on the fringes of haredi society regarding the obligation to contribute to the national security burden, regarding the need to protect their own communities and those beyond haredi community walls too.

Quietly there are many initiatives underway to incorporate haredi men in a range of defense and relief capacities, ranging from rapid-response squads to fire and rescue services, and from the Homefront Command to medical first-responders like Zaka, Hatzala, and Mada – where some haredi men already are involved.

The challenge is to make such service mainstream and “honorable” in haredi society. Plevinsky and others argue that the way to do so is by soft peddling the demand for formal enlistment and “uniforming” of haredi men, instead settling for their volunteer absorption, by osmosis and out of uniform, in the “soft” security frameworks described above.

(Nobody argues that this is fair or equitable in comparison to the national security service burden on non-haredi Israeli society, only that it now might be realistic.)

Success in this endeavor, supremely important in my eyes, requires wise and far-sighted leadership from both government and haredi community leaders alike.

In any case, the necessity of forming hefty rapid-response squads in all parts of the country should be clear, long before Israel’s other enemies seek to copycat Hamas attacks.

Published in The Jerusalem Post 22.12.2023 and Israel Hayom 24.12.2023

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterWhatsappTelegramEmail
Iranopinion

Iran Fears Full-Scale Regional War

Dr. Yossi Mansharof
Dr. Yossi Mansharof

Since the outbreak of “Swords of Iron,” top officials in Teheran, most notably Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, have denied Iran’s involvement in planning the October 7 massacre as well as Houthi aggressions in the Red Sea. These proclamations are meant to distance Iran from the attacks made by its strategic partners. At the same time, they reveal Iran’s fear of open, full-scale war and Tehran’s preference to keep its regional meddling and muckraking behind the scenes.

This Iranian fear, and preference for proxy war only, stem from a combination of considerations relating to Tehran’s domestic and international standing.

First, as a matter of principal, Iran’s tends to avoid direct engagement in regional or global conflicts. Iran instead flexes its power by supporting a wide range of proxy forces that launch terror attacks against its enemies, mainly the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. Indeed, since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has conducted numerous extraterritorial operations without having to mobilize its own troops. Instead, it employs terror clients in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and the Gaza Strip. This strategy has driven Iran to several strategic achievements such as US withdrawal from Lebanon in the 1980s and the retribution exacted on Saudi Arabia in 2019 for its prime role in promoting the American oil sanctions imposed on Iran (following President Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal).

Second, deeply ingrained in the Iranian consciousness is the Iran-Iraq War. This war is viewed by leadership as a momentous event that demonstrated significant national sacrifice. The war cost Iran heavily in casualties (at least 220,000 dead) and trillions of dollars worth of damage to critical infrastructure. Considering this high toll on human life and strategically vital assets, Iran has since refrained from engaging in additional frontal wars. Its leaders repeatedly boast that, despite the various upheavals afflicting the region, the country has remained an “island of stability.”

Third, the Iranian regime has been dealing with a prolonged crisis of legitimacy, as evidenced by the historic low voter turnout in the 2020 parliamentary elections (42%) and by the Amini protests (September 2022-March 2023). With declining levels of public support, the Iranian regime cannot afford to embark on a military adventure which would risk its very survival.

Fourth, Iran is restricted by its military and technological capabilities, which undeniably are inferior to those of its American rival. This is most probably why Tehran had settled for a limited offensive against Washington in retaliation for the January 2020 assassination of former Qods Force commander Qassem Soleimani.

This stance was expressed by the IRGC’s aerospace commander, Amir Ali Hajizadeh, one of the most hawkish figures in the Iranian security apparatus, who admitted that Tehran didn’t want to engage in a direct war with the US. Another testimony reflecting this sentiment can be found in the words of Gholam-Ali Haddad Adel, Ayatollah Khamenei’s advisor and son-in-law. In a recent interview, Adel explained that Iran’s initiating a military offense against Israel would serve an Israeli plot to cause a clash between Iran and the US.

The combination of these factors help explain Iran’s decision not to directly enter a full-scale war fray. After all, Iran’s proxy warfare strategy has proved effective enough. In the Iraq War (2003-2011), Iran fought against American and British forces indirectly through the Shi’ite terrorist apparatus it had nurtured (Jaysh al-Mahdi, Liwa’ al-Yawm al-Maw’oud, Kata’ib Hezbollah and Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq), alongside Sunni Islamist groups (Al-Qaeda Iraq and Ansar al-Islam) that received its backing. This also was the case during the Second Lebanon War, in which Iran played an important role in supporting Hezbollah’s warfare against Israel.

Iran also credits itself with the achievements obtained by the resistance terror organizations in their rounds of fighting against Israel. In February 2012, Khamenei proudly stated that Iran “was involved in the resistance campaign against Israel, and the result was manifested in the victory (Hezbollah’s) in the 33-Day War (the 2006 war), as well as in the (Hamas’) victory in the 22-Day War (Operation Cast Lead, December 2008-January 2009). Ever since, we have stood behind every nation and every organization fighting against the Zionist regime, everywhere, and we have no fear of saying so. That is the simple truth.”

Khamenei is known for his ideological teachings calling for the destruction of Israel by force. However, in stark contrast to this position, he recently stated that Iran does not wish to “throw either the Jews or the Zionists into the sea,” blatantly lying about such past statements. (For example, in February 2020 IRGC Commander Salami urged Israelis to “take a good look at the Mediterranean, because that will be your [their] final dwelling.”)

During “Swords of Iron,” Khamenei and other senior Iranian officials have denied any role in the attacks against Israel in Gaza or from Yemen. It also denies responsibility for Iraqi Shi’ite militia attacks on American targets in Iraq and Syria.

In any case, it is plainly obvious that Tehran supports the elimination of Israel trough proxy warfare. The massacres perpetrated by Hamas on October 7 are a direct result of Iran’s significant, decade-long support of the terror organization. Hamas’ murderous ideology is also compatible with Khamenei’s antisemitic teachings and anti-Jewish hatred, which seems to have permeated all branches of the Iranian regime. Religious rulings issued by Khomeini and Khamenei permit the killing, including by suicide attacks, of all Jewish citizens of Israel on the pretext that they are the “Occupiers of Palestine.”

Not only does Iran not hide its desire to destroy Israel, but it also says so openly on every possible platform. On Khamenei’s order, Iranian athletes boycott Israel at international competitions, making sure not to grant Israel even a shred of legitimacy.

Despite violating the UN treaty that prohibits any state from actively seeking the destruction of another, Iran has paid no price for expressing such views. On the contrary, it continues to be courted by European nations which, in their attempt to appease Iran, are disturbingly indifferent to the threat posed to their national security by the Iranian subversion efforts across the continent.

Perhaps even more puzzling is the fact that while Tehran strengthens ties with Russia and China, the US persists in its efforts to reach a nuclear deal with Iran, never once entertaining the military option as a practical course of action.

Against this background, it appears that Khamenei is under no pressure to cease his anti-Israel activity. At the same time, he continues, at least formally, to distance Iran from the comprehensive terror campaign aimed at Jerusalem from various staging grounds. He is well aware of the dangers to Teheran’s nuclear program and to regime stability were Iran to enter full-scale warfare.

In this regard, the announced Iranian campaign to recruit volunteers for the battlefield in Gaza is not genuine. Although Teheran boasts that the effort has reached 10 million people, among them 142 members of the Parliament, this is only a symbolic effort.

Israel ought to leverage this situation for its own advantage. Israel has space to hit the IRGC Qods Force in Iran and across the region without undue risk of escalation. Again, Iran will shy away from full-scale regional war.

 

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterWhatsappTelegramEmail
opinion

Israel needs a “Doolittle raid”

Dr. David Wurmser
Dr. David Wurmser

On April 18, 1942, sixteen US B-25 bombers attacked Tokyo. Of those, two were shot down. The rest reached Chinese regions where anti-Imperial forces saved them. Only one of the original 16 landed, in Vladivostok in Russia. All the rest – precious assets for a US army stretched thinner than onion-skin – were shot down or ditched. The surviving crews, all of whom had been handpicked as the best of the best, were gone, captured, or unavailable for months. Eight among the crews were captured by the Japanese. 

The result of the raid: marginal damage to Tokyo, and negligeable damage to the industrial capacity of its empire. Every measure of tactics held this as an irresponsible waste of men and materiel at a time when America could ill afford to waste anything.  And President Roosevelt – whose attentions and energy already were stretched to the limit — sought the raid, monitored its preparations, and then ordered the raid with impatience.  His general staff all thought him mentally unwell and irresponsible.

And yet, the Doolittle raid (as it came to be called after its commander, James Doolittle) was one of the most important actions undertaken by the Americans and arguably represented the war’s turning point.  It was tactically disastrous and useless, but strategically cataclysmic.

Because it turned around American morale. It overshadowed – even erased – the growing wallowing in misery of the memory of December 7 and replaced it with a defined goal of the war through actions, not just words.  Americans understood where they were headed and invested their energies now totally into victory rather sap their energy focused on their wounds. America had passed from fear and foreboding to becoming societally optimistic.

Japanese were unnerved because the impenetrable Islands – the islands which for 1500 years had never been penetrated because of the protective, mystical spirit of the Kamikaze wind – were penetrated and bombed.  The Japanese general staff were humiliated, and their stature which rode so high in the five months since Pearl Harbor was tarnished. The killing of Japanese civilians in their capital, combined with the shame felt by the military command, created inescapable pressure to strike back in retribution. For Japan had understood that the raid had broken their full control of the situation, taken back some of the initiative and thus threatened to reverse its relentless strategic momentum. 

The pressure took its toll: Japan advanced Admiral Yamamoto’s s invasion plans of Hawaii to retake the initiative and force a battle in Midway for which it had not fully prepared.  In June 1942, only 7 months after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese were catastrophically defeated there by a far smaller force because Japan had prematurely rushed to avenge its honor.  Its controlled competence had given way to a grave misstep.  While it still took another three years, Midway changed the direction of the war. Japan’s strategic momentum was never regained, and America was on the straight road to victory, which greatly relieved Britain and cast a dark doubt over Hitler’s aspirations in Europe.  Thus, those sixteen planes with few bombs set the course of the whole war.

What does this have to do with Israel? 

Israel faced its Pearl Harbor on October 7.  The wound had given the Iranian camp great strategic initiative and shown the region that it was the strong horse, while Israel was complacent and possibly even too weak to survive in the long term.  What followed was very much like the five-month period between December 7, 1941 and April 18, 1942 in World War II, where tactically the US might have begun to mobilize, societally it began do what it had to do, but overall the strategic momentum had not been retaken.  American morale was still sinking after the initial anger faded into the grim reality of a long war, and Japanese morale continued to rise as it withered America’s.

Right now, Israel has considerable tactical initiative, but no strategic initiative. Hamas dictates the fate of the hostages and deals.  Hamas governs the agenda of international pressures.  The US state department controls the international diplomatic agenda.  Hizballah defines the parameters of conflict on the Lebanese border.  Yemen chooses when, where and how often it intervenes and caused international shipping to retreat into a defense crouch.  Iraqi militias define how much the US and Israel can feel secure in Syria and on the Golan.  Israel may possess tactical superiority in every theater, but it lacks strategic initiative and control in all of them.  Iran is still driving everything. 

As such, as nation and society, Israeli will remains high but there are signs already now of fraying of focus, internal stresses, and lack of faith in the final goals. Or even their definition. Rhetoric is also misaligned: Iran is seen and blamed as the puppet master in terms of an “either we or they survive” showdown, but the war is fought entirely locally against Hamas as if it is a limited conflict rather than part of such a twilight struggle against Iran.

Wars are won through strategy, not tactics. Israel has reached that point where it needs a Doolittle raid. 

Israel not only needs to prop up Israeli moral to move beyond the shadow of October 7 (as the US had to move beyond the shadow of December 7), but to take actions that strategically signal this is about Iran. Perhaps action Iran regime itself but certainly against theaters right now languishing (Yemen, Iraq, Syria). Israel must take the strategic initiative and set the regional agenda to bear down on Tehran. Israel needs to take control of the agenda in every aspect and force Iran’s hand into missteps. Israel needs a Doolittle raid, or several such raids.

Published by JNS 26.11.2023

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterWhatsappTelegramEmail
opinionWar against Hamas

Don’t you dare!

David M. Weinberg
David M. Weinberg

In memory of the brave Israeli soldier and singer-scholar of a soul, Yonadav Levenstein.

Pressures on Israel from Washington and other Western capitals are mounting to curtail the campaign to destroy Hamas, because of the humanitarian toll in Gaza.

Israeli government leaders must resist these pressures with all their might. They must persist in pounding Hamas-ISIS to smithereens until every last Hamas commander is dead, every last Hamas terror attack tunnel is destroyed, and every last Hamas missile bunker is obliterated.

That is the only justification for the tenure of this government; that is its promise to Israeli society. That is the only way Israel can restore basic security to a battered and traumatized public, the only way Israelis will return to their homes in the Negev and the Galilee.

It is the only way Israel can restore some of its deterrent posture and survive in the predatory Middle East. It is the only way Israel stands a chance of pushing back against radical Islam’s attempt to strangulate Israel and achieve regional hegemony.

The war cannot and must not end until Israel has achieved its legitimate military objectives in full, with no fudging, no obfuscations, and no hesitations. Israel cannot tolerate ceasefires along the way – no truces, no armistices, no fallbacks, no restrictions on its use of (overwhelming and simultaneously precise) force – until total victory is achieved.

Complete capitulation or annihilation of Hamas is the goal, nothing less. No more Hamas in Gaza, or in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). No more Hamas terrorists alive elsewhere in the world either. They all must be hunted down and eliminated.

In the history of modern warfare, there is no more justified military campaign than this one. And only such a campaign to absolutely end the Hamas threat to Israel justifies the heavy losses that Israel already has suffered and the pain of what almost certainly will be further losses.

Israeli leaders have no mandate from the Israeli public to call-off or scale-back the assault on Hamas. Would they do so, under pressure from well-meaning and fickle allies alike, Israelis will explode in anger, assuredly filling the streets of every city in this country with millions of protestors demanding that the war against Hamas be fully prosecuted. Compromise with Hamas would be defeat. Bending to US President Biden (who, it must be acknowledged, thus far has been rock solid in his backing of Israel) would be considered collapse.

OVER THE PAST TEN DAYS, Israel has buried more than 30 brave warriors, more than 30 fine and fearless young men pressed into military service to defend their country, many of them with tender wives and beautiful, little, now-orphaned, children.

One of them was my beloved young friend Yonadav Levenstein, may the Heavens avenge his death. Yonadav was a physical giant (known as the “Viking” of the Givati brigade’s elite reconnaissance unit) and a singer-scholar of a soul. He fought heroically in Nahal Oz on October 7-8, and then in Jabalya and Shati in Gaza before being felled by Palestinian barbarians who popped-out of a terrorist attack tunnel.

Just two months ago, I danced with him at his wedding to the delicate Hadar Karavani, singing together about happiness and joy in the streets of Jerusalem.

Yonadav was the youngest son of my closest friends, Leora and Dr. Michael (Mordechai) Levenstein of Maale Adumim, who like me made Aliyah from Canada many decades ago. Tragically, Michael died of cancer three years ago.

Michael’s last request, pressed on me the night before he passed away, was to assist Yonadav in his wish to serve in a frontline IDF combat unit. Michael knew that Yonadav’s deepest desire, and in retrospect I guess his ultimate task in life, was to fight for the freedom and safety of the Jewish People in the Land of Israel.

Yonadav’s eldest brother, Elnatan, a prominent lawyer and rising community figure, is a fighter for the Jewish People too, having served in an elite, secret commando unit on Israel’s southern border, and this month in an elite reserve unit on the northern border. I see Elnatan and his cohort as the next generation of Israel’s leaders, a new generation of principled and wise leaders whom this country desperately needs.

Elnatan was laying in ambush against Hezbollah when he was called offline to travel home for Yonadav’s funeral on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem. Standing over the fresh gravesite of his youngest brother, Elnatan gave majestic voice to the defiant demand that the Israeli government stand firm in pursuing the war goals without flinching.

This is what Elnatan said:

“Yonadav: You were intimately familiar with our people’s history. You loved this country with all your heart. You built yourself up and fought to be accepted as a warrior in the Givati reconnaissance unit, where you excelled.

“Alas, now you too are part of our history; part of a bloody war that is a historical turning point. A tough but necessary war. A war for the future of our people in our land. A war that should have been over a long time ago, a war that your generation should not have had to fight.

“In Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012, I and my army unit, along with the entire IDF, were trained and ready to complete the task. We had detailed battle plans and received clear instructions – only to have these plans and orders cancelled repeatedly at the last moment. And over the years since then there were other opportunities (to crush the enemy) that were not taken.

“And now you, little Yonadav, the baby of our family, were forced to fight this fight on behalf of us all.

“This war must be Israel’s last war! Otherwise, the price is too high. Yonadav, you and your comrades-in-arms did not die in battle so that others will have to die in yet another war in two- or five-years’ time. The price that Israeli society has paid since that evil, horrible day of massacres on October 7, Simchat Torah 5784, is intolerable. No more!

“Therefore, I call from here upon the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, other government ministers and decisionmakers: Don’t you dare stop! Don’t you dare hesitate! Don’t you dare fold!

“Don’t you dare allow even one drop of fuel into accursed Gaza until the rats, the evil terrorists of Hamas-ISIS, those who murder Jewish babies and rape little Jewish girls, those who rain rockets down upon all Israelis without discrimination – until they come out of their ratholes and are eliminated. Don’t you dare!

“It is the obligation of the Government of Israel to ensure that every Israeli can live in quiet, peace, and security without fearing that terrorists will overrun their homes or fire missiles at them.

“David Ben-Gurion once said that ‘Our future is not dependent on what the goyim, the nations of the world, say, but on what the Jews do.’ And now is the time to do, to act decisively. We did not want to lose in battle Yonadav or any of our brave young men and women. But this war has been forced upon Israel, and we must finish it once and for all.

“I say to our government: The People of Israel stand firmly behind you for this purpose, putting aside all internal disagreements. We, our family, already have paid the highest price in grief. Our lives will never be the same. Now you must finish the job, for us, for the fallen soldiers, for our people, for the sake of future generations.

“And if you are not up to the task, if you don’t have the guts to win the war – stand aside, vacate your seats at the cabinet table, so that others, better leaders, can take your place.”

Published in The Jerusalem Post 10.11.2023 and Israel Hayom 12.11.2023.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterWhatsappTelegramEmail
opinion

The IDF has got its act together

Meir Ben Shabbat
Meir Ben Shabbat

The ground operation of the IDF is achieving its objectives. The first line of defense of the enemy in the Gaza City area has been breached. In the northern part of the strip, one can clearly feel the “circles of fire of the Israeli army” – the term used in Arab media reports to describe the extensive aerial and heavy artillery attacks that preceded the ground forces and have accompanied their movements.

In close combat with Hamas terrorists emerging from tunnels, mosques, and hidden locations prepared in advance, our soldiers have had an upper hand. The battle is not easy. The enemy operates according to a doctrine for urban warfare, based on a network of tunnels, boobytraps, ambushes, and extensive use of anti-tank missiles. From the overall picture that is unfolding for us, our forces are conducting themselves with professionalism and a sober assessment of the challenges they face; the IDF has managed to get its act together after the initial surprise on Oct. 7. Its commanders and soldiers fight with great determination, showing courage and a resolve to win. They will continue until victory is achieved.

Effective cooperation between ground, air, and naval forces, with intelligence and the Shin Bet significantly enhances defense capabilities and serves as a force multiplier for the offensive power. This has led to many achievements so far. Regrettably, it is impossible to completely prevent the cost of friction with the enemy.

The maneuver in Jabalia is a successful model for continuing the operation. The attack on the western part of the area provides a unique contribution to the experience of the forces because of its high density – among the most dense areas in the world – the network of secret tunnels, shooting infrastructure, and various means of warfare. During this combined attack from both ground and air, the compound was destroyed, killing its people inside. The commander of the battalion, Ibrahim Biari, who was responsible for numerous attacks and deeply involved in the surprise attack on October 7, was killed. Dozens of Hamas terrorists were killed. This attack provides an illustration of the challenges our forces will face as they continue to breach the shell of Gaza. The operation in Jabalia should serve as a model for how to deal with the rest of the campaign.

The siege on Gaza is not a “desirable but not necessary” means of warfare; it is a vital means of combat, like all other means employed by the IDF in the conflict. In this war, the siege has a dual purpose: to exhaust the enemy and limit its capabilities, and to contribute directly to Hamas’ loss of control over the population. Its effectiveness depends on three conditions: how porous it is; the level of enforcement; and the duration. A siege that allows for exceptions, or one without enforcement, is not a siege. This applies to the need to rebuff demands of expanding humanitarian aid, fuel supplies, or ideas regarding a humanitarian ceasefire. From Hamas’ perspective, fighting Israel takes precedence over any other need; this means that anything that enters the strip will be used for that purpose. As long as Hamas holds hostages and ignores all humanitarian values, a tough policy should be maintained, allowing goods into Gaza only as required, and only to the southern part of the strip, and under strict supervision.

Disrupting the internet and communication in Gaza is crucial to disrupting Hamas’ control, preventing efficient coordination among its governing mechanisms, disrupting its propaganda efforts, increasing the confusion on the ground, and preventing the flow of information that could hinder our forces’ operations. Even though there may be advantages to keeping the internet on, they are outweighed by the disadvantages. Disconnecting the internet and communication will indeed increase chaos in Gaza and make the fog thicker. But there is no need to be concerned about this. The chaos is likely an inevitable stage on the path to a reality where Hamas does not dominate Gaza.

Discussing the question of the “day after” the war in Gaza is premature. Discussing this may convey a message contrary to the correct line that Israel has adopted in defining the war’s objectives. Furthermore, it is clear that the “day after” will be influenced by the scale of Israel’s military achievement and by the dynamics and opportunities that will have arisen as a result. These cannot be predicted at this stage. At this point, it is suggested to present a framework for the “day after” in the negative sense: in Gaza, there should not be a Hamas government, military capabilities threatening Israel, an arms industry, or any limitations on Israel’s activities. “If the war ends without the destruction of Hamas, it will be a victory for Hamas and a big defeat for Israel and the free world,” the Saudi journalist Abdul Aziz Al-Khamis told Kann news. His words reflect the sentiment shared by the leaders of countries in the region and beyond.

What we say and do may not necessarily always align with what we want to achieve deep inside, but this desire has the ability to create quiet understandings as to the way to deal with Hamas – in Gaza and beyond. After October 7, the world realizes that Israel is the last line of defense against the spread of extreme Islam of Hamas and ISIS. The world will be a better place when we defeat Hamas.

Published in Israel Hayom, 03.11.2023

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterWhatsappTelegramEmail
opinion

Israel must crush Hamas

Meir Ben Shabbat
Meir Ben Shabbat

It wasn’t supposed to happen. The surprise attack by Hamas is an extremely severe blow to Israel’s image of deterrence, beyond the direct, very heavy price it exacted from us physically and emotionally.

This attack also severely damages Israelis’ trust in the security forces. The time will come for the hard questions, investigations and drawing conclusions. Right now it is only right to focus all attention and efforts on the success of the fighting and to strengthen the hands of the commanders and fighters from all the security forces, who, while suffering the painful price of failure, are required to gather their strength and lead the hard fighting against Hamas.

How do you prevent Hezbollah from joining the fighting ?

We are in a situation that will have historical repercussions. Not only Hezbollah but also Iran and other organizations are looking to see what happens. The more powerful and tougher our response against Hamas will be, then this will convey to Hezbollah that it is not worth its while joining the fighting against Israel. Israel’s actions must turn the surprise attack by Hamas against Israel into Gaza’s nakba (tragedy).

The IDF must crush Hamas, kill everybody that belongs to the organization and destroy everything connected to it. The pattern of surgical strikes must be abandoned and practices such as “knocking on the roof” (warning with non-explosive devices that a building is about to be razed) must end. The warnings to the residents have been given, and now the time has come for guns and not just planes.

With all due respect, reports on the number of attacks or the weight of bombs dropped or the number of targets blown up are not interesting. The only figure of interest right now is the number of terrorists killed in Gaza. Unfortunately, in the tough neighborhood where we live, this is the only deterrent.

Israel has no reason to rush the offensive. The only considerations that should guide it are security and operational matters. There is no need to fear international political pressure and “the legitimacy clock running out of time.” As long as 130 Israelis – children and the elderly – are held in Gaza, the international community will be forced to recognize Israel’s right to continue fighting.

Beyond that, the IDF must immediately create a “security perimeter” – an area of approximately 300 meters east of the border, along its entire length, and announce that any Palestinian who enters this area risks his life, and accordingly set instructions for opening fire.

In the civil sphere: Israel should see itself freed from any civil-economic consideration. Israel’s Gaza District Coordination and Liaison office should be abolished, and a total siege should be imposed on Gaza, with the crossings between Israel and Gaza completely closed. This includes passage of fuel and goods from Kerem Shalom, electricity supply should be reduced and the communication and internet connections in the entire Strip should be disrupted.

How to deal with world reaction to the steps now necessary ?

The world understands the situation very well. The countries of the world do not want to return to the era of ISIS. Hamas has brought them back to it. The monstrous attack provides full justification for unconventional measures on Israel’s part. It is wrong to act under a stopwatch or out of fear of the reaction of the international community.

What about the expected impact on Judea and Samaria?

The events have contradictory effects. On the one hand, they raise morale in the Palestinian camp and provide inspiration for more attacks. On the other hand, the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria understand that Israel is currently in great pain and will not show tolerance towards provocations. I believe that a complete closure should also be imposed on the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria. At this time, military efforts should be focused on Gaza, while no risks should be taken regarding terrorist attacks that might be inspired in Judea and Samaria.

Is there a connection between the Hamas attack and the rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia?

I find it hard to believe that moving closer to Saudi Arabia had a real impact. In the eyes of Hamas, this could amount to another possible gain, but not a major consideration.

It is also too early to assess what the consequences of the situation are for normalization with Saudi Arabia, and whether this puts everything in jeopardy.

In any case, I suggest not to see our ambitions regarding Saudi Arabia as a consideration that should restrain our activities in Gaza. Even in Saudi Arabia, the similarities between the barbarism of Hamas and that of ISIS are recognized. Not everyone there will understand Israel’s actions, but no one will doubt the justification.

Moreover, in the Kingdom, as in the entire Middle East, those who react strongly to such a criminal attack will be respected. At the end of the day, peace is made with the strong.

Published in Globes, October 11, 2023.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterWhatsappTelegramEmail
opinion

Zionist Strategy for Israel

David M. Weinberg
David M. Weinberg

On the day after Tisha BeA’v, it would be nice to write about national unity, shared destiny, moderation, and restraint. But I cannot ignore the kasach – the unbridled confrontation, the inflammatory demagoguery, the violent warmongering – that has become standard and acceptable behavior for some of Israel’s once and supposed leaders.

There are very specific people responsible for this degradation, with Ehud Barak taking first place in the ugly contest for the most hateful, most extreme, most seditious rabble-rouser of all.

Former prime minister Ehud Barak appears at every anti-government protest rally and in every foreign television studio with preening self-confidence, sky-high arrogance, and the most untamed political language heard in this country in decades. He savages Prime Minister Netanyahu and anybody to the right of him as “dark and dangerous ultra-nationalists who are undermining the foundations of Zionism and Israeli democracy.”

He blabbers uncontrollably about Israel becoming a “fascist state” and an “apartheid” country. He even called a recent Israeli Supreme Court ruling that went in Netanyahu’s favor “a Weimer Republic-like decision.”

This year he has escalated his rhetoric to talk about the “shattering of Israeli democracy,” the “darkest days Israel has known,” “imminent dictatorship in Israel,” and “silencing” by the right wing. (Funny, Barak doesn’t seem so silenced.)

In one speech I heard, Barak hurled the epithet “fascist” at Netanyahu three times, “dictator” at Justice Minister Levin four times, and “apartheid” at right-wing West Bank settlement policies another three times. He then accused all Israelis to his political right of wearing Nazi-style “selection eyeglasses” (mishkefei selectzia shel hayamin) – which is a disgusting political slur whether used by an antisemitic non-Jew or a born-again wannabe Israeli leader.

To this, Barak recently has added piercing, scornful characterizations of Netanyahu and his cabinet ministers as “jokes,” “jackasses,” “pissers,” “drivellers,” “simpletons,” and “people sick with autoimmune diseases.”

Barak delivers all this dreadful demagoguery alongside incessant use of the epithet “messianic” in describing policies of the right wing. This, of course, is supremely ironic, since the only messianism that exists in abundance in Ehud Barak’s presence is his own messianic self-assurance.

Ehud Barak’s near-antisemitic language is unacceptable

Whatever you think of the Netanyahu government or its judicial reform proposals, Barak’s wild exaggerations and exceedingly belligerent characterizations are disgusting. His use of near-antisemitic and pseudo-BDS language is unacceptable. His feral ambitions and savage hatreds clearly have propelled him off into the deep end.

WORST OF ALL, by far worst of all, is the lead role that Barak has taken in calling for subversion of the IDF through mass refusal-to-serve by Israeli soldiers and reserve duty officers.

Barak began barking about the need to refuse to serve in the IDF “under dictatorship” at a February Haaretz conference. “When a black flag of extreme illegality flies over an army order, it is not just the right of a soldier to obey that order, it is his obligation,” said Barak. “We are now facing the civilian equivalent of black flag illegality.”

“Our only obligation is to liberal democracy as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. We have no obligatory contract with dictators, and history will judge to purgatory all those who submit to the dictates of dictators.”

Asked whether he wasn’t going too far with his call for mutiny in the military, Barak responded with his characteristic messianic self-possession that “we are the right side of history and we are not afraid of anybody or anything.”

On Channel 12 television on July 6 Barak specifically called upon “air force pilots and front-line commandoes” to warn Netanyahu that if the so-called reasonability restriction legislation was passed, they would “refuse to serve a dictatorship, period.”

Reportedly, the Israel Police have opened an investigation into the possibly treasonous remarks made by Ehud Barak, and by Yair Golan of Meretz, but don’t hold your breath waiting for indictments. Prosecuting these people for sedition and concrete damage to the security of the State of Israel would not be politically correct.

It would require Israel’s legal elites to admit, which they won’t, that Barak’s discourse is the true threat to Israeli democracy. It would require them to concede, which they won’t, that those screaming the loudest about imminent threats to democracy are the people engaging in tactics that smack of dictatorship and lawlessness. It would force them to draw red lines, which they are unwilling to do, against the growing calls from Barak and his coterie to deny political and civil rights to anybody who thinks and votes differently, like ultra-Orthodox Jews.

THIS IS THE PLACE to remind readers of Ehud Barak’s dismal political record. He was resoundingly defeated in the elections of 2001 and 2009, leading the once all-powerful Labor Party to a nadir. His term as prime minister was blessedly the shortest term of any Israeli prime minister. He was responsible for the helter-skelter retreat from Lebanon, which led to the rise of Hezbollah. His disastrous diplomatic policies led directly to the second intifada.

The last point is especially important. Barak betrayed the trust Israelis had given him, by agreeing at the July 2000 Camp David summit to divide Jerusalem and give away the Temple Mount. This was a radical diplomatic departure from the platform on which he had campaigned and which he had reaffirmed publicly just two months earlier. (So much for “democratic” behavior… )

This reckless gambit, for which Barak had no public mandate, terribly weakened Israel’s political hold on Jerusalem. It heedlessly broke an important and rightful Israeli diplomatic taboo about maintaining Jerusalem united under Israeli sovereignty.

This transgression undermined a core Jewish claim to legitimacy in Zion, which at source is rooted in the holiest place on earth to Jews – Jerusalem’s Temple Mount. It appreciably enfeebled Israel’s diplomatic fortitude. It drove Palestinian expectations sky-high and became the baseline for international demands that the city be split into two capitals. It later gave cover to other politicians on the Left (like Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni) to go astray too.

It also promptly led to Yasser Arafat’s so-called second intifada, the most murderous spree of Palestinian terrorism in Israel’s history.

Arafat incorrectly assumed that all Israelis would be as supine as Barak; that several dozen bus-bombers would push Israelis over the edge and bring about capitulation in Jerusalem and across Judea and Samaria.

And sure enough, Barak almost gave away the store at the January 2001 Taba summit, after his government had fallen and despite the raging intifada. For the first time, an Israeli prime minister imprudently accepted the 1967 lines (and 97% of Judea and Samaria) as the basis for a Palestinian state. Fortunately, Barak was swiftly kicked out of office, and Israelis proved far more resilient and loyal to their principles than either Barak or Arafat imagined.

Barak has never expressed remorse for his flagrant offenses: for the near plundering of Jerusalem, and for his near subversion of democracy. God only imagines to what insane ends of surrender Barak might go if he were to regain the reins of power.

  • Published for the first time in The Jerusalem Post
0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterWhatsappTelegramEmail
opinion

500 days of war in Ukraine

Meir Ben Shabbat
Meir Ben Shabbat

Some 500 days have passed since armored columns shook the ground of Ukraine, but there is no end in sight for the war. The outbreak of hostilities ended the Pax Europaea that had reigned supreme since World War II, marking a historic milestone in the new world order. It is hard to tell if we are past the peak, but the results of this conflict will determine the global balance of power and impact the international norms, as well as shape our world for the next several decades.

Five days before the war, the annual Munich Security Conference took place in Germany. With the war drums already heard in the background, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy pleaded with NATO and Western leaders, saying, “What are you waiting for? Has our world completely forgotten the mistakes of the 20th century? I just want to make sure you and I read the same books. How did we get to the biggest security crisis since the Cold War?”

In what was the speech of his life, the Ukrainian leader called on the world to act immediately so that Russia’s plot would be foiled. “Don’t wait for the bombs; when they fall we will no longer need your sanctions,” he warned, but to no avail. All those who believed that bloody wars can no longer happen in the 21st – or only in far-flung areas of the world – century got a rude awakening by reality. “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun,” the Book of Ecclesiastes says.

Weakness invites evil. This is the first lesson from this war. While the methods of war keep changing due to technological advances and other developments, war’s essence remains. Its human component continues to be the most important factor. Margaret Atwood once wrote: “Wars happen because the ones who start them think they can win.”

It’s hard to assess what impact the US actions in Afghanistan and the Middle East had on what has unfolded in Europe. At the very least, we can say that they were not a restraining factor in Russia’s overall calculus. The lessons of the war in Ukraine highlight the need to resolve the Iranian issue. Iran’s arrogance and its self-confidence under the current US and European policies have demonstrated the West’s eroding stature. This is clear in Tehran’s brazen conduct on the nuclear issue and its destabilizing actions in the form of arming militias and other proxies, as well as expanding and enhancing its export and production of UAVs and missiles. Iran is not just involved in the war in Ukraine but also occupies a significant role in the re-establishment of an anti-West and anti-US axis. It has lent its support for Russia’s war effort and the two have deepened their cooperation, while Iran has simultaneously come close to China, whose leader has recently said that it supports Iran’s rights on the nuclear issue.

The regime in Tehran has picked up the West’s weakness and is squeezing everything it can from it to its benefit. Iran is threatening the stability and peace of the entire world; there is no need for any additional proof.

The West’s leaders, chiefly the US, now have an opportunity to implement the lessons of the war in Ukraine. They must look at what is going on in Europe and make a decision to change their posture toward Iran. They must assume that the current provocations of the regime will pale in comparison to what it would allow itself to do if it were to have a nuclear arsenal.

If history is any guide, we know that only a credible military threat will stop Iran’s nuclear program. Such a threat from the US will not drag Washington into the war it seeks to avoid because the regime in Tehran knows full well what the balance of power is and the fate of other regional leaders who tried to use their force vis-a-vis the US. In fact, if the US fails to act forcefully against Iran, this will greatly increase the likelihood of a regional war that Washington can prevent.

The future of the world order is on the line. The US knows this, as do the Europeans. Let’s hope that they marshal enough courage and leadership to make the right decisions.

  • Published for the first time in Israel Hayom
0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterWhatsappTelegramEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts
Skip to content