Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, June 17, 2025

06/17 Links Pt2: Kasparov: Israel Won’t Fall for the Illusion of Stability; Leftists for the ayatollah?; Trump: Greatest Peacemaker of the Century

From Ian:

Garry Kasparov: Israel Won’t Fall for the Illusion of Stability

Pour one out for Ben Rhodes. In some ways, The World as It Is is a perfect title for the longtime Obama foreign policy adviser’s memoir, because the illusion of the status quo is all that Rhodes and his fellow travelers could ever stomach in geopolitics. But it was always just that: an illusion. Rhodes never really looked at the world as it is; he simply imagined a facade of post–Cold War stability. The historic Israeli military campaign against Iran that began last week represents another crack in that facade, joining the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, and the Arab Spring.

After spending the past year and a half knocking out one Iranian proxy after another, Israel has dealt the Islamic Republic a heavy blow in recent days. Not just militarily, but politically too. Israeli forces killed a number of senior officials in Tehran, including the chief of staff of the military, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the commander of the IRGC’s Aerospace Force, and a senior adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. And that was just in the first few hours. I suspect that the occupational hazards associated with employment in the Iranian government will continue to grow with each passing day.

Now that the Islamic Republic is severely weakened, the alarmist foreign policy commentariat is apprising us of the unacceptable risks, raising their well-worn red flags. (Or should I say white flags?) “Escalation!” “Global war!” And the ultimate enemy of the status quo: “regime change!” In the shadow of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, I don’t doubt that Rhodes and some like him had good intentions, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with.

Under President Obama, American officials frequently stared down the nastiest offenders in the international rogues’ gallery and insisted that there was “no military solution.” “No military solution” might sound nice to enlightened ears. Unfortunately, it’s a meaningless slogan. Tellingly, Russian officials repeat it all the time too. The Russian ambassador to the UN used that Ben Rhodes-esque turn of phrase at the Security Council, declaring that “no military solution can be legitimate or viable” in Iran. But Russia does believe there are military solutions to its problems—ask any Ukrainian, Syrian, or Georgian. Yet too many in Washington remain determined to fight armed marauders with flowery words.

The initial takeaway from Rhodes on the well-earned battering that the Iranian regime has received was that “this war will above all harm innocent people for no good reason.”

In the shadow of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, I don’t doubt that Rhodes and some like him had good intentions, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with.

Notice the reliance on the future tense. Status-quo huggers hide behind fear of what might happen instead of confronting the brutal truth of what’s actually happened or is happening. Call it a preference for deadly reality over frightening uncertainty.

Andrew Fox: Israel’s bold, and dangerous, gamble

So what does ‘success’ look like for each side? For Israel, the best-case scenario in Iran is that a combination of internal unrest, elite fragmentation and sustained sabotage, along with airstrikes, either collapse the regime or force it to retreat from its nuclear programme. The second-best outcome would be a significant delay to Iran’s nuclear programme, perhaps buying a decade or more. The worst-case scenario is that Iran weathers the storm and sprints for a bomb.

For Iran, ‘success’ means surviving the onslaught while projecting strength, deterring future attacks through visible retaliation and perhaps leveraging the threat of nuclear capability to force concessions. If Tehran can maintain regional influence, continue enrichment and keep Israel guessing, it will consider that a strategic win. The Iranians may accept Trump’s offer of a deal to reconsider their nuclear ambitions, although this would represent a humbling strategic defeat.

There is a darker prospect, too: unending escalation. This cycle could spiral into a painful and damaging campaign of attrition for both sides. Should Iran refuse to compromise, firmly on the back foot and battered from the skies, it is conceivable that Israel will escalate. This could mean striking at the political leadership itself, and forcing the regime change Israel is currently only hinting at.

Which brings us to the crucial question: how does this de-escalate? At present, it does not. Neither side is incentivised to back down. Israel views a nuclear Iran as an existential threat; Iran perceives Israeli aggression as justification for doubling down. The lack of a credible mediator and the erosion of American deterrence highlight just how fragile the situation is.

One path to stability may lie in backchannel diplomacy, particularly if the US and Gulf states can persuade Iran to halt enrichment in exchange for an end to hostilities. However, Israel’s leadership seems to have little faith in diplomacy and no desire for a pause. They believe time is not on their side.

Israel’s absolute penetration of Iran’s security environment and its total air supremacy over its enemy’s capital city should be understood as both a message and a warning. It says: ‘We are inside your defences. We can strike you at will.’ It also reveals a strategic conundrum. Israel has embarked on a campaign that may be beyond its means to finish. Effective as these strikes are, they may not stop Iran’s nuclear drive and might even accelerate it.

What began with a covert drone strike has now turned into open conflict. Rockets are being fired at Israeli cities and airstrikes are lighting up the skies over Tehran. Israel is gambling on precision, pressure and psychological warfare to bring down a regime it hopes to bomb into submission. Iran is betting that it can absorb the blows, outlast its enemies and emerge nuclear-armed. Both sides are pushing the boundaries of strategy and restraint.

Right now, neither side has the option to stop. Both are willing to find out what happens when they do not. Whatever happens next could shape the Middle East for decades.

Michael Oren: Trump: Greatest Peacemaker of the Century

For many years now, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, American diplomacy on Iran has focused on curbing its nuclear program. Successive presidents have pledged to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But that approach, however admirable, did not seek to deny Iran the ability to make nuclear weapons nor did it address what was euphemistically called Iran’s “malign behavior.”

That behavior includes Iran’s status as the world’s foremost state sponsor of terror attacks that have claimed countless lives on multiple continents. The regime has murdered Iranian dissidents around the world and tried to assassinate senior American officials, among them President Trump. The Islamic Republic has supplied the missiles and drones used to kill thousands of Ukrainians and helped ignite the current disastrous Middle East war by backing Hamas and Hezbollah. The regime enabled Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to massacre a half million of his own countrymen and the Houthi terrorists in Yemen to block international shipping. Pro-Iranian militias launched dozens of attacks against US bases in Iraq, Jordan, and Syria killing and wounding American soldiers. And the Ayatollahs did all this while brutally oppressing their own people, women, LGBT+, and ethnic minorities especially. Malign behavior indeed.

By insisting that Iran not only limit its nuclear program but dismantle it, President Trump is the first world leader to ensure that the regime will neither have nuclear weapons now nor the means to produce them in the future. But once the Ayatollahs are defeated or overthrown, the president can achieve vastly more.

The president can end Iran’s support for global terror, its backing of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, and its supply of the weapons that kill Ukrainians. The president can guarantee the sovereignty of Syria and Lebanon and the demilitarization of Yemen and Gaza. Through President Trump’s diplomacy, Iranians can once again enjoy freedom.

The fall of the Islamic Republic’s empire can give rise to peace between Israel and Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and possibly Iran itself. A ceasefire deal can be achieved in Gaza and all of the Israeli hostages released. The Middle East will be thoroughly and stunningly transformed. President Trump will be hailed as modern history’s greatest peacemaker.

David Harsanyi: Iran is nothing like the Iraq War

Iran, of course, has been an enemy of the U.S. for over four decades, regularly taking American citizens hostage, hatching assassination plots against U.S. leaders, undermining U.S. interests in the Middle East, and threatening Gulf allies and international shipping lanes. Iran is responsible for the death of over 600 American troops, or approximately 1 in every 6 combat fatalities in Iraq, maiming thousands of others. Imagine how fundamentalist Islamic leadership would conduct itself with nuclear warheads.

It is, in case anyone has forgotten, the longtime position of the U.S. that Iran should not possess nuclear weapons. This was, ostensibly at least, the purpose of former President Barack Obama’s deal with the mullahs. Remember that Ben Rhodes’s “echo chamber” narrative was conceived to gin up support for the failed Iran deal. Trump, who backed out of that disastrous agreement, has on multiple occasions not only unequivocally stated that Iran would be denied nuclear weapons, but that he would allow Israel to take out the program. “Hit the nuclear first and worry about the rest later” does not sound like the sentiments of a neoconservative nation builder but a pragmatic Western leader.

Though Israelis have likely funded and employed public relations efforts to boost the prospect of internal opposition groups, not one leader has ever expressed any interest in landing troops on Iranian soil for any occupation to make it happen. If Iranians want to depose the Khamenei regime, and they have shown repeatedly that they do, they will have to do the hard work themselves.

For Israel, the strategic goal is clear: degrade, hopefully destroy, Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear bomb. Israel is trying to win a war of survival, not remake the Middle East. Numerous outlets have reported that Israel has asked the U.S. to participate in strikes. This might be true, or it might be information warfare. Perhaps the story was planted to scare the Iranians into surrendering. Perhaps Israel could use help destroying the Fordow nuclear facility, buried deep under the mountainside. Doing so would be in our best interests as well.

As of this writing, however, there is no evidence that the U.S. has engaged in any combat missions. The Iranians, thus far, haven’t attacked any American bases in the region because the last thing they need is further pulling us into the conflict.

And it’s about time rogue terrorist regimes were terrified of the U.S. again.

06/17 Links Pt1: Israel cannot settle for a temporary military win, it must topple the Islamic regime; The Simple Reasons Behind Trump’s Support for ‘Operation Rising Lion’

From Ian:

Armin Rosen: Can Israel End Iran’s Nuclear Program?

The United States is the only country in the world with the ability to destroy the Fordow nuclear facility quickly from the air, something we could accomplish by dropping a couple 15-ton Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs on the most important and heavily protected piece of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Such a strike would potentially reset the entirety of international arms control.

Since the early 1970s, the world has depended on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the U.N. Security Council to maintain a global system that regulates the spread and development of nuclear weapons technology, placing American adversaries like China and Russia at the apex of the arms control system and creating layers of bureaucracy and diplomacy that would-be proliferators have learned to exploit. Pakistan, India, and North Korea have all built nuclear arsenals in defiance of the NPT. Until this week, Iran was very close to joining them.

The global arms control regime never considered Fordow—or, for that matter, Yongbyon, the site of North Korea’s nuclear breakthroughs in the mid-’90s—to be sufficiently serious a threat to global peace to warrant military action. Interestingly enough, the three most recent instances of a country using force to stop an in-progress nuclear program—namely, the Israeli attacks on Iraq, Syria, and Iran—were launched by a state that isn’t a signatory to the NPT. So far the United States has declined to attack North Korean and Iranian nuclear sites. If Donald Trump were to reverse course and bomb Fordow, he would reorient all of global nonproliferation around American strategic judgment and leadership. A successful U.S. attack on Fordow would establish a precedent that a would-be atomic scofflaw couldn’t ignore, with Washington acting as the final bulwark against the spread of nuclear weapons in cases where the NPT regime failed.

But what if Trump decides stanching the tide of nuclear weapons is a job better left to the Chinas and Russias of the world? What if the Israelis are really on their own here? One of the big unknowns of Operation Rising Lion is the extent of the damage Israel has been able to inflict on the Iranian nuclear program so far. Clarifying the issue requires both scientific expertise and deep knowledge of the entire Iranian nuclear-industrial complex.

Almost no one on earth is more qualified to talk about Israel’s progress against the Iranian bomb than the physicist and former IAEA inspector David Albright, founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS). The institute has already published a detailed summary of the likely impact of Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. I spoke to Albright on Monday afternoon to get an update on where things stand. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Israel cannot settle for a temporary military win, it must topple the Islamic regime

Israel’s immediate military actions have, by all accounts, been successful in degrading Tehran’s most critical threats. The three pillars of the regime's threat – its nuclear program, its ballistic missile arsenal, and its global terror network – have been shaken. But to believe these setbacks are permanent is to ignore decades of history. The Islamic Republic’s ambition is resilient. Its nuclear program, though damaged, retains its most crucial asset: the knowledge to build a bomb. The scientists may be gone, the centrifuges shattered, but the blueprints remain. History shows us that after every setback, Tehran has rebuilt its program with greater speed, sophistication, and secrecy. To allow this regime to survive is to guarantee that it will rise from the rubble more determined than ever to cross the nuclear threshold, this time building deeper, more fortified sites, and learning from every Israeli success.

Similarly, its ballistic missile program is not merely a strategic asset; it is a core pillar of its regional dominance and its primary threat against the Israeli home front. While stockpiles can be destroyed and launch sites cratered, the industrial base and the engineering expertise remain. The regime’s leaders are driven by ideological and strategic imperative to maintain and advance this capability. They will rebuild, and they will aim for missiles that are faster, more precise, and capable of overwhelming any defense system.

Finally, the regime’s tentacular support for terrorism has been its primary method of waging war for decades. From Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Houthis in Yemen and militias in Iraq, this proxy network is Iran’s way of bleeding its enemies without risking a direct state-on-state war. Disrupting weapons convoys and eliminating commanders are necessary tactical actions, but they do not address the source of the cancer. As long as the head of the snake remains in Tehran, it will continue to fund, arm, and direct its legion of proxies to sow chaos and violence on Israel’s borders.

The nature of this regime is not subject to negotiation. It will not be pacified by diplomacy or deterred by temporary military defeats. Its commitment to regional hegemony and the destruction of Israel is woven into its very DNA.

Therefore, Israel faces a stark choice. It can heed the calls for de-escalation, enjoy a fleeting moment of victory, and allow a wounded and vengeful regime to reconstitute its strength for the next, more lethal, round. Or, it can commit to a policy that sees this conflict through to its only logical conclusion: to topple the regime once and for all. It is time to stop trimming the branches of the poison tree and focus on uprooting it entirely.

Andrew Fox: How This Phase of the Israel-Iran War Will End

With that being said, Andrew Fox is fairly optimistic, writing that “this war is won already.” He explains:

Israeli air supremacy has decimated Iran’s military infrastructure. At the same time, Iran’s missile salvos appear to be diminishing in scale daily as the IDF degrades Iranian launcher capability. Missiles have been intercepted for the most part, although they continue to inflict casualties.

Although Iran insists it will not negotiate under fire, its backchannel diplomacy conveys a different narrative. The regime seeks a face-saving way out. This is a surrender.

But the details of a negotiated peace could vary, and in the worst-case scenario, Fox writes,

the regime would frame it as a heroic stand: Iran “resisted Zionist aggression,” inflicted damage on Israel, and emerged intact. State media would highlight Israeli casualties and missile damage as proof of Iranian strength, while portraying international ceasefire efforts as evidence that the world fears Iran’s power. This narrative of resilience could temporarily bolster the regime’s fragile legitimacy.

However, this “victory” would be highly costly and precarious. Israeli strikes have devastated Iran’s military infrastructure, degraded the leadership of the [Revolutionary Guard], and set back its nuclear program, albeit not permanently. The economy, already crippled by sanctions, would be in an even worse condition, with oil facilities, airports, and industrial sites all damaged. Rebuilding would take years.

If Iran does not find a way to reach a deal, Israel will capitalize on its advantage and try to collapse the Iranian regime. The IDF, having achieved air supremacy, will target the regime’s backbone: command bunkers, nuclear facilities, oil infrastructure, and symbols of state authority.

At this stage, there is nothing at all to stop Israel from relentlessly pounding Iran until it surrenders. There seems to be no shortage of ammunition, and American resupply can happen at will. Despite international media attempts to portray a tit-for-tat scenario, it has been an overwhelming victory for Israel. This is not even a debate.

What war are they seeing? Iranian media trumpets their imminent victory over Zionists

The IRGC-linked Defa Press (Farsi) headlines show a very different war than the one everyone else is seeing.

Azizi: The defeat of the Zionist regime is imminent

The head of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of the Parliament, in a conversation with the head of the Security and Defense Committee of the Iraqi Parliament, said: "Contrary to the enemies' imagination, the field process is in favor of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and with God's grace, the defeat of the Zionist regime will be close."

The desperation of the Zionist regime

After Operation True Promise 3 entered its strategic stages and the regime's army was placed in a completely defensive position, Israeli officials indirectly sought a ceasefire or compromise, not from a position of power, but out of necessity and to prevent internal collapse and desperation.

Heavy army drone attacks on occupied territories

The commander of the Army Ground Forces said: "Over the past 24 hours, various types of destructive drones have destroyed the strategic positions of the Zionist regime with their destructive and pinpointing power."

Sardar Jalali: Equations are changing in favor of Iran

The head of the country's Passive Defense Organization stated that the image of Iran's national power is being restored, and said: "Certainly, in the coming days, political and military equations will be in Iran's favor."

Israeli intelligence officers killed in IRGC missile attack

A significant number of Israeli intelligence officers and commanders were killed in today's attack by the IRGC on Israeli intelligence centers.

Destroying 28 hostile targets/hunting the "Hermes" drone with precise air defense fire

The country's integrated air defense network destroyed 28 types of hostile aircraft over the past 24 hours.

Congress of Martyrs of Captivity: We are listening to the leadership's orders to destroy Israel

During the Zionist regime's invasion of our country, the Secretariat of the National Congress of Foreign Martyrs in Captivity issued a statement announcing that we are responding to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution.

Major General Shadmani: Armed Forces operations continue to completely crush the enemy (6/15)

The commander of the Khatam al-Anbiya (PBUH) Central Headquarters said: "In the continuation of the proud operations of the powerful and prepared armed forces of Islamic Iran, the series of operations will continue until the Zionist enemy completely repents."

Major General Hatami: The army is dealing heavy blows to the child-killing Zionist regime (6/15)

The Commander-in-Chief of the Army emphasized in a message: The Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran has made effective efforts to defend the sacred territory of dear Iran, and from now on, with full readiness, it will deal severe blows to the fake and child-killing Zionist regime.

Imam Khamenei: Armed forces will impoverish the scoundrel Zionist regime (6/13)

The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution said: The Zionist regime will not escape this crime unscathed, and the Iranian people can be assured that there will be no letup in this regard.

There are always new weapons, new surprises, around the corner that will teach the Zionists their lesson. And there have been these promises since the fighting started.

The Iranian people know they are being lied to. I think the only people believing these stories are Western antisemites.

But it is a strategy, as government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani said in her daily TV broadcast: "We are in a hybrid war, part of which is taking place in the sky and part through the media."

Since Iran already lost the first war, they have no choice but to spend all their energy on the second.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei accused Israel of bombing the Hakim Children's Hospital in Tehran.

I tried to trace down this story and found nothing.

Tehran Times illustrates its story about this supposed bombing with three images of twisted metal, not showing where the photos were taken.

The story does not describe any damage or witnesses, only how terrible Israel is for doing it.

The source appears to be Sana Saeed, a former Al Jazeera reporter who made the claim with no evidence. A social media influencer in Iran said that she checked it out, asked hospital officials and was assured that the hospital was fine.

Most lies aren't so blatant. For example, there are accusations of Israel also targeting the Farabi hospital in Kermanshah. The damage shown in the hospital is real but all appears to be secondary - if Israel wanted to destroy the hospital, we'd see more than ceiling tiles being damaged and windows blown out.

Luckily, Iranians aren't as controlled as Gazans are, and are willing to tell the truth with little fear of being killed for doing so. One reporter said that this was collateral damage from Israel directly targeting a factory nearby that was probably an IRGC installation.

Or the story of a female reporter killed by Israel, who happened to be in the same house as her father and uncle. Her father was Chief of the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces and her uncle was a commander.

Experience shows that when enough lies are thrown out, eventually some of them go viral and debunking them becomes almost useless.

Which is exactly the point.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

It's bad enough that the New York Times Tom Friedman is ignorant. But the fact that he thinks he is brilliant is what makes his columns so terrible. He is more interested in play-acting being an expert than in actual analysis.

Iran’s flawed strategic doctrine, which was also practiced by its proxy, Hezbollah, to equally bad results, is a doctrine I call trying to out-crazy an adversary. Iran and Hezbollah are always ready to go all the way, thinking that whatever their opponents might do in response, Hezbollah or Iran will always outdo them with a more extreme measure.

[W]here it fell short was Iran and Hezbollah thinking they could drive Israelis out of their biblical homeland. Iran and Hezbollah are delusional in this regard — Hamas, too. They keep referring to the Jewish state as a foreign colonial enterprise, with no indigenous connection to the land, and therefore they assume the Jews will eventually meet the same fate as the Belgians in the Belgian Congo. That is, under enough pressure they will eventually go back to their own version of Belgium.

But the Israeli Jews have no Belgium. They are as indigenous to their biblical homeland as the Palestinians, no matter what “anticolonial” nonsense they teach at elite universities. Therefore, you will never out-crazy the Israeli Jews. If push comes to shove, they will out-crazy you.

They will play by the local rules, and yes, those are not the rules of the Geneva Conventions. They are the rules of the Middle East, which I call Hama Rules — named after the Hama attacks perpetrated by the Syrian government of Hafez al-Assad in 1982, the aftermath of which I covered. Al-Assad wiped out the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama by mercilessly leveling whole swaths of the city, whole blocks of apartments, into a parking lot. Hama rules are no rules at all.

Friedman makes it sound like he is pro-Israel - he admits Jews are indigenous to the land. (Stating the obvious is not exactly groundbreaking.) But he insists that they are no better than Syria was in Hama - that they disregard the Geneva Conventions, and human rights. This is a blood libel, one that is currently on the front cover of the New York magazine.

Israel follows the rules of international law. The IDF has lawyers embedded in all levels of decision making. The average IDF soldier has studied the laws of war when he or she is 19 more extensively than Tom Friedman has in fifty years.

The problem is that Western self-declared experts don't know the first thing about the Geneva Conventions, which are quite reasonable in how they allow wars to be waged. They don't know how independent tribunals have defined "proportionality" and "distinction" in ways that would allow Israel to go way beyond what it has done in Gaza. They don't know that the laws of war give Israeli military commanders latitude to decide to attack based on the best current intelligence information, even if it is found out to be flawed later (for example, not knowing about an explosives cache hidden among the target that makes the resulting secondary explosions kill many civilians.)

I wish I had a dollar for every time, after some murderous attack on Israeli Jews by Palestinians or Iranian proxies, the Israeli government declared that it was going to solve the problem with force “once and for all.”

There are only two ways to finish off this problem once and for all. One is for Israel to permanently occupy the West Bank, Gaza and all of Iran, as America did to Germany and Japan after World War II, and try to change the political culture.

Really? Israel would need to occupy Iran? Does Friedman really think Iranians love their government and will defend it until forced to change it? What planet does he live on? Iranians do not want to live under the mullahs. Can he really be so clueless?

Ah, but Friedman lives on a planet where he is the wise decisionmaker and can solve all problems.

Which brings me to what Trump should do now regarding Iran. He says he still hopes “there’s going to be a deal.” If he wants a good deal, he should declare that he is doing two things at once.

One, that he will equip Israel’s Air Force with the B-2 bombers and 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs and U.S. trainers that would give Israel the capacity to destroy all of Iran’s underground nuclear facilities unless Iran immediately agrees to allow teams from the International Atomic Energy Agency to disassemble these facilities and to have access into every nuclear site in Iran to recover all fissile material that Tehran has generated. Only if Iran completely complies with these conditions should it be allowed to have a civilian nuclear program under strict IAEA controls. But Iran will comply only under a credible threat of force.

So simple! Just offer to give Israel B-2s!

Except that even highly trained pilots need 6-9 months to learn how to fly a B-2. It would take an additional 6 months at least to train for a specific mission like bombing Fordow. And that is just for starters - a B-2 is a strategic stealth bomber, not a fighter, which is an entirely different mindset than Israeli pilots are used to. Beyond that, the US is unlikely to share the B-2 with anyone for security reasons.

In other words, if Trump would make that offer, Iran could breathe a sigh of relief knowing that he just gave them at least 15 months to plan and pressure Israel to end the war, and they would make a reasonable assumption that Trump is bluffing anyway.

But Friedman's delusions are only starting:

At the same time, Trump should declare that his administration recognizes the Palestinians as a people who have a right to national self-determination. But to realize that, they must demonstrate that they can fulfill the responsibilities of statehood by generating a new Palestinian Authority leadership that the United States deems credible, free of corruption and committed both to effectively serving Palestinian citizens in the West Bank and Gaza and to coexisting with Israel.

Oh, remember linkage? The idea that the Palestinian issue is the linchpin to the entire Middle East, and if Palestinians get a state then all the other problems go away? It was never true, and the Abraham Accords proved it. (So does Iran’s nuclear weapons program. So does Hezbollah’s use of the Shebaa Farms as an excuse to continue to exist after 2000. So does the Houthi missiles and drones aimed at Israel.) Friedman thinks that Iran's animosity towards Israel is because it cares so much about Palestinians, when in fact those nuclear bombs that they were secretly working on would have killed tens of thousands of Palestinians along with Jews.

“Palestine” is not what causes antisemitism. It is simply today/s excuse for antisemites.

Not to mention that a Palestinian state would not bring peace. It would invite more war. Because the entire purpose of a Palestinian state in part of the British Mandate area, as Arafat said repeatedly, is a stage to get in a better position to take over all of Israel.

There are plenty of bad Middle East analysts. But few of them have Tom Friedman's smug self-assurance that their ideas are so brilliant that they outlast events that prove them wrong.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

HRW and @Amnesty still silent on Iranian missiles targeting Israeli residential buildings and killing civilians

As of this writing, 24 Israeli civilians have been killed in this war. And no Israeli soldiers.

By now, with the Iranian missile hits in Bat Yam, Ramat Gan, Tamra, Rishon LeTzion and elsewhere, that Iran is aiming at least as much at civilian areas as at military targets. It missiles are accurate and Iran itself claims that its uses missiles that can be steered when they re-enter the atmosphere. The damage done to the buildings that have been hit come from direct explosions, not merely kinetic energy of large parts of a missile speeding towards the ground after being hit by Israeli defenses.

The first Israeli civilian death was on June 13, so it has been over 3 days since Israelis have had to hide in shelters since Iran is aiming at them.

If Iran is aiming at residential areas, it is performing war crimes. If its missiles are inaccurate, then they are guilty of firing the missiles indiscriminately, which is still against international law and a human rights violation.

And yet, not a word from Amnesty International nor Human Rights Watch and Iran killing two dozen Israeli civilians, from young children to senior citizens.

We've seen this show before, and I made a cartoon explaining how Amnesty and HRW treat situations like this where Israeli civilians are being targeted:

This is their playbook. They refuse to condemn anyone who targets Jews until they can primarily blame Israel for targeting civilians, true or not.

They then write reports about the supposed Israeli war crimes, treating sketchy "witnesses" as reliable. And in the middle of the report, they will mention in a throwaway sentence, "We also condemn indiscriminate Iranian missile attacks."

That way they can claim to be "even handed."

These Iranian attacks are of the type that both HRW and Amnesty would quickly and clearly condemn anywhere else in the world. But when Jews are victims, they bend over backwards to find ways to exonerate the murderers and to blame the victims.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

06/16 Links Pt2: Israel’s actions are a favour to Europe – but don’t expect a thank you; France walls off Israeli pavilion at Paris Air Show; The march of the useful idiots

From Ian:

Israel’s actions are a favour to Europe – but don’t expect a thank you

Blame Hollywood if you like, but Britain has drifted into that cliché scene where by-standers beg the hero not to cut the red wire. This week’s by-standers are Cabinet ministers and assorted world leaders, panicked that Israeli pilots might finish the job on Iran’s nuclear programme. The talk is all about “de-escalation”, as though you can politely handcuff a centrifuge and hope it learns some manners. Yet the red wire in question is attached to Tehran’s nuclear-bomb-in-waiting, and – brace yourself – Israel is prepared to yank it out.

Let’s admit what the diplomatic communiqués whisper: Iran is not enriching uranium for a school science prize. The International Atomic Energy Agency counts hundreds of kilos sitting at 60 per cent, a couple of turns from weapons-grade. Strap that payload to an intermediate-range Shahab and the footprint stretches far beyond Tel Aviv to nearby Europe. If you want a working definition of “clear and present danger”, that’s it – especially when the regime boasts that its reach is now “continental”.

Meanwhile, every time you map the region’s misery you find Tehran’s fingerprints. Hezbollah’s missiles in Lebanon, Hamas’s tunnels in Gaza, Shia militias turning Iraqi highways into shooting galleries, Houthis lobbing drones across the Red Sea – each a franchise in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ terror food-court. Pay, train, arm, repeat. The ayatollahs have franchised terror into a geopolitical Deliveroo – dispatching proxy couriers who drop rockets on Israel and drones on Red Sea shipping.

Against that backdrop, the suggestion that Israel must be reined in feels almost zoological – like silencing the guard dog while the burglar assembles Semtex in the neighbourhood. Yes, Israel’s operations spark unease; a bombing run is nobody’s idea of diplomacy. But allowing Iran to complete its nuclear sprint would be more than an escalation: it would be a time-release calamity.

Israel’s pilots and engineers are, in effect, buying the civilised world time that sanctions, resolutions and strongly worded letters never could. Knocking out centrifuges today means fewer warheads tomorrow, and fewer warheads means no regional arms race in 2030. In the cold arithmetic of strategy, that is a favour to every European capital even if they’re too squeamish to send so much as a thank-you tweet.

NYT's Editorial: Antisemitism Is an Urgent Problem. Too Many People Are Making Excuses.

Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident, has suggested a “3D” test for when criticism of Israel crosses into antisemitism, with the D’s being delegitimization, demonization and double standards. Progressive rhetoric has regularly failed that test in recent years. “Americans generally have greater ability to identify Jew hatred when it comes from the hard right and less ability and comfort to call out Jew hatred when it comes from the hard left or radical Islamism,” said Rachel Fish, an adviser to Brandeis University’s Presidential Initiative on Antisemitism.

Consider the double standard that leads to a fixation on Israel’s human rights record and little campus activism about the records of China, Russia, Sudan, Venezuela or almost any other country. Consider how often left-leaning groups suggest that the world’s one Jewish state should not exist and express admiration for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis — Iran-backed terrorist groups that brag about murdering Jews. Consider how often people use “Zionist” as a slur — an echo of Soviet propaganda from the Cold War — and call for the exclusion of Zionists from public spaces. The definition of a Zionist is somebody who supports the existence of Israel.

Historical comparisons can also be instructive. The period since Oct. 7, 2023, is hardly the first time that global events have contributed to a surge in hate crimes against a specific group. Asian Americans were the victims in 2020 and 2021 after the Covid pandemic began in China. Muslim Americans were the victims after Sept. 11, 2001. In those periods, a few fringe voices, largely on the far right, tried to justify the hate, but the response from much of American society was denunciation. President George W. Bush visited a mosque on Sept. 17, 2001, and proclaimed, “Islam is peace.” During Covid, displays of Asian allyship filled social media.

Recent experience has been different in a couple of ways. One, the attacks against Jews have been even more numerous and violent, as the F.B.I. data shows. Two, the condemnation has been quieter and at times tellingly agonized. University leaders have often felt uncomfortable decrying antisemitism without also decrying Islamophobia. Islamophobia, to be clear, is a real problem that deserves attention on its own. Yet antisemitism seems to be a rare type of bigotry that some intellectuals are uncomfortable rebuking without caveat. After the Sept. 11 attacks, they did not feel the need to rebuke both Islamophobia and antisemitism. Nor should they have. People should be able to denounce a growing form of hatred without ritually denouncing other forms.

Alarmingly, the antisemitic rhetoric of both the political right and the left has filtered into justifications for violence. But there has been an asymmetry in recognizing the connections. After a gunman murdered 11 people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018, observers correctly noted that he had become radicalized partly through racist right-wing social media. There has been a similar phenomenon in some recent attacks, this time with the assailants using the language of the left.

The man who burned marchers in Colorado shouted “Free Palestine!” and (awkwardly) “End Zionist!” The man charged with killing the young Israeli Embassy workers in Washington last month is suspected of having posted an online manifesto titled “Escalate for Gaza, Bring the War Home.” His supporters have since published a petition that includes “Globalize the Intifada.” The demonizing, delegitimizing rhetoric of the right bore some responsibility for the Pittsburgh massacre; the demonizing, delegitimizing rhetoric of the left bears some responsibility for the recent attacks.

Americans should be able to recognize the nuanced nature of many political debates while also recognizing that antisemitism has become an urgent problem. It is a different problem — and in many ways, a narrower one — than racism. Antisemitism has not produced shocking gaps in income, wealth and life expectancy in today’s America. Yet the new antisemitism has left Jewish Americans at a greater risk of being victimized by a hate crime than any other group. Many Jews live with fears that they never expected to experience in this country.

No political arguments or ideological context can justify that bigotry. The choice is between denouncing it fully and encouraging an even broader explosion of hate.

Is The Simple Truth: ‘Progressives Hate Jews’?

We all know the saying – and apparent truism – that there will be peace in the Middle East when the Palestinians start loving their children more than they hate the Jews. But it seems increasingly apparent to me that something similar applies to so-called “progressive politics”. Campaigning organizations might one day achieve their campaigning goals when they value those goals more than they hate the Jews.

Last week we saw the unedifying spectacle of Environmental Campaigner Greta Thunburg – who only a short while ago claimed the “climate emergency” was the biggest existential threat to the planet. Of course, it wasn’t so great an emergency that she couldn’t take time out from it to deliver some groceries to Gaza as if she were Tuesday’s ‘Hello Fresh’ drop-off driver.

The Israel-Iran war gives us a few new examples of where anti-Israel activism seems to override the urgency of primary campaigning. Almost all of these groups state that their values include human rights, democracy, rights and protections for women and sexual minorities, and so on. So when they appear to condemn Israel – a society where these values have legal force – over Iran – where these values are forced to their knees – is there any conclusion other than this one?

“Progressives hate Jews so much that they are willing to support a theocratic dictatorship that stands against almost all of their core values against a Jewish state which reflects most of those values.”

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) apparently stands for a world free from the threat of nuclear war. So you’d think they’d be quite pleased when a mad theocracy on the verge of acquiring a nuclear bomb is stopped. But of course they aren’t.

“The British government must end its support for nuclear-armed Israel’s illegal war on Iran – a war based on lies used to justify attempts at regime change that risks widening a humanitarian catastrophe,” they raged.

Similarly, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) condemned Israel’s attacks on the grounds that attacking nuclear facilities might cause an environmental disaster. “Nuclear facilities must never be attacked,” scolded the agency head, Rafael Mariano Grossi. His organization is dedicated, they say, to “nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament, and to promote cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”

Of course they don’t appear to have a plan to stop a rogue state weaponizing nuclear power other than to hope for the best while condemning any practical efforts to stop them. Perhaps they subscribe to the view formulated by President Barack Obama ten years ago. How’s that turning out?

06/16 Links Pt1: Eight Israelis killed in five Iranian missile strikes; The Ultimate Deception: How Trump and Bibi Outfoxed Iran; IAEA: All centrifuges at Iran main's enrichment plant severely damaged

From Ian:

Eight Israelis killed in five Iranian missile strikes

Eight Israelis were killed by Iranian missile strikes in five locations that occurred Sunday night and early Monday morning.

In the central Israeli city of Petach Tikva, five people were killed in a residential building, and in adjacent Bnei Brak, an 80-year-old man was found dead at the site of a missile strike.

Two of the people killed in Petach Tikva were inside their safe room, which was directly hit by a missile. Israel’s Home Front Command explained that safe rooms are built to protect from shrapnel, shards and shock waves, but not a direct hit, which is a rare occurrence. The Home Front Command emphasized that everyone else in the building who was in a safe room was not even injured. Petach Tikva Mayor Rami Grinberg said that the residence was struck by a ballistic missile carrying hundreds of kilograms of explosives.

Tel Aviv sustained two direct missile strikes, one of which lightly damaged the U.S. Embassy Branch Office. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee clarified that “the minor damage to the property were from the shock waves … from the nearby blast … No injuries, thank God!”

Among the residents evacuated from buildings in Tel Aviv was a six-day-old baby, whose mother was found minutes later.

In Haifa, three people were found dead under the rubble of a burning building where a missile hit, and about 300 people were evacuated. The Israel Electric Corporation said that the strike damaged its power grid, and that “teams are working on the ground to neutralize safety hazards, in particular the risk of electrocution.” Maritime risk assessment company Ambrey reported a fire at the Haifa Port.

Israel continued to intercept Iranian and Houthi drones heading to Israel’s north on Monday morning.

About 50 Israeli fighter jets and aircraft struck some 100 military targets in Isfahan in central Iran overnight, the IDF Spokesperson’s Office said on Monday.

Among those targets were missile storage sites, surface-to-surface missile launchers and command centers. Israel has destroyed over 120 missile launchers since the beginning of the operation, about a third of Iran’s total launchers. In one strike overnight, the IAF identified an attempt to launch missiles towards Israel in real time and destroyed the cell and missiles.

The IDF confirmed on Monday that it killed the head of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps intelligence Mohammad Kazemi and his deputy, Hassan Mohaqiq, on Sunday.

The IDF also struck a command center of the Quds Force, part of the IRGC, for the first time, according to the IDF spokesperson. The Quds Force “planned acts of terror against Israel through the Iranian regime’s proxies in the Middle East.”

Israel also reportedly struck near nuclear sites in Fordow. The Wall Street Journal reported that parts of the underground nuclear enrichment site in Natanz collapsed as a result of Israeli strikes.

The IAF struck Mashhad, in eastern Iran, on Sunday afternoon, destroying an Iranian refueling aircraft. Mashhad, some 2300 km (1429 mi) away from Israel, is the farthest Israeli fighter jets have flown in Iran, and, according to some experts, the farthest in any Israeli operation, ever.

The Israeli Navy used a new air defense system called Thunder Shield and LRAD long-range interceptors on Sa’ar 6 ships to intercept eight Iranian drones overnight. The seaborne systems, which have intercepted some 25 projectiles since the beginning of Operation Rising Lion on Thursday night, are able to intercept UAVs, cruise missiles, sea-to-land missiles and more.

Seth Mandel: The World Had 30 Years of Israeli Restraint and Failed to Stop Iran

Notice a pattern? Israeli leaders take steps for peace and then ask one thing of the West: to help prevent Iran from sabotaging the process before it can go any further.

In 2012, Shimon Peres—Israel’s “dreamer,” the only person as closely associated with the peace process as Rabin—was asked by CNN about Israel’s willingness to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program, even taking lethal action against those responsible for the program. Peres responded: “If you have enough information about a certain person which is a ticking clock that can explode a bomb that can endanger civilian life, clearly you have to prevent him from doing so.”

Meanwhile, plans for Iran’s nuclear program began back in the 1980s. These plans were put into action in the 1990s as Iran sought to build nuclear bombs within about a decade. Before that time was up, however, it’s illicit facilities were revealed and efforts were made to try to freeze the project. Iran ignored its diplomatic obligations and in 2005 was found to be noncompliant by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This happened again mere days ago. President Obama’s JCPOA was intended to delay Iran’s nuclear breakout beyond his presidency, but the deal itself foreclosed the possibility of reliable verification so mostly what it did was give Tehran relief from sanctions and enable it to set the Middle East on fire while still pursuing nuclear weapons.

In all those years, presidents of both parties engaged Iran diplomatically over its nuclear program. Such an offer of diplomacy remains on the table.

It is self-discrediting to ask “Why didn’t they try diplomacy?” It is self-discrediting to claim that this war is a result of Benjamin Netanyahu’s “obsession.” The record is crystal clear: Thirty years of restraint were rewarded with violence and subterfuge. And so those 30 years of restraint have come to a close.

Seth Mandel: Israel-Iran Conflict Has Already Proved the Necessity of ‘Operation Rising Lion’

We don’t know how many missiles have been shot or how many have been intercepted, and some appeared to have failed to make the trip all the way to Israel and landed somewhere along the way. But as of Sunday there were 17 sites of impact, the New York Times reported. The missiles are being fired at population centers—while Israel is hitting military targets, the Iranians are simply launching war crime after war crime. The regime in Tehran has the advantage here of not coming under international pressure to avoid crimes against humanity, because their victims are Jews. Kenneth Roth, a preposterously cretinous anti-Zionist who used to run a pretend “human rights” organization and now teaches at Princeton, has even been out there justifying Iran’s strikes like the totalitarian regime mouthpiece he strives to be.

And missiles are hitting densely populated neighborhoods, the Times notes, just the shockwaves alone are damaging. One expert told the paper that Iran had fired one kind of missile at Israel for the first time: the Shahed Haj Qassem. It is a solid-fuel medium-range ballistic missile that the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control identifies as one of the newer types that Iran likely intends to outfit with a nuclear warhead if the regime ever crosses that goal line.

To simplify: Iran is practicing nuking Tel Aviv.

Iranian firepower isn’t only a threat to Israel. Russia has relied on Iranian-made drones and ballistic and cruise missiles in its war on Ukraine. As CSIS notes, both Russia and China—Iran’s benefactors—have so-called firepower-strike strategies in their respective war doctrines. Every Iranian missile benefits all three, giving our European allies plenty of reason to stop complaining about Israel’s preemptive actions.

An Iranian nuclear umbrella would put the world at risk, and for that reason alone Israel deserves the full support of the West. But from Israel’s perspective, the buildup of a large-enough ballistic-missile stockpile to overwhelm Israeli defenses is absolutely a threat that must be eliminated, and soon.

John Spencer: Redefining Shock and Awe: What We Can Learn from Israel’s Opening of Operation Rising Lion

Imagine if Operation Overlord in World War II began with the elimination of Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, Chief of the German High Command; Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS; Field Marshal Erwin Rommel; numerous other senior generals; and the destruction of all of Germany’s air defenses, before a single Allied soldier landed on the beaches of Normandy. That’s not an exaggerated hypothetical. It’s a near-parallel to what Israel just did to Iran.

Israel’s war against Iran is still ongoing. But what has already unfolded will be studied for decades.

Israel's current military operation against Iran is officially called Operation Rising Lion, launched on June 13, 2025, with a sweeping and precise preemptive strike. The operation was not just historic. It was transformational. It redefined what shock and awe can look like in the 21st century.

This was not merely a strike. It was a campaign—a layered, synchronized demonstration of modern operational art, built on deep intelligence, strategic deception, and the innovative fusion of old and new tools of war. Here's what it teaches us.

1. Surprise as a Core Element of Operational Art
Israel’s campaign against Iran is a textbook case in modern operational art. It wasn’t just an airstrike. It was a synchronized, multi-domain offensive that combined cyber, human intelligence, electronic warfare, airpower, special operations, and psychological operations.

Israel achieved surprise at the highest level. It launched a campaign that disrupted Iranian defenses before the first fighter jet even crossed the border. This is not warfare of the past. This is what large-scale, intelligence-driven combat looks like in 2025. The decisive moment in war often arrives long before the first bomb drops.

2. Deep Intelligence Penetration and Human Terrain Dominance
Perhaps the most stunning revelation is the depth to which Mossad and Israeli intelligence had penetrated Iran’s inner military and nuclear circles. They not only knew where nuclear scientists and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders were located. They manipulated meeting schedules and lured multiple top generals into the same underground facility to be eliminated simultaneously.

Confirmed kills include:
Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Mohammad Hossein Bagheri
IRGC Commander Maj. Gen. Hossein Salami
Khatam al-Anbia HQ Commander Maj. Gen. Gholam Ali Rashid
IRGC Aerospace Force Commander Maj. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh
Nine nuclear scientists

These were not replaceable figures. Many had served for decades and had no peer backups. Their loss was not just symbolic. It decapitated Iran’s ability to coordinate large-scale retaliation.

Additionally, Quds Force Commander Esmail Qaani was struck, along with over 20 senior commanders targeted and eliminated in the first night alone. This wasn’t just a blow. It was a beheading of Iran’s strategic brain trust.

Today, Israel gave specific warning for Iranians to evacuate areas that were going to be attacked, including Iran's IRIB broadcaster.

But Iran also gives warnings, sort of.

Iranian Armed Forces spokesman Reza Sayyad called on all Israelis to leave the country altogether, "because [the territories] will soon be uninhabitable," claiming that Israeli aggression will be met with a shocking response that includes all of the "occupied territories. "

There you go! They warned everyone to leave!

The former head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Mohsen Rezaei, said that Iran used missiles yesterday and today carrying warheads weighing "one and a half tons," and that it has not yet used warheads with heavier weight and power. He added, "It is still too early to reveal many of Iran's weapons, because we are preparing ourselves for a scenario of expanding aggression against us. If the war continues, the world will see something from us that it has never seen before."

Additionally, Mohsen Rezaei, a current member of the Expediency Discernment Council, emphasized that "Iran continues to exercise restraint and has not utilized all its capabilities to avoid disrupting the global order."

Earlier this month, Iran said it was testing 2 ton warheads. It is not clear that they were operationalized. A two ton warhead, all else being equal, would have about a 21% greater blast radius than a 1.5 ton warhead.

Interestingly, Iran never said that they would offer measured responses to aggression. Their rhetoric has always been that if anyone lifts up a hand against them, the response would be "swift and devastating." It is interesting that they now are claiming that they are exercising restraint.

Missile expert Tal Inbar says that the missiles Israel has seen so far had payloads of either 500 kg or 750 kg, not the 1,500 kg that Rezaei claimed they used already. But he does warn there there is indeed one highly dangerous missile in their inventory that they have not yet shot to Israel:

“There is one missile Iran has not yet used against Israel: the Khorramshahr,” he revealed. Based on North Korea’s Hwasong-10, Khorramshahr is Iran’s heaviest and fastest missile, boasting a range close to 2,000 km, a 1,500 kg warhead, and a top speed around Mach 14. Although currently within the interception envelope of Israel’s enhanced air defence network, a single successful penetration could inflict catastrophic damage.
The Khorramshahr also features a navigation system that corrects its course outside the atmosphere, making it resistant to jamming from electronic warfare. It is considered highly accurate—capable of precision strikes—and has exceptional manoeuvrability compared to its peers, with a warhead built to withstand extreme heat.

It appears that Iran considers its most effective weapon to be threats. And up until this war, those threats have spooked the West successfully.

No doubt Israel is very aware of the types of missiles Iran has, and it has prioritized destroying the biggest ones. But there is no reason to be complacent. Iran's claims might be exaggerated, but it still has plenty of deadly missiles.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Israel's legal right to defend itself (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Last month, Alan Dershowitz came out with his latest book, The Preventive State: The Challenge of Preventing Serious Harms While Preserving Essential Liberties. One of the theoretical scenarios he covers is a pre-emptive Israeli attack on Iran:

Today's Persia, now called Iran, poses a contemporary threat of genocide against the nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel. If Iran were to develop a nuclear arsenal and the capacity of deploying it against Israel, which the mullahs have called a "one-bomb state" capable of being destroyed forever by one successful nuclear attack, it could kill millions of Jews and Arabs. So, the issue very much in the forefront is whether Israel and/or the United States should engage in preventive military action to destroy, or at least set back, Iran's nuclear arsenal program (as it did with Iraq and Syria in the past). [p.82]

Not surprisingly, not everyone agrees that Israel has the right to attack Iran and dismantle its nuclear program. Even those with a background in international law are opposed to the attack. Here's one such opinion on X from a professor of international law and security at the University of Copenhagen:

The argument is that Iran's nuclear threat is not imminent, and that changes Israel's attack from pre-emptive to preventive.

So, first of all, was Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons imminent or not? Elder of Ziyon writes about the indications that Iran was just weeks away from a fully functional nuclear bomb.

But Dershowitz offers a different response to the question of imminence: it doesn't matter. He quotes from a previous book of his, The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Stop Iran Getting Nukes?

No democracy can afford to wait until such a threat against its civilian population is imminent. Both Israel and the United States should have the right under international law to protect their civilians and soldiers from a threatened nuclear holocaust, and that right must include--if that is the only realistic option--preemptive military action. [p. 83]

Tom Nichols, writing for The Atlantic, quotes John F. Kennedy to the same effect: a country cannot afford to wait until an attack is imminent. In 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy said:

We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation’s security to constitute maximum peril.

Not everyone will agree with that, and that leads to the question of whether Israel's attack was preemptive or preventive.

What difference does preventive vs preemptive make?

Tom Nichols writes that a preventive attack means the attacking country is "removing the source of a threat by surprise, on their own timetable and on terms they find favorable. They may be justified in doing so." On the other hand, preemptive attacks "are spoiling attacks, meant to thwart an imminent attack. In both tradition and law, this form of self-defense is perfectly defensible." The intended victim does not have to wait to be shot; he can fight back and kill his attacker first.

The key difference is that while preemptive attacks are accepted as legal,

Preventive attacks, however, have long been viewed in the international community as both illegal and immoral.

It may not be enough that Israel declares its attack to be preemptive.

Kyle Orton, who writes about terrorism and national security issues, will not take Netanyahu's word for it:

Yet it seems more likely that Israel is speaking of its actions as pre-emptive for political purposes. Framing the attack in these terms allows Netanyahu to claim the right to “anticipatory self-defence”, minimising interference and condemnation from the perennially anti-Israel international law establishment.

All this talk about preemptive wars leads back to the fact that Israel wrote the book on preemption. Nichols writes:

The Israelis, ironically, are in the case books as the clearest example of a legitimate preemptive attack. In 1967, Israel got the jump on an Arab coalition that had been so obvious in its march to war that it was literally broadcasting its intention to destroy Israel while its troops massed for an offensive. Indeed, international-law experts have noted that the 1967 war is so clear that it is not much use as a precedent, because most enemies are not blockheaded enough to assemble an army and declare their intention to invade.

Ironically, not only does Israel provide the perfect example of a preemptive war, but it is too perfect.

But then, Nichols adds parenthetically:

(Of course, the Israelis could argue that they are already at war with Iran, a country that has launched many missiles at them and directed years of proxy attacks on their people and their military, which would be a far stronger case.)

Orton makes the same point with greater emphasis:

The clerical regime is publicly pledged to Israel’s destruction and has carried out numerous attacks in pursuit of this goal, including the 7 October massacre that started the current war in Gaza. This is a permanent threat Israel has every right to counter. It just means “preventive”, a more difficult legal-political category, is the more precise term for what is happening now.

Dershowitz goes further, arguing that the Six Day War still provides a solid justification for Israel's attacking Iran because it contains both aspects. He notes the argument that Egypt and Syria were bluffing and would not have attacked, removing the justification of Israel's preemptive attack. To this, he responds:

But Israel had a dual justification for its military action against Egypt, which had blocked the Strait of Tiran from Israeli shipping. That constituted a casus belli-an act of war-that justifies a reactive military response. [p. 84]

So too in regards to Iran, the nuclear threat is not the only justification for Israel's attack, because, similar to Egypt,

Iran has also engaged in acts that constitute a casus belli against Israel, both directly and indirectly, through its surrogates Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen. Israel would be justified in reactively attacking Iran for these and other attacks, but its justification is enhanced by its legitimate need to prevent Iran from securing and deploying--as it promised (and also denied) it would do--a nuclear arsenal. [p. 85]

Some world leaders are already issuing the usual calls for Israel and Iran to dial down the violence, like parents telling their kids to stop fighting--not because they care who’s right, but because they’re trying to get some sleep.

In the media, The New York Times wants you to believe these are "the most direct and prolonged attacks between the rivals ever," just one more spin in that "cycle of violence" where everyone is to blame. It is not. It is a question of survival.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Arabic media in disarray on how to react to this war

It often takes a little time for Arabic language media to reach consensus on which anti-Israel theme to invoke in response to new events. (Think of the "genocide" theme for Gaza.)

Right now Arab media is throwing whatever it can think of to the wall to see what sticks.

Dr. Mazen Mansour Krishan in Jordanian site Al Bosala ignores the war altogether and says that all indications are that the Zionist project is crumbling, using cherry picked outdated statistics and buttressing it with Quranic quotes on how evil Jews are and how Allah will punish them.

Tahseen Ahmad al-Tal says in Al Qalah News (also Jordan) that this war is great news, because it allows Iran to legally attack Israel under the guise of self-defense. He is also encouraged by Israelis saying that this is a battle for existence and survival, which means that the Jews believe that their existence is temporary, and that their state will disappear sooner or later.

Ghassan Jaber in Palestinian site Wattan says Netanyahu is "a modern-day Hitler leading Israel to the abyss." He says, "We are not seeking superficial comparisons here, but rather a profound historical and political reading that reveals the terrifying similarity between Nazism, which set the world ablaze, and extremist Zionism, which spreads death and destruction in Palestine and burns away what remains of international and human values."

Egypt 2030 says that Iran attacking medical research laboratories at the Weizmann Institute is really an attack on Israel's nuclear weapons program.