Trump and the ‘civilised world”

Some time ago, President Trump said: "The civilised world must send a clear and unified message to the Iranian regime. Your campaign of terror, murder and mayhem will not be tolerated any more. It will not be allowed to go forward." Trump speaking for the ‘civilised world’, whatever that civilised world may be, is a somewhat curious notion. And if Trump is the speaker for the civilised world, do we want then want to belong to the uncivilised world?

The Assassination

The civilised world, that is Trump & Cie. just assassinated Qasem Suleimani, an Iranian general. Because of Suleimani’s track record and position in Iran, this killing enjoyed much more media attention than most targeted killings, which are, after all, all in the day’s work for us ‘civilised’.

There are various criteria by which one can assess this killing: moral, legal, strategic and the tactical. Can one build a moral case for killing? Some feel that they can, others not. Most will agree that Suleimani had it coming. The legality of the act may be intellectually interesting but of no practical significance. Iraq, since it was invaded by the USA, like Syria, Libya and several other countries, is a playground, where anyone seems to be able to do what they wish.

Whilst it is hard to believe that Trump even knows how to spell the word strategic, let alone act strategically, it may be that the killing of Suleimani, will trigger the opening of a new channel of negotiations between the US and Iran, which will lead to some or other agreement. Both sides are actually interested in one. The accidental shooting down of the Ukrainian plane, and the Iranian mea culpa, in a bizarre way, may serve the same purpose.

Israel is likely to be worried by any rapprochement between Iran and the USA. In a speech, which Israel’s chief-of-staff, General Kochavi, gave on Christmas day, (before the assassination) he complained about the fact that Israel had to do all the anti-Iran work on its own. He would prefer – he explained – a reality in which “we weren’t the only ones acting against them offensively.” Kochavi asked and Trump delivered.

Jubilation in Jerusalem

Israel is jubilant because it has just won the Eurovision song contest.

Israel is also jubilant and Netanyahu is going up in the polls because Trump has torn up the nuclear agreement with Iran. Who cares that virtually the whole of Israel’s defence establishment considered the agreement to be good. Netanyahu wanted it done away with and Trump loves nothing better than reneging on a contract signed by Obama.   

And to seal it off, Israel is jubilant because the Trump regime is opening its embassy in Jerusalem this week.

So, who needs a peace agreement with Palestine, who needs to come to an understanding with Iran, we’ve got Trump and we have Ms. Eurovision 2018. The rest can go to hell.

The Iran Deal

Both sides are feeding us spin. The American administration, through all avenues open to it, is explaining why the Vienna agreement - that will bring an end to the sanctions on Iran - is the best we can all hope for. In Israel, virtually the whole of the political class - including the parties that call themselves opposition - are briefing against. Netanyahu is the leader of the doomsday evangelists.  And yet, you get some of the most senior of Israel’s defence and security experts (including some former heads of Mossad and of the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service) explaining that the agreement with Iran is in fact good for Israel.

So what to think? Trying to form a view is probably impossible. At the end of the day most of believe what fits our worldview and what we want to believe.

In matters pertaining to risk assessment I tend to have more faith in security experts than in politicians of the extreme right, or any politician in fact. You cannot expect a politician to forget his or her ideological convictions. Indeed, most will not hesitate to lie, to promote their political stance. 

Netanyahu has a long track record of lying to mislead his listeners, including in his speeches to the US Congress. That makes him and his flock of message repeating ministers and spokesmen worthless. Not irrelevant – as people do listen to what official Israel is saying – but definitely not trustworthy.

Chatham House on Iran’ s Nuclear Future

Yesterday I went to an on the record Chatham House meeting on the subject of Iran’s nuclear future. The meeting was based on a Chatham House paper that was written by two former British diplomats, Sir Richard Dalton (former ambassador to Iran) and Peter Jenkins (Former ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)).

Dalton’s and Jenkins’ analysis is based on their assessment and trust that Iran is not intent on acquiring nuclear weapons combined with seemingly much trust in the IAEA’s ability to effectively monitor against violations. This attitude is either naïve or dishonest. Have IAEA never been misled and importantly, can one really assess another country’s intentions? Can one afford to take a view when it comes to intentions to develop nuclear weapons?

Concerning assessment: There is currently a serious argument between Israel’s Internal Secret Service and Israel’s Military Intelligence as to whether Hamas had intended the July war in Gaza to happen or whether things just got out of hand. Evidently, these two organisations with many years of expertise and experience, not to speak of how entrenched they are with sources within the Arab world, are unable to reach a conclusion.

It may be that Chatham House or the British FCO have no issue with Iran holding nuclear weapons. If that is the case, they should openly say so. Otherwise – one can only hope that Dalton and Jenkins do not negotiate on Britain’s behalf.

A totally different question is whether the resultant opening up of Iran to the West, were an agreement reached, would not worry the Iranian regime? Such opening up to the West may be the very thing that Khamenei would want to prevent. In that case, reaching only a partial agreement with sanctions lifted may be Iran’s preferred option. 

Putsch in Israel?

A week after Israel’s army’s chief of staff opined that the Iranian leadership was “very rational” and expressed doubt that Iran would continue to develop its nuclear weapon to completion, Netanyahu and Barak, the duo that leads Israel into a collision course with Iran, were given another blow, this time by the former head of shabak, Israel’s internal secret service.

Yuval Diskin, until a year ago, head of the shabak, has just come out with an unusually strong-worded warning. Diskin warned of the risk posed – not by a possible Palestinian terror attack but - by no less than Netanyahu and Barak, the country’s prime minister and minister of defence.

Diskin said: "I don't believe in either the prime minister or the defence minister. I don't believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings." According to him, Barak and Netanyahu are misleading the public and unfit to hold power.

He is not alone. Meir Dagan, until a year ago, a feared and well-respected head of Israel’s mossad, is also making his voice heard against an Israeli attack of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Dagan referred to such an attack as “stupid”, explaining that it would be ineffective and that it could lead to an all out war.

These people are evidently worried.  

It is not a putsch, but it is an – in all likelihood - concerted attempt by heads and former heads of the security establishment to prevent Israel’s democratically elected government from carrying out its policy vis-à-vis Iran, by warning the Israeli population and the world about the mental state of Barak and Netanyahu. 

See also what I wrote last month about the Barak-Netanyahu team.

Grass II – The Question not Asked

The Dutch coffee shop owner told me that as he has never heard of Gunter it couldn’t be high quality. Whatever the quality, Günter Grass’ anti-Israel stanza has caused much excitement, especially in Germany and in Israel.

Grass may be a fading old writer hankering after publicity. Maybe anti-Semitism has also played a role. Stupidly or maliciously he suggested that in a pre-emptive strike, Israel would annihilate the Iranian population. This is an outrageous accusation. He could have posed a morally tougher question:

The purpose of Israel’s nuclear weapons is for its enemies to believe that under certain circumstances they would be used. If Israel’s existence would be at risk, it would make use of these doomsday weapons.

For that to be an effective deterrent, it must be understood that an attack on Israel could lead to mutual destruction.

I expect that Grass, like many other non-Israelis if asked whether Israel should use its nuclear weapons AFTER it was attacked – would say NO. They would condemn the country that destroyed Israel, they would offer condolences to the bereaved, but they would not accept a counterattack.

Grass’s moral issue should have been the possible use by Israel of U-boats supplied by Germany to accomplish such an eye-for-an-eye.

Yishai on Grass is not Potty

Eli Yishai, Israel’s minister of the interior, a man who has probably never heard of, let alone read Günter Grass, has announced that Grass would not be permitted to enter Israel. This hysterical and populist announcement makes Israel more similar to Iran than to the West, it so very much hopes to be part of.

Shas, Yishai’s party, with its ten out of the 120 members of Israel’s parliament, has remarkable parallels with Iran: ultraorthodox, hatred spreading and homophobe. Like Iran, there is a man who runs government and there is a supreme spiritual leader. Rabbi Ovadia Joseph, Shas's supreme leader himself, is not a member of Israel’s government. He leaves that to Yishai and his colleagues who in turn obey their spiritual leader's instructions.

And now, the physical similarity: Israel’s Rabbi with his Deputy Prime Minister Yishai and Iran’s Ayatollah with President Ahmadinejad.

Günter Grass

In a poem published yesterday, Günter Grass has informed the world that he is worried about Israel’s possible use of German supplied U-boats to fire nuclear missiles at Iran. I hope that the Iranians share his worry, although, I also would not want Israel to initiate an attack on Iran.

At a time, when Iran is being pressurised to give up its nuclear ambition, an important question is whether it is morally right for Israel to possess nuclear weapons. Not one of the (other) eight countries that currently have nuclear weapons has enemies threatening them with extinction. Yet, Israel, from the first day of its existence, has been under the threat of destruction. The world stood by when Arab countries threatened to wipe out the “Zionist entity”, as they used to call Israel, and it stands by with Iran promising that the Jewish state would disappear.

Israel has never conceded to having a bomb and therefore has never threatened anyone with its nuclear power. But, would it not be legitimate for Israel to make it clear that before its existence would be in jeopardy, it would use its nuclear weapons?

Grass speaks of Israel the nuclear power that endangers world peace; of Israel that could in a pre-emptive strike wipe out the Iranian people. He does not define Iran as a country that endangers world peace. Iran, whose existence is not in danger nor has it been threatened, is working towards becoming a nuclear power. Why?

Grass makes much of what he says was his own difficulty in speaking out against Israel. In his own version of “some of my best friends are Jews” Grass assures us that he is committed to the Land of Israel (mind you, he speaks of the land not the state). I have no idea and that is not the issue, but there have been suggestions that anti-Semitism is rearing its head out of the Grass.

He would have been on safer ground had he attacked Israel on its occupation of the West Bank and the settlement of Israelis in the occupied territories. Unlike the Iranian question, this is an issue that has nothing to do with survival or security. It is just morally wrong. But in his poem, Grass dealt with his own angsts rather than with issues of morality.

Have Barak’s and Netanyahu’s Military Service Maimed Them for Life?

Israelis are drafted to the army at the age of eighteen. For most of them, it is the first time they leave home. For most, it is also the first “job” they have. Thus, these become formative years for many. Existing character traits are strengthened and work ethic and norms are shaped and instilled.

Sayeret Matkal, Israel’s elite commando unit, trains its members to achieve their objectives, often beyond enemy lines, at any price. It is all about achieving a specific target, crushing a specific opponent that must be overcome, without allowing other issues to deflect them from their mission. They operate in very small teams and are trained to trust no one but their team partners. To that end, the Matkal Commando seeks out applicants with suitable personalities and further reinforces these qualities.

The two men leading Israel, Minister of Defence Barak and Prime Minister Netanyahu, are veterans of this elite unit. The two men have exposed the traits that make the Matkal commando work, trusting no one and operating within their own closed bubble, throughout their political careers.

Could it be that these two men, who lead Israel into what may be a horrendous war, are unfit for the job? Have they defined a mission and are unable to see the bigger picture?

On Attacking Iran II

Last week’s question brought many comments: nearly all opposing an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear sites. Many just said no without explaining why. Others gave reasons.

I was somewhat puzzled by the comment that Israel had no moral case as it had “acquired nuclear weapons clandestinely and so lacks the moral authority to act against other nations that do the same.” Unlike Iran, Israel has never threatened any other state with eradication. Is self-defence not good enough moral authority?

In the whirlpool of psychological warfare on the Iranian nuclear programme, it is important to note that senior heads and former heads of Israel’s Mossad and other Israeli security services have spoken out against an Israeli attack.

Interestingly, troublemakers nowadays do not seem to make clear demands. I do not recall any demands made by Al-Qaida, nor has Iran named its demands. I wonder what would have happened if Iran would have announced to the world that were Israel to go back to the 1967 borders it would dismantle its nuclear facilities. It would give Iran a great climb-down with brownie points almost everywhere.

Well, Mr. Ahmadinejad, worth trying? Please note that this is my second piece of retainer-free advice to Ahmadinejad this year (see my blog on 11 January).

Should Israel Attack Iran?

Iran has on many occasions made it clear that the State of Israel should not and will not exist for much longer. They have supplied their proxies on Israel's borders, the Hamas and Hezbollah, with weapons and they now have a nuclear weapons programme that they will not give up.

We are currently in the midst of an increasingly heated psychological warfare campaign and disinformation effort of which it is impossible to make sense. However, it appears that Israel has failed in its attempts to prevent Iran from developing its nuclear capability.

Although, the idea of a nuclear Iran makes many very uncomfortable, the only country that is openly and aggressively being threatened by Iran is Israel.

There is some similarity to 1967, when Nasser moved his army into the Sinai, threw out the UN peacekeepers, closed the straits of Tiran and declared that finally Israel would be annihilated.

Should Israel go out on a pre-emptive strike?

Just a Dinner Party in Germany

Out of the blue, a friend of mine said that he was uncomfortable with the fact that Israel was patrolling the Persian Gulf with two U-boats that Germany had given to Israel as a present and which Israel had armed with nuclear weapons.

My friend continued and explained that the whole world knows how in 1981, Israel had “started a war with Iraq” to bomb its nuclear reactor and that it was now planning to do the same with 17 nuclear sites in Iran. He added that the Iranians were not stupid and that they had buried their sites deep in the earth and that Israel was mad with its plans to attack Iran with those two small U-Boats.

I blew up. But he was adamant, yes, he said, he knew that those were Israel’s plans and this would not be Israel’s first mistake. Israel, after all had gone into that war in Gaza and a couple of years ago in Lebanon. I explained that I had no idea what Israel’s plans were and that I doubted very much that my friend had any inside information from the depth of Israel’s – probably non-existent – strategic planning. However, I reminded the flabbergasted dinner table – flabbergasted because of my reaction – that unlike Germany or any other country in the world, Israel had enemies that made clear their wish to annihilate it. Iran is one such enemy and that country has now been allowed to become nuclear.

Before Israel allows Iran or anyone else to annihilate it, it will strike. I have no moral qualms about that. My German friend does. Israel is not considering the other six billion inhabitants of the earth, he said. Some Germans are rightly uncomfortable with the fact that Germany had started two world wars. My friend is taking this discomfort a step further: he is terrified by the idea that German U-Boats – be they in Israeli hands- could trigger a third world war. This would be a third world war that could be laid at Germany’s door.

Israel’s irresponsible and immoral conduct vis-à-vis the Palestinians produces more and more anti-Israel sentiment. The willingness to accept a serious threat to Israel’ existence is where such sentiment should not be allowed to go.

2^nd Dinner

Two days later, at a different dinner party in Germany, I was lectured to by a German lawyer. This man explained to me how well Israel had done in the last twenty years. Every year – he told me – Israel enlarges the territory that it populates; every year it cultivates more land. To top it all, Israel manages this without waging war.

Choosing who to dine with is an art.

Iranian Erections

This is not s spelling mistake. The Iranian Elections are over. Now it is erections that worry the Iranian rulers.

Earlier this week, Ayatollah Kazim Sadighi, a leading Iranian cleric, warned that women who dressed immodestly disturbed young men and the consequent agitation caused earthquakes.

Those young Iranians evidently enjoy the most powerful orgasms.

Indeed, the Teheran Chief of Police has followed the cleric’s warning with an announcement that too many suntanned women and girls who look like walking mannequins can be seen in Tehran. He added "We are not going to tolerate this situation and will first warn those found in this manner and then arrest and imprison them."

Anyone with personal experience of Iranian sex is invited to comment. If necessary you may choose the anonymous option.

Unfortunately - Israel is not Iran

The good news is that Israel is a democracy. That – is also the bad news.

Unlike in Iran, the actions and policies of governments in Israel reflect the wishes of the people. Israelis have knowingly and freely voted in right-wing governments for many years.

Unlike Iran, Israel stands no chance of being saved by a revolution.

Put Up or Shut Up

Israelis often claim that they would be willing to give up the Occupied Territories (West Bank) in the framework of a “real peace” agreement with the Palestinians. Should one believe them?

If Israelis really want peace and if they are really willing to give up the Occupied Territories and if they are, rightly, worried about handing over control to an unreliable and unstable Palestinian Authority, let Israel:

• Unilaterally move the Jewish Settlers from the Occupied Territories back to Israel and dismantle the Jewish settlements.
• Retain her military control until a peace agreement is reached between the two sides.

Much would be achieved by such an act:

• Removing the settlers would immediately reduce the friction between Israelis and Palestinians and help pacify the West Bank. Much of the friction is the direct result of provocations by Jewish settlers and not due to actions of the Israeli army. The calmer atmosphere would give peace talks a better chance.
• Once the deed will be done, Israeli governments will no longer be constrained and limited in their ability to act by the ransom to which the Jewish settlers hold them. No longer will Israeli governments be afraid of the civil unrest and disobedience that may be unleashed by the settlers.
• It would send a clear signal that Israel is really willing to get out of the West Bank. Neither the Arabs, nor many of Israel’s friends in other countries believe this to be the case.
• The dynamics of such a truly momentous move could kick-start the peace process. The onus would be on the Palestinians to get their act together and stop prevaricating as they have been doing for so many years.

Unless, of course, those who do not believe that Israel is willing to get out of the Occupied Territories, are right.