An Op-Ed by Nahum Barnea in today’s Yediot Aharonot lambasts PM Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak for moving to strike Iran. What does this mean? The two face high-powered internal opposition, and the opposition is now starting to go public.
If Israel eventually realizes that bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities would be an act of absolute madness, I think Nahum Barnea’s column today in Yediot Aharonot may be remembered for having been the turning point. He’s calling out Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak for cooking up an attack, maybe before this winter, maybe afterward, even though the security establishment, foreign governments and relatively level-headed members of this government are completely against it. Barnea, the best-connected, most influential journalist in Israel, almost certainly is writing with the encouragement of at least some of these top officials. The column, which dominated Yediot’s front page and is titled “Atomic pressure,” seems clearly intended to foil Netanyahu and Barak’s plans by exposing them to the light. It begins:
“Have the prime minister and defense minister settled on a decision, just between the two of them, to launch a military attack on the nuclear facilities in Iran? This question preoccupies many people in the defense establishment and high circles of government. It distresses foreign governments, which find it difficult to understand what is happening here: One the one hand, there are mounting rumors of an Israeli move that will change the face of the Middle East and possibly seal Israel’s fate for generations to come; on the other hand, there is a total absence of any public debate. The issue of whether to attack Iran is at the bottom of the Israeli discourse.”
Barnea writes that Netanyahu ‘s thinking goes like this:
“Ahmadinejad is Hitler; if he isn’t stopped in time, there will be another Holocaust. There are those who describe Netanyahu’s attitude on the matter as an obsession: All his life he dreamed of being Churchill; Iran gives him the opportunity. The popularity he gained as a result of the Shalit deal didn’t pacify him: the opposite, it gave him a sense of power.”
Barak’s motivations are more prosaic and to-the-point, Barnea writes. The defense minister thinks that just as Israel knocked out the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities in the past, so it must knock out Iran’s now: “That’s the strategy; that’s the tradition.”
A military technocrat – all the way to doomsday. And one who has immunized himself from differing opinions, even when they come from someone as authoritative as former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, who’s said an Israeli attack on Iran is “the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard,” and would set off a “regional war.” So here, according to Barnea, is how Barak assimilates this information:
“He figures Dagan’s opposition stems from psychological motives: As head of the Mossad [until the beginning of this year], Dagan was credited with extraordinary achievements in jamming up Iran’s nuclear project. A military operation so soon after the end of his tenure would diminish the significance of those achievements.”
What a petty, intellectually dishonest, insecure individual this Barak is. What a self-adoring, delusional, reckless-minded individual this Netanyahu is. These are the two most powerful people in this country, each one thinks he’s God, and together they’re trying to start what could turn into a regional WMD war all by their lonesome, simply by ramming it through the national councils of power, regardless of what anyone else thinks.
I don’t think of either of them as being evil, but then as an Israeli, I’m not objective. What I do think, and this didn’t start today, is that the chance of an Israeli attack on Iran is the greatest immediate danger facing the world. And after Barnea’s article, I would say that as of today, Netanyahu and Barak are the two most dangerous men on earth.
“Now of all times, when the sense abroad is that Iran’s nuclear progress is slowing, the rumors tell of pressure [in Israel] to act. One of the factors is the weather: Winter is coming, and in winter there are limitations [such as poor visibility for pilots – L.D.]. Others look further ahead: They say that after winter comes spring, and then summer [the traditional season for Israeli military attacks – L.D.].”
Netanyahu and Barak must be stopped, urgently. The good news is that some very powerful people, including Israel’s leading journalist, are fully aware of this, and they are now on the case. At the risk of opening my mouth to Satan, I think sanity will prevail.
October 30, 2011
3:05 pm
Ayla,
Thanks for the pointer to your blog (measuringrain.blogspot.com)
You seem to be describing there the two parallel worlds that presumably exist in Israel at the moment; one Arabic and the other Jewish. The gulf between them is hopefully not as wide as your experiences might suggest. People are very much the same all over. They have their foibles, quirks, idiosyncrasies and assumptions just like everyone else. It is only when they get together and pool their experiences, mistakes, outlooks and general misconceptions about their fellow human beings that any new viewpoint can begin to establish itself.
But how often does this happen in Israel/Palestine? Have conditions there ever been even partially conducive to open debate and the give and take of normal conversation.
That really seems to be one of the major problems in Israeli and Palestinians societies; the inability to assemble, to associate freely and without concern for personal safety, to express beliefs that may be challenged or ridiculed without descent in violence or blind intolerance of another’s position.
That is also very probably why this clash of cultures and communities has continued for 63 years. There is never any common ground upon which to seek compromise or settlement, no meeting of minds without the intrusion of past events taking centre stage.
What this entire business needs is some form of distraction, a new situation that can hold both sides of the equation in balance without degenerating into the accustomed free-for-all that has so characterised all previous encounters.
We need to lock all Israelis and Palestinians into an arrangement whereby discussions are conducted in a civilised, orderly manner without the need for either side to beat their chests, to threaten all sort of dire consequences and find excuses not to go forward with a firm intention to resolve this everlasting dispute they have with one another.
A pretty tall order, is it not?
No, not if you have the right kind of distraction. Then, it’s much easier.
October 30, 2011
3:17 pm
Hi Larry,
I seem to have crossed to page 2. I never realised that there was such a page here . Is this a first?
October 30, 2011
6:55 pm
Larry,
You know the story of the frog in boiling water.
Increments.
Iran in Iraq, Iran in Lebanon. Iran in Gaza. Iran in Syria.
Slowly increasing influence, pressure, applying the strategy of empire that doesn’t require direct offense, always deniable, as Aristeides presents.
Israel in the West Bank, slowly increasing pressure, always deniable.
“What, we didn’t do anything.”
It does apply to Iran, and allies. So Assad can say ‘if a French plane from NATO drops a bomb on Syria, we will regard it as an attack from the US, and demand that Iran order Hezbollah to unleash 10,000 missiles on Israel, in addition to our own.”
Better that it be avoided.
October 30, 2011
7:00 pm
@Ayla, “making sense of myself”??
Actually no. I meant making sense of that country…or if you like: making sense of the israeli/jewish narrative and reality.
.
While you may be looking for some fresh clues and answers in that department, I (and not so few others) have already found it (well, quite naturally for us). Thats what I was trying to say. But its just hard to put into accurate words…
I really wish you good luck in your searches but the truth may not be so pleasant. My guess is that you journey is at its preliminary stage. Good luck!
October 30, 2011
7:53 pm
Ben Israel – No, Israel has not directly attacked Iran, but then, Iran has never attacked Israel. And Iran and Israel were conducting arms sales well after the establishment of the Islamic Republic. There is absolutely no reason for the hostility being whipped up between them.
.
Nonetheless, if you look at the threatening language from Israel towards Iran, you will find it far more threatening than the language of Iranian officials (one official in particular, who has nothing to do with foreign or military affairs) towards Israel.
So, yes, I’ll give you that line that when the one Iranian official says Israel should disappear, he intends no direct action against Israel. If you lined up the people in the world that would like to see Israel disappear, it would be a much longer line than the line of people who would actually consider violent action to bring this disappearance about.
What Israelis need to do first is let go of their paranoia and start asking themselves, Why do so many people hate us? And the answer isn’t, Because they hate the Jews.
October 30, 2011
8:37 pm
Ayla,
I would echo the sentiments of Ex Israeli here when he wishes you good luck in your search for the truth. I myself am of the opinion that it will not be that unpleasant an experience when you find it.
But what is the truth? Or, rather, how will you know it’s the truth if you ever happen to come across it?
I think there is only one way to be sure and the title of your blog seems to carry the clue.
It must be the truth when it puts forward questions you haven’t even thought to ask. And then answers them.
October 30, 2011
9:24 pm
One could say that Iran HAS attacked Israel through its HIZBULLAH proxy in Lebanon.
BTW-Hostility to Israel expressed in Iran is not merely a single politician of supposedly no influence making inflammatory statements. What about the mass demonstrations in Iran where people are screaming “death to Israel”. That doesn’t sound too friendly to me.
October 31, 2011
12:54 am
you guys are misunderstanding me somehow–not sure of the root of that. I don’t believe in absolute truth. I just wrote a whole blog piece about that, which I directed you to.
October 31, 2011
2:02 am
I see we’re moving the discussion, incrementally, towards deterrence theory and if Israel enemies would attack if they knew they could avoid retaliation. So I hope my little explanation of deterrence theory might help with the discussion.
Well, the paradox behind nuclear deterrence theory is that if you’ve been nuked first you are better off surrendering. In terms of pure instrumentalism it is better to lose one city and the war than to completely obliterate your enemy and be obliterated too. That was the entire conundrum during the Cold War. Would the USA really use its nuclear weapons to defend Europe from Soviet aggression? Would the USSR really retaliate against a US strike knowing full well that it would result in complete destruction? The fact that the entire theory of nuclear deterrence was developed by Nash in his schizophrenic days (he renounced game theory after getting help) goes to show the weak premises underlining this idea we call deterrence. Etymologically, deterrence was and, until the 50s, had only been used in reference to domestic law, i.e., a punishment that would deter further criminality.
October 31, 2011
2:09 am
On another matter regarding WMD it has become mainstream to equate chemical and biological weapons with nuclear weapons. This is wrong.
Chemical weapons are ineffective except when being used on helpless civilians like in Iraq by the British in the 20s and Saddam in the 80s. In both cases they basically used crop duster planes. In war time these weapons have been ineffective and loaded in a missile their potential for mass killings is limited. Indeed, it was calculated by the IAF in the First Gulf War that issuing gas masks is pointless because more people were likely to be killed by conventional exploding war heads than chemical war heads by quite a margin.
Biological weapons do have the potential to cause mass causalities, however, these weapons have never been used and are not really deliverable. One of the problems is that, contrary to popular belief, there isn’t really a war head that can carry the pathogen without killing it in mid-flight. Furthermore, if, for example, the Syrians used a biological weapon then there is nothing to stop the pathogen crossing over to the Syrian population and decimating them as well. In the hands of a messianic terrorist then that might be something altogether different.
So it really boils down to nukes. Nuclear bombs are what counts when it comes to WMD. Although if a group of messianic terrorists (from any faith) get their hands on biological or nuclear weapons then all bets are off.
October 31, 2011
2:42 am
Regarding deterrence, when I look at Israel’s leaders today, I am reminded of the story that Golda Meir kept suicide pills handy during the Yom Kippur War should the Arab armies break through. I know a lot of people, including Moshe Dayan ridiculed her for this, but I view it as a noble intention….she felt that if Israel were defeated, as its leader and through her identification of with her people, she felt she couldn’t continue living.
Today, should the Iranians do the unthinkable, I imagine Israel’s leaders commandeering all the El Al and Air Force planes, putting themselves, their friends and relatives on them and fleeing the country, while claiming “it’s too bad what happened to our country, but it would be immoral to retaliate against the innocent Iranian population”.
October 31, 2011
3:10 am
@JYorke (off topic) I did not mean some sort of esoteric or philosophical “truth”, not at all.
.
I meant the simple (day to day meaning of truth). That of which most people can and would AGREE on – if:
.
(if they can see the same things and have the same information and make honest and continuous effort to abandon their prejudices. Normally by then they become someone else. And maybe thats a big part the problem – You need to completely -or maybe MOSTLY- not care who might you become…and all this without deluding yourself)
sorry if this is off topic
October 31, 2011
5:29 am
Ben Israel, your view of the Israeli establishment is as jaded as a left-winger. That’s quite amusing given the hard-right credentials of the current administration
October 31, 2011
7:33 am
Ben Israel – one could equally say that Israel has employed terrorist proxies to attack Iran. Which is why I said “direct” attack.
.
Iran doesn’t have to love Israel. Israel doesn’t have to love Iran. All they have to do is not drop bombs on each other.
When crowds in Iran march around yelling “Death to Israel” it is no more than Iran practicing the mobilization of nationalist sentiment by demonizing a created enemy. Just as Israel does. Except that Israeli politicians actually declare they intend to drop bombs on their created enemy, if they think they could get away with it. Iranian politicians declare they have no such intentions.
Israeli soccer fans yell “Death to the Arabs” on a regular basis, but this doesn’t mean that every racist soccer fan intends to rush into the streets and kill every Arab he finds, nor would it justify dropping a bomb into the stands.
October 31, 2011
9:17 am
Aristeides-
I think I understand. Any time a Muslim says “Kill the Jews” or “Israel is a dangerous cancer that has to be removed”, it’s all talk. They couldn’t possibly mean it. Hot air. You know those people, they just babble without really meaning what they say. Got it.
October 31, 2011
10:01 am
Exactly, Ben I. I’m glad you’re letting go of the paranoid delusions.
October 31, 2011
12:35 pm
Aristeides,
I’m wondering who you could possibly consider an Israeli proxy capable of attacking Iran. You think that Iraq was an Israeli proxy?
Who are you talking about?
I saw an article today in Haaretz declaring that Barak stated that “It hasn’t yet been decided to attack Iran. We’re still talking about it.”
That scared me. That discussion was that far along, not just a hyped stupid idea, but one that was actually being seriously considered, and admitted.
So, I wrote a letter to my Congressman, urging him to do what he could to not authorize US cooperation with such an effort, so that it would obviously have no prospect of success (as if it had any in any terms anyway), and would not be undertaken ever.
October 31, 2011
1:09 pm
Richard Witty – it’s well-known that Israel is backing Kurdish terrorist groups operating against Iran.
October 31, 2011
3:43 pm
@Ex Israeli,
Truth can never be off-topic in this type of discussion. But I agree that truth can take many forms and it is sometimes hard to pin down which one applies best in any given situation.
Your concept of truth (day to day meaning) is certainly valid. As someone who has toiled for many years in the engineering sector, I have come to regard the truth as whatever works on the day in question and stays working well into the future.
The Israeli/Palestinian situation has had a lot of ‘truths’ thrown at it but, to date, none of them have stuck around for long, not long enough to make much of a difference anyway. I guess that must mean one particular truth is still out there, waiting its turn to shine. Let’s hope it gets the chance to do so before it all becomes too late to matter.
October 31, 2011
4:40 pm
“it’s well-known that Israel is backing Kurdish terrorist groups operating against Iran.”
Are they operating against Iran, or for Kurdish independence?
You think the Kurds have 20,000 missiles targeted at civilian Iranian cities, all operating in direct orders from Tel Aviv/Jerusalem?
Its better to argue realistically.
The long-term Iranian aggressions are not ignorable. The only relevant question relative to them is what is the best form of response.
I greatly wish that you had a means and the will to express your comment above to the Iranian regime, “better that they just not bomb each other”.
But, then there would be a large possibility that you would be arrested, shot, disappeared, and I hope that that does not occur.
So, maybe you’d better not speak up.
October 31, 2011
11:19 pm
Ayla,
You say that you don’t believe in absolute truth and you may very well be right to do so.
What is true, however, is that, for 63 years, Israelis have been engaged in a deadly struggle with Palestinians and vice versa. As yet, no solution to this state of affairs has surfaced. Decades have rolled by and still the matter remains unresolved, effectively deadlocked by forces opposed to any type of compromise. National identity, religion, race, politics, economics, law and the entire legacy of what is now generations have all conspired to keep mind sets on both sides firmly fixed on their own sense of survival and justice. There has been no willingness to move onward to the next stage. This may be because no next stage can be found; only a ragged cycle of continual strife punctuated by brief lulls in the fighting remains to fill the void.
No amount of left-leaning philosophy, liberal interpretation, conservative rhetoric, political manoeuvre, military might or monetary largess seems capable of remedying the situation. Hence the feeling that a weary acceptance has long ago descended upon the conflict and little more can be done to halt any further deterioration in its condition.
If this is so, then a case for using less conventional measures might now be advanced, the option to carry on much as before having reached the limits of what is possible and found there nothing of substance.
November 2, 2011
7:04 pm
A surgical strike might damage Irans nuclear capabilities. But, it will not stop Iran nor deter Irans long term behavior. A full scale invasion/attack/war will be necessary for a regime change nothing less will suffice.
Iran isn’t a patsie like Iraq and Syria. If Netenyahu opts for a surgical strike he better be prepared for an all out war and winning it.
Now does Israel have a large enough military capability including ground troops to effectively force a regime change in Tehran? No, they do not. Now, if they were to pull out the tactical nukes that answer would change to yes. Question then would be…would Israel use them if they got involved in a war they could lose conventionally with Iran?
Why do you think the REAL REASON is behind Obama ordering all US troops home i nthe near future? It’s because if US Troops are anywhere near Iran on Iraqi soil on the massive FOB’s they will most certainly be drawn into battle against Iran because of the proximity and defending any counterattack on Israel. Netanyahu knows this and so does Obama. Thats why Benjamin is speeding up his plans and Obama is trying to get out asap and avoid war with Iran.
November 6, 2011
9:09 am
Ben Israel you seem to be the only one here that understands.
What about how on an hourly basis, statements from all of Islam, wants Israel wiped off the map. What about those threats and all the missles sent into Israel.
There is something here that no one seems to understand and that is the hatred has been going on with Islam long before Islam was started as a religion. It started with Esau and Ishmael. God literally gave the land to Abraham, confirmed it with Isaac and again confirmed it with Jacob, who God renamed Israel. I realize that alot of people do not believe the Bible but if you actually study it you would realize that everything predicted in it about Israel has come true. There is even things written about Babylon and Persia, Greece and Roman Impires and everyone thing written about them has come true. Isaiah even predicted 150 yrs before the Medes and Persians took over Babylon the name of the kink Cyrus. This is just a few of many study the Bible because every page in the Bible is leading us and telling us about Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.
The Bible predicts that Iran and many nations with it will attack Israel. The Bible also predicts that they will be defeated by Jesus Christ. Israel is the apple of Gods eye and Jerusalem and Israel has been given to the Jews and we as Gentiles had better not go against the Jewish people. They are GODS CHOSEN PEOPLE.
November 6, 2011
10:28 am
EPW – “The Bible predicts that Iran and many nations with it will attack Israel. The Bible also predicts that they will be defeated by Jesus Christ.”
You seem very, very confident. Tell me – does the Bible say how many people will get killed?
November 9, 2011
7:40 am
do you still feel this way, even after this weeks’ news that iran is much closer to nuclear weapons than everybody thought?
a more basic question is this – technical ability to do so aside, do you believe that we as israelis have a moral right to prevent iran from attaining nuclear capability, by military means or otherwise? will you feel differently the day iran announces that they’ve succeeded?
November 9, 2011
9:18 am
Menachem, I think everybody assumes Iran is working toward nuclear weapons – I do, I don’t think anybody’s surprised by the report. So it doesn’t change my opinion – an attack on Iran is insane, mass suicide and mass homicide. Do we have a moral right to attack those facilities? If it could be done cleanly, like in Iraq and Syria, I’d say yes – but I’d say Iran and Syria would have had the moral right to retaliate. You can’t build a nuclear arsenal in your own country, bomb somebody else’s nukes and then when they hit back, pretend shock and outrage.
November 9, 2011
11:38 am
i don’t think there’s anyone, bibi included, who says that iran should be attacked if it’s unlikely that the attack would succeed. but once we’ve established that the moral right is there, why not leave the logistics of the attack to those who have the security clearance? morality aside, surely you dont doubt their tactical skill on executing this sort of thing? if it is possible to successfully attack iran, i dont think there’s anyone in israel (who’s not in a coma in hadassa ein karem) who’s more capable of pulling it off than bibi and barak.
December 8, 2011
9:40 am
The issue bothering Israeli militarists isn’t a nuclear attack by Iran, it’s a nuclear suitcase detonated by a terrorist sponsored by Iran.
I agree that Iran already knows it could wipe out Israel and that its forbearance is telling, but that’s because of Iran’s return address problem. Accordingly, it seems to me that the solution to the terrorist problem that I believe keeps Barak and Netanyahu up at night is simply to impose exactly that return address on any such incident.
In other words, make it loud and clear that the loss of any life due to such a terrorist attack will, FailSafe like, unalterably result in a response resulting in the same percentage loss of life in Tehran.