Peace Or No Peace?

Posted: June 25, 2025 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

In many situations, two things can be true at the same time. Looking at the events unfolding over the last two weeks in the Middle East demonstrates how this premise applies.

Last Saturday, the United States bombed three locations in Iran that were known to be associated with Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The ability to strike with lethality and accuracy anywhere in the world was aptly demonstrated by the attacks on Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan in Iran. 125 military aircraft were involved including refueling tankers, escort fighters and seven B-2 stealth bombers that dropped fourteen GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOP) or “bunker busters” on targets. At the same time, U.S. Navy submarines launched about thirty precision guided Tomahawk missiles at Isfahan. No aircraft were lost. No Americans were killed or wounded. By every standard, there is no doubt that the American military pulled off a wildly successful surprise attack on their assigned targets. We should all be proud of their skill, persistence, fortitude and valor. It was a tactical success in every way. However, was the mission accomplished? Were the Iranian nuclear facilities destroyed and their nuclear weapons program halted or at least delayed for many years?

We do not know.

The president announced within hours of the attack that the Iranian facilities were “obliterated.” There is no way he could know that. Many in his cabinet use the same or similar words to continue to describe the success of the mission. They revile anyone that questions their conclusion by calling them un-American and disrespectful to the courageous airmen and sailors that conducted the attack. As is usually the case with this administration, they are more concerned with the drama and self-congratulations than they are with the facts, with which they often only have a passing familiarity.

General Dan Caine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) is more cautious, professional and deliberate in his descriptions. Until a complete account of the Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) can be made, we simply do not know the extent of the damage or even whether the targets of the bombing — enriched uranium and the centrifuges used to make it — were at the sites that we attacked. The attack was successful — bombs on target and everyone came home — but we do not know if the mission was successful — no more Iranian nuclear program. The only way to be absolutely sure is to inspect the sites on the ground. That is not going to happen. The bombing certainly crushed any hope of a short term resumption of discussions to allow inspectors, such as from the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) into the area. U.S. inspectors will not be able to go there, either. Of course there are numerous other ways to feel fairly confident of the results. Spies on the ground (it appears that the Israelis had numerous people in key places prior to their own attacks), intercepts of Iranian military and government communications discussing the damage that was caused and assessing their own ability to respond to the attack and other elements of intelligence trade craft that can give a fairly robust picture of what happened. That can take days or weeks before the Intelligence Community (IC) can say with confidence that they have a comfortable assessment.

With that in mind, the revelation yesterday on CNN, and soon widely reported elsewhere, that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the intelligence agency for the Pentagon, assesses that the Iranian nuclear program was only set back about three to six months rather than years or being “obliterated”. That report caused quite the uproar. For those reading the fine print, the DIA assessment was a preliminary report of “low confidence.” Such reports are often issued soon after an operation to give decisionmakers an outline of what may be needed in the near term should follow up actions be necessary.

There have been rumors/reports that the Iranians moved significant quantities of enriched uranium and centrifuges before the attack. It is thought to be enough to keep their program going. Similarly, although the Israelis killed several top Iranian nuclear scientists in their sleep, they cannot kill everyone and they cannot kill the knowledge of methods and practices that they have learned with their program thus far. Do not discount the possibility that the Iranians are also getting technical assistance, and perhaps even material, from their friends in North Korea and Russia.

Stopping Iran from having a nuclear program is not as easy as launching one bombing attack, no matter how audacious or successful that one attack may be. Wishing it so, shouting it so, demanding that the “scum” in the media stop asking how does the administration know, doesn’t make it go away. Saying that “nothing” can survive fourteen 30,000 pound bombs does not mean it happened. (May I remind everyone that the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) shares a headquarters with the North American Aerospace Command (NORAD) in Cheyenne Mountain near Colorado Springs Colorado. Completed in 1967, the command and control facility can withstand a nuclear attack. Surely the technology and know-how to build such a complex could be accomplished by other nations sometime in the ensuing 58 years.)

To me, a great big “tell” happened yesterday. The House and Senate were to receive briefings on the Iranian program and Saturday’s attack. When the news broke about the DIA assessment, the briefings were cancelled. One can only surmise that the administration knew that their brief would not hold up under questioning since the audience would be aware of the CNN report.

There are numerous additional questions surrounding the entire state of affairs. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard testified under oath before Congress that the Iranians did not have the capability to build a nuclear weapon (people also forget that it is not enough to have a nuclear capability — a country must be able to weaponize the material and, often forgotten in the discussions, have a means to deliver it against an adversary. Not an easy task.) Trump said she was “wrong.” Multiple times in the last few days he has made it clear that he does not believe in, or listen to, anyone that tells him something he does not want to hear, regardless of the sources or methods used. This is unbelievably dangerous. Vice President J.D. Vance on Sunday said that the president and his advisers “trust their instincts.” Holy cow. We entrust our security and safety to instincts rather than analysis and facts? I feel better already.

I also have every expectation that political appointees in the IC will start requiring intelligence reports to conform to Trump’s preconceptions or politically expedient explanations. They have already done so while rationalizing the use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to round up immigrants. I am sure people will be fired at the DIA after the leak of their report yesterday.

There are, of course, issues surrounding this attack and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (also called the War Powers Act). Many members of Congress are calling Trump’s decisions un-Constitutional because only Congress can declare war. The Resolution calls for the president to brief Congress within 48 hours of military action if he acts on his own. This administration is ignoring the law. (Again.) Traditionally, the administration briefs the Gang of Eight prior to undertaking operations such as the attack on Iran. They did not brief them. (The Gang of Eight are the leaders in the House and Senate of both political parties along with the Chair and Ranking Member of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees).

In reality, wars are only resolved through negotiations. We will see if the U.S., Israel and Iran can figure out a satisfactory settlement. I am skeptical. A cease-fire is a very tenuous thing. There is a long way to go before anything is settled. Israel still sees Iran as an existential threat and besides wanting to end Iran’s nuclear program they would also like to see the religious zealots ruling Iran disappear — regime change. Iran still has its government and is still determined to erase Israel from existence.

The Iranians responded to the U.S. attack by launching missiles against the U.S. air base near Doha Qatar. It was really just a sound and light show — the Qataris, U.S. and U.K. (at a minimum) were given a heads up and they shot down the incoming missiles with no deaths or injuries. Do not expect that face saving demonstration to be the end of it from the Iranian perspective. The Trump administration thinks in terms of news cycles and then it is on to the next shiny object. The Iranians (Persians) have a long and proud history and consider themselves to be the root of civilization in the region (Arabs are poor nomads with no culture, according to the Iranians). They will be taking the long view and have the patience to wait out their enemies. The only wild card is the internal politics of both Israel and Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu keeps himself in power (and possibly out of jail) by keeping the wars going in Gaza and elsewhere. Will he honor the cease-fire once the U.S. resupplies his military? (At the expense of Ukraine. We only have so much in our stockpiles.) Will the people of Iran leave their government in place or will they rise up and try to install a new generation of leaders? It is still a very volatile situation and will be for quite awhile.

So many questions right now. So few answers.

War In Iran

Posted: June 18, 2025 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

For almost a week, Israel and Iran have exchanged bombs, missiles and drones causing damage and casualties, military and civilian, on both sides. Israel initiated the conflict when it attacked Iranian nuclear facilities and took out most of the leadership in the Iranian military and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as well as many of the leading scientists working in their nuclear program. According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli intelligence agencies believe that the Iranian nuclear program was on the brink of producing one to fifteen nuclear weapons. Since Iranian leaders vow to erase Israel from the face of the earth, the Prime Minister viewed these developments as an existential threat and attacked. (Some politico-military analysts are debating whether it was a “preemptive” strike — meaning an Iranian attack was imminent — or whether it was a “preventive” strike — meaning there was no immediate danger but the Israelis wanted to make sure there was no chance of Iran developing a nuclear weapon. For most of us, that matters little, but under international law, it has significance.)

There is a long history behind the current conflict. For many years, Israel, the United States, and indeed the world worried about the religious zealots in Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. Presidents of both parties have vowed that they would prevent it from happening. Additionally, Iran was the main supporter of terrorism in the world. (They are still a supporter of terrorism, but their proxies in Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis have been greatly diminished and Syria is no longer in Iran’s sphere of influence, limiting their reach, but not their ability to strike.) In 2015, President Obama negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran along with support from China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Germany (known as the P5+1). In brief, the JCPOA limited Iran’s nuclear weapon program as verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump withdrew from the plan in 2018, re-imposing sanctions and Iran has been ramping up its nuclear efforts since then. Trump was negotiating a “new” agreement with Iran that looks very much like the one that he withdrew from in 2018. Prime Minister Netanyahu denounced the JCPOA from the beginning and lobbied the current administration not to strike any agreements with Iran.

Israel continues to insist that the Iranian nuclear weapon capability was imminent. U.S. and U,K. intelligence sources, according to open press reports, assess that Iran is still not able to produce a weapon. Interestingly, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabard testified before Congress in March that our intelligence agencies assessed that Iran was not capable of building a nuclear weapon. Yesterday, when asked about that assessment, Trump publicly contradicted his DNI, saying “I don’t care what she said” and avowing that he believed Mr. Netanyahu. (As a side note, if I were the DNI my resignation would be on the president’s desk about five minutes later. But we all know how this administration works. She is still in office.)

It is hard to know exactly what brought us to this point as both the Trump and Netanyahu administrations are not very forthcoming nor particularly truthful, and of course, military operations should remain classified until executed — unless you are Pete Hegseth — so it is only in retrospect that things look clearer. That said, from where I sit, it appears Prime Minister Netanyahu boxed Trump in before he could produce a “deal” with Iran. Emboldened by their successes in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, Mr. Netanyahu saw that he had an opportunity to attack, had the forces to execute it, and wanted the world to be confronted with a fait accompli. There was no turning back. To date, the Israelis have inflicted significantly more damage on the Iranians than the other way around.

As yet, the U.S. is not involved. As yet. At least publicly.

There are some hard choices ahead for a president that campaigned by saying that he would keep us out of new wars in the Middle East. “America First” is interpreted by many MAGA voters as meaning no foreign wars in support of other nation’s interests. It is doubtful that Israel can continue to pursue its objectives without U.S. support. There are several reasons for that. Israel uses primarily U.S. weapons systems, aircraft, anti-ballistic missile defense systems, ammunition and other equipment. They do not have an unlimited supply. Giving more support to their efforts could get the U.S. involved whether by design or by accident. It also further diminishes our support to Ukraine as supplies are directed away from the Ukrainians and to the Israelis. Which is something that really does not bother Vladimir Putin even though Russia supports Iran — tough choices. Sorry Ayatollah.

Always looming on the horizon is direct U.S. military action against Iran. While prepared, no military planner that I know about relishes that idea. The reality is that Israel cannot completely destroy the Iranian nuclear program without destroying the main Iranian nuclear facility in Fordo, a small community near Qom. The facility is built in to a mountain and is considered extremely difficult to destroy. Current Israeli Air Force and missile capabilities cannot seriously damage it, unless they use one or more of their own nuclear weapons. That is an entirely different discussion. It is conceivable that Israeli special forces could attack it on the ground, but that is highly risky and is probably not on the table right now, especially because there is another option. The U.S. Air Force could deliver a “bunker buster” bomb — properly known as the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). It is a 30,000 pound GPS guided bomb launched from a B-2 Stealth Bomber that is believed to be able to penetrate at least 200 feet against concrete, rock or earth before it explodes. Multiple MOPs can be used to go even deeper, if necessary. The only aircraft capable of delivering the bomb is the U.S. B-2. We cannot just supply Israel with it. There are 19 B-2s in the inventory and they are based at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. They have demonstrated their world-wide ability to strike during previous conflicts having flown 34 hour combat missions from Missouri to Libya and back in 2017 using in flight refueling, for one example.

It is a cliche to say that we go to war with the president we have — good, bad or indifferent. Trump has a big decision to make, although it seems hard to believe that he totally understands what is going on. For example, his social media post yesterday directed at Iran said only “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” Which raises many serious questions about his state of mind. For the record, there are extremely few historical examples of “unconditional surrender” with the last one being Japan at the end of World War II.

There is a case to be made for the U.S. to bomb Iran. From where Iran sits, they now see that they are in dire need of a credible deterrent. Without a nuclear capability they have been exposed as defenseless. Should the bombing stop short of a significant impact on their nuclear program, they have every incentive to accelerate the program and procure one as quickly as possible. One could argue that now is the time to finish the job. Kick them while they are down, so to speak, so that no one has to come back later to finish what could have been done now.

The danger inherent in such U.S. involvement is extreme. Not in the short run, the U.S. could take casualties in any operation but given the current state of Iran’s air defenses, the risk would be assessed as acceptable. The real danger is long term. How does Iran retaliate against us — for they will retaliate in some form or another. What are our strategic goals? Simply to destroy or significantly delay the nuclear program? Trump has been speculating on social media about regime change — assassinating the Ayatollah and other Iranian leaders. Iran is a country of over 90 million people, many of whom resent the regime that has been in place since 1979. However, that does not mean that they want the U.S. or Israel to eliminate their government. Who takes charge? Under President George W. Bush the U.S. thought that bringing down Saddam would be easy and result in a free and democratic Iraq. While most Iraqis were glad to see Saddam gone, they were just as unhappy to see U.S. forces do it and remain in their country. We know what happened there. What to do in Iran?

This is where it gets tricky. It is one thing to bomb Iran, it is another to deal with the aftermath. It seems that Mr. Netanyahu knows how to play to Trump’s biases and ego. He has him nearly ready to provide support to the Israeli mission to destroy Iran. But what does that really mean and what is the long term commitment? Take a look at Gaza. Mr. Netanyahu’s objective there was to eliminate Hamas. That conflict has turned into what appears to be a long term goal to destroy everything in Gaza. Apparently the only way to eliminate Hamas is to eliminate every Palestinian that lives there — either kill them or move them. That campaign has gone on much longer than what was militarily necessary. What are the plans for Iran?

Wars are easy to start but hard to end. We need look only at our own history. I do not trust our president or his senior advisers to think through the totality of their actions. Looking tough seems to be their only goal. That is not good enough. There are sound strategic, geo-political and military arguments to use our forces to decimate Iran’s nuclear program. It is the “what’s next” question that I have not seen anyone in the administration thinking about. How does this all end?

Israel – Hamas War

Posted: March 28, 2024 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The war between Israel and Hamas rages on as it passes the six month mark. Starting with the horrific and brutal attack into Israel on 7 October 2023, it has been a ferocious conflict. Now is the time to assess the policies involved and to reevaluate what Israeli war aims may be.

In so doing, two underlying assertions are necessary. First, Israel had and continues to have, every right to defend itself and to respond to the terrible attack that killed over 1200 innocent Israelis in October in order to preclude future attacks. Second, criticism of Israel’s government or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies are not in themselves anti-Semitic, just as criticizing President Biden’s policies does not make anyone anti-American.

As the war continues with much of Gaza destroyed and approximately 1.7 million Palestinians displaced, no clear war aims have been articulated by Prime Minister Netanyahu. As announced to date, their goals are the destruction of Hamas, the infrastructure supporting their rule and terrorist activities, and the release of the hostages. These are not political solutions. Killing every member of Hamas is not possible. Indeed one could argue that current Israeli actions in Gaza are only ensuring another generation of pro-Hamas fighters, or at least anti-Israeli fighters. The only way to ensure that every member of Hamas is eliminated is to kill every male over the age of twelve.

Hamas war aims are simple and are the mirror image of Israel’s. Kill every Israeli and destroy the Israeli state. They have no means to achieve their war aims. Israel does.

Israeli Defense Force (IDF) spokesmen claim that they have “dismantled” twenty of the estimated twenty four Hamas battalions in Gaza. Assuming this is true, dismantled is not the same as eliminated. The command and control function of the organization is clearly degraded, if not destroyed, but guerrilla operations can continue indefinitely with groups of four or five fighters using hit and run tactics. From a fighting perspective, as I have explained in other, earlier posts, the loser decides when the war is over. If the enemy does not stop fighting, then the war continues, even if by conventional standards one side “won.” The IDF does not give detailed information on troop movements but has said that only two divisions of the IDF remain in Gaza, down from the original five that attacked into Gaza at the war’s start. All of the reserve units are said to have stood down and gone home — partly because those forces are no longer needed and partly because the economy of Israel was suffering with so many workers away from their jobs. A casual look at the situation in Gaza today indicates that the Israelis have won, but yet the war continues.

Indeed, Prime Minister Netanyahu plans on expanding the war by attacking Rafah, a city in the south of Gaza that is the primary location of the displaced Gazans from the north, especially from Gaza City, which will be discussed further below.

Although IDF troops on the ground are significantly fewer, air operations continue at a heavy rate. Bombs and drone strikes are a part of life in Gaza every day. Exact numbers of casualties are difficult to confirm as the IDF does not supply certified numbers of either their own or Palestinian losses and the Gaza Health Ministry — the source providing the number of Palestinian casualties — cannot be fully relied upon. That said, the international consensus is that over 32,000 Palestinians have died so far in the war with roughly 100,000 wounded, mostly civilians. There does not seem to be much consideration for collateral damage (civilians killed or wounded) in the indiscriminate bombing of areas such as Gaza City. The IDF is a modern, well-equipped, well-trained force. In the early stages of the war perhaps it was necessary to destroy civilian infrastructure to attack the Hamas infrastructure, especially Hamas tunnels that are said by the IDF to run for 350 to 450 miles under Gaza, using schools, mosques and other civilian structures as nodes. The current situation appears to preclude the need for mass bombings as a means to their ends and more pinpoint targeting could reduce the number of civilian casualties. So far, that does not seem to be happening, raising concerns in the U.S. and elsewhere that the Israelis are not just hunting down Hamas, but that they are punishing Palestinians in Gaza for “allowing” Hamas to carry out its terrorist attacks. Such indiscriminate attacks also calls into question the status of Israeli hostages in Gaza. Mass bombing puts the hostages in danger. One stated war aim is to recover all of the remaining 134 hostages (some of whom are known to already be dead), and yet only two have been rescued by the IDF. Three hostages escaped and tried to surrender to the IDF but were shot and killed while approaching IDF positions. (An additional 105 hostages were released in a prisoner exchange last November, four were unilaterally released by Hamas.) Are the hostages also collateral damage?

Prime Minister Netanyahu publicly stated that the IDF was preparing to attack Rafah, on the Egyptian border, to eliminate remaining Hamas forces. Rafah has 1.4 million Palestinians living there, many are refugees from the north living in dire circumstances in tents. The U.S. position is that Israel cannot attack Rafah without creating an even greater humanitarian crisis and any military operations must wait until a plan is put forward as to what to do about the people living there. Recently, Mr. Netanyahu agreed to send members of his government to Washington D.C. to explain the plan to the U.S. (That trip was canceled over a disagreement about U.S. votes in the U.N. Security Council calling for a cease fire, but it was just announced that now the trip is back on.) The seeming disregard for the plight of the Palestinians is the source of a growing rift between the U.S. and Israel and the cause for the growing number of protests around the U.S. in support of the Palestinians. (Unfortunately, there are protesters that are ignorant of the situation in the Middle East, its complications, and the fact that Hamas started the war. Sadly, there are also some folks that are just plain bigots.)

Israel has every right to root out Hamas to ensure the survival of Israel and to protect its citizens from further terrorist attacks. The issue is more a question of how it should be done. As a democracy concerned with human rights and as a full citizen of the international community, Israel must also consider the plight of the innocent children, women and men that are not members or supporters of Hamas but are suffering greatly from a lack of shelter, food, potable water and medicine. That should be part of their plan as well. To date, it is not, other than to allow some (too few) aid trucks into the Gaza strip as well as some air dropped supplies, also ineffective compared to what is required.

There is a growing rift between the Israeli and U.S. governments that I do not find surprising. Israel absolutely depends on U.S. political and military support. Much of their military equipment and ammunition comes from America. U.S. policy since President Truman is to support Israel and that policy of support has only grown stronger with time. That does not mean, contrary to some opinions, that Israel is a puppet or client state of the U.S. Our leaders do try to influence Israeli leaders but in the end, Israel is going to do whatever they want to do, whether or not it coincides with U.S. policy. Some of their decisions actually run counter to U.S. desires and can in certain circumstances actually hurt U.S. interests. Period. Blaming the Biden Administration or any other entity for what Israel is doing in Gaza and calling for them to stop it is not realistic. They are going to do whatever they want. As a result, some in government believe that we support Israel to a fault — arguing that support to Israel is critical, but not when it also undermines our own national interests.

Complicating the political elements of this crisis is that Prime Minister Netanyahu heads a far right government with members of his cabinet pushing for total Israeli control of Gaza and the West Bank — where even as the war in Gaza continues Israelis are settling in and pushing Palestinians out. Mr. Netanyahu will seemingly do anything to satisfy his far right coalition and thus remain in power. Prior to the outbreak of war, many Israelis were openly protesting his policies as being too extreme. His support throughout the population was rapidly eroding. Mr. Netanyahu also faces probable criminal indictments when he leaves office — an incentive to stay. Israelis will support him while the war continues, but it is widely expected that when elections are finally held, he will be voted out of office. If one were cynical, it could be that the war is good for Mr. Netanyahu’s personal fortunes.

So back to the original question. What are Israel’s war objectives? Put in other terms, what is the desired end state of the war? What does the solution look like?

The answer is nearly universal in the international community. The only way to reach a safe and secure status quo for both Palestine and Israel is a two state solution. A safe and secure Israeli state and a safe and secure Palestinian state encompassing Gaza and the West Bank. It will take years, billions of dollars and a lot of finesse to reach that point, but in the end, the U.S., Europe and much of the rest of the world see it as the only way to achieve a permanent. long term solution.

Prime Minister Netanyahu and his coalition right wing ultra-nationalist government roundly reject a two state solution.

On one level, it is understandable that Israelis would be skeptical that having a stable, sustainable, productive Palestinian neighbor would ever be achievable. Decades of experience tell them otherwise. On another level, those right wing ultra-nationalists in his government see Gaza and the West Bank as ripe for Israeli expansion and settlement. To them, the only way to secure the area is to occupy it themselves. While Mr. Netanyahu has not stated such an intent, he has indicated that Israeli forces will be in Gaza for some time to come. No other long term end state or political solution has come forward from his government. Israel may be in Gaza for years to come. The question is whether or not they put settlers there and turn it into a de facto Israeli satellite as they are doing in the West Bank. First, where do the Gazans go? Secondly, such a move would likely break U.S. and European unqualified support for Israel. Not abandonment, but it will cause a significant strain on our relationship and it will be irrevocably altered.

The Biden Administration in conjunction with our friends and allies has been working hard over these last months to resolve the long term tensions in the region. Many nations are willing to help to rebuild Gaza and to promote stability. Most importantly, there are increasing indications that Gulf Arab states along with Saudi Arabia are willing to step up to provide the money needed to rebuild and to support a new (as yet undefined) Palestinian government to replace the current Palestinian Authority that nominally holds power but has no practical way to govern. To get the Arab states actively involved in a peaceful solution will be a game changer.

Now is the time to lock it all in. A coalition of the willing can be put together to rebuild Gaza, provide security against a resurgent Hamas and provide increased security for all involved. It could be the dawn of a new age in the region. It could mean a new relationship between Israel and its neighbors. Israel could find itself allied with Saudi Arabia as a counter to block Iranian adventurism. There are lots of possibilities that would have been inconceivable in the recent past.

It will take years of patient negotiations and small, confidence building steps. It will take billions of dollars. It will not be easy as there are many bad actors that prefer the chaos and bitter conflict. None-the-less, it is in everyone’s best interest to try.

Middle East Tinderbox

Posted: January 29, 2024 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Over the weekend, an Iranian backed militia group used an explosives laden one-way drone to attack an American military outpost on the Jordanian border near Syria and Iraq known as Tower 22. Three American service members were killed and approximately 36 were injured, some seriously. The United States has a series of small bases scattered throughout parts of Syria and Iraq. Originally, these forces were there to counter the spread of the Islamic State (ISIS). They remain in order to keep ISIS from filling a vacuum and also to counter the presence of destabilizing Iranian militias. In response to this weekend’s attack, President Joe Biden declared that the United States “will hold all those responsible to account” and that “we shall respond.” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said that, “We will take all necessary actions to defend the United States, our troops and our interests.” In order to knowledgeably speculate as to the nature of that response, it is necessary to put the entire geo-political atmosphere into context. 

As the old ballpark selling point went, “you can’t tell the players without a score card.” So it is in the Middle East, there are a lot of different players with differing motives. Sometimes it can be hard to keep track of them all. Here are some of the key players.

On 7 October 2023 Hamas terrorists attacked Israel killing about 1200 Israelis and foreign nationals and taking roughly 240 hostages. Since then, Israel invaded Gaza to destroy Hamas and recover the hostages. To date, it is estimated that over 25,000 Gazans have died — mostly civilians. Hamas still holds about 100 Israeli hostages. The fighting continues with no clear end in sight. Indeed, the Israeli war aims are unclear beyond the mission to “destroy Hamas.” The Israeli government has yet to articulate when the war is over and what victory looks like. More specifically, what is the long term solution to reconstituting Gaza and returning its citizens to a humanitarian way of life while preserving Israel’s security? The international community, including the United States, consistently pushed for, and still persists in pushing for, a two-state solution. That is, Israel and a sovereign Palestinian state. The current Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unequivocally rejects that idea. 

The United States and other nations continue to try and find a realistic path to establishing a peaceful and stable Palestinian state as it slowly brings Gulf states into the discussion and encourages Saudi Arabia to establish normalized relations with Israel. Recently, the Saudi national security adviser publicly declared Saudi Arabia’s determination to work with Israel as long as Israel commits to the establishment of a Palestinian state through practical steps, even if the actual formation of that state is in the future. 

Enter Iran. Iran is interested in a de-stabilized region in order to pursue its own interests. In the Iranian leadership, there is a yearning to reestablish the Persian Empire — or in current parlance, the Shia crescent that stretches from Yemen to Lebanon and includes Bahrain, Iran, western Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Azerbaijan. (As you recall, there are two main Muslim sects — the Sunnis and the Shia. The Shia are the minority in the larger Muslim world. Most Iranians are Shia and most Saudis are Sunni.) Not coincidentally, the main Iranian backed militias include Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. Other smaller groups exist in Iraq and Syria. 

The most important players in the region are Saudi Arabia and Iran. They are competing not only for regional dominance in a diplomatic sense, but also on religious, economic and military grounds. Add to the mix that Iran is a major ally of Russia and is supplying them with drones and missiles to use in their fight against Ukraine. Russia would encourage Iranian adventurism in order to distract the U.S. from its commitments in Eastern Europe to aid Ukraine. Additionally, Iran views Israel as an existential threat. The Hamas-Israel war creates the conditions for Iran to further inflame regional passions and to make its presence felt on the world stage by creating chaos throughout the region. While Iran claims that it does not control the militia groups surrounding Israel or creating havoc on shipping lanes around the Arabian peninsula, all evidence clearly shows that they do. Intelligence, military equipment and training all come from Iran. It may be true that Iran does not control them on a tactical or operational level (when or where to attack), but there is no doubt that Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis or any of the other groups would not be conducting attacks without the overall green light from Iran.

The United States and our allies know that Iran is the main threat to peace in the region. That said, international efforts are focused on keeping the war in Gaza contained. There is no desire on anyone’s part, and I would include Iran in that calculation, to see a wide-spread full scale war in the region. But, it is getting close. Iran and its proxies are trying to push as hard as they can to disrupt the region, the world’s supply chains and thus world economies in order to serve their own interests and to distract their citizens from the fact that their own economy is in dire circumstances. Internal issues may drive Iranian decisions as a way to also distract the many people in Iran, primarily under the leadership of women and girls, that are pushing back against the theocracy and its oppressive measures. 

Since 7 October 2023, the numbers of attacks on U.S. military forces in Iraq and Syria have steadily increased. The attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and Arabian Sea are also steadily increasing. The president ordered significant U.S. naval and air forces into the region to keep the Gaza war contained. It is not in the international community’s interest to see a major war in the Middle East. Those forward deployed forces have been responding to attacks on the American bases and international shipping at sea with proportional responses. Missiles and manned aircraft have attacked militia weapons production facilities, radars, launch sites and the like — both in response to attacks and, in Yemen, preemptively to prevent attacks. They are meant to deter future attacks and to warn Iran that the U.S. will respond militarily to their mischief. It is not working.

The U.S., alone or in concert with our allies that have also deployed forces to the region, must now respond directly against Iran for the attack on Tower 22. Iran must pay a price for their unchecked attacks. The thorny question becomes what is the right level of response and does it include a direct attack on targets in Iran? The planners in the Pentagon have been working overtime to supply the president a range of options. It is probable that economic sanctions and diplomatic measures are under consideration to warn the Iranians from further attacks. It is also highly likely that covert operations inside Iran, probably combined with cyber operations, will create some level of pain for the Iranian leadership. We can also expect some, as they say in the Pentagon, “kinetic responses”. In other words, ordnance on targets. At this point, it would be surprising to see a military attack on Iranian territory. It is conceivable, as we have done in the past, that Iranian forces at sea will be targeted. Depending on the scale, such an attack would make it clear to the Iranian leadership that there is a price to be paid for attacking Americans and it will degrade their ability to collect intelligence and/or carry out their own military actions. The hard part is to decide on a course of action that is unmistakable as to the source and that it causes real pain to the Iranians, without crossing the line into open warfare. No easy task.

There are hotheads on both sides of the equation that argue for going for the jugular. Given the circumstances in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Western Pacific, it is dangerous to play with fire while sitting in the middle of a tinderbox that could go up in flames at any moment. A measured response is needed. It may take more than one go around. What we do know is that it will take a clear head and a steady hand on the helm to navigate these tricky waters. 

The Intractable Middle East

Posted: November 6, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | 1 Comment

It is over four weeks since the horrific Hamas terrorist attack in Israel that left approximately 1400 people brutally murdered and about 240 taken hostage. Since then, the Israeli military has relentlessly bombed the Gaza strip and sent tanks and troops into that bit of land sandwiched between Israel, Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea. The Health Ministry in Gaza reports that over 10,000 Palestinians, including over 4,000 children have been killed in the bombings, a figure that cannot be independently verified as Hamas controls the ministry. Regardless, an awful lot of people are dying in Gaza.

It is clear that this is a nasty situation for lots of people. What is not clear is how it will all end. Without a doubt, Israel has the absolute right to eliminate the existential threat posed by Hamas to the very existence of a Jewish state. Hamas claims that they will not stop until Israel is eliminated from the face of the Earth and all Jews are “exterminated.” No country should support such a goal in any way shape or form. Likewise, the government of Israel states that they will not stop until they have done the exact same thing to Hamas. Given that both war aims are unrealistic, and that Israel is clearly the superior military entity and suffered an unforgiveable attack, what is their desired end state after all is said and done? What are Israel’s practical war aims? Furthermore, how does Israel attain its war aims without killing thousands of innocent Palestinians? The one thing to know about the Middle East, when behind closed doors, is that the Israelis do not care about the Palestinians, Hamas does not care about the Palestinians and the vast majority of Arab countries do not care about the Palestinians — they are merely pawns to achieve other national aims. To put it in different terms, if there was a caste system in the Middle East, Palestinians would be the untouchables.

Without having access to the Israeli war plans, there is no way of knowing what their specific goals are, but it is possible to surmise their intentions. In any operational or strategic military undertaking, the key element is to clearly define the mission — why do what you are doing? What are you trying to achieve? The Israeli’s stated goal is to kill every Hamas terrorist. But why? That is not an end state. It is one of their means to achieve it. Their real goal is to secure their own national security. To achieve that they want to eliminate Hamas as an effective organization and to stabilize Gaza by installing a governing entity that can stand up to the terrorists while promoting economic and social progress. The only way that Israel can feel that the threat from Gaza is eliminated is when they can peacefully co-exist. Is this a unicorns and rainbows solution? Possibly. But it doesn’t change the reality that the citizens of Israel can never truly feel safe until there is peaceful coexistence. That is the essence of long-standing U.S. and international policy striving for a two-state solution — a Palestinian state that is recognized and treated as an autonomous nation alongside a partner in Israel.

There is real danger in the situation as it exists today. Several factors are at play. First, as we all see in the daily headlines, the Israelis are pursuing Hamas by any means necessary. While they have every right to fully and forcefully fight the terrorists, how a nation does so is as important. It is not clear whether the Israeli government is taking the long view or merely the most expedient. That there will be “collateral damage” (a horrible term for civilian casualties) in a military operation in densely populated areas is perhaps unavoidable. However, whole scale bombing of cities where innocent civilians are trapped undermines Israel’s standing and support in the international community. The counter argument is that Hamas built hundreds of miles of tunnels under the cities using hospitals, schools and people’s homes to hide their existence and to try to provide a shield. To eliminate the terrorists in those tunnels in a slow, drawn out, yard by yard fight under the ground would likely result in unacceptable Israeli losses. However, there are other ways to seal off those tunnels using other means or by sending unmanned platforms in to kill the terrorists. Significant intelligence assets exist to pinpoint key areas to target rather than the elimination of all possible tunnel systems by using “bunker busters” that destroy everything in their blast radius. Other classified procedures are possible as well. The point is that indiscriminate bombing, resulting in ten thousand civilian casualties, does not really meet Israeli war aims. If their security hinges on peaceful coexistence, then radicalizing new generations of Palestinians which end up joining the terrorists does not help them achieve it.

Further expansion of the conflict is another real danger. Iranian surrogates are stirring up trouble in southern Lebanon where Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah claims to have 100,000 well armed fighters at his disposal, far more than Hamas. (Independent analysts say it is more likely 20,000 to 50,000 fighters, still far more than in Gaza.) Other terrorist groups have attacked U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria. The West Bank is a powder keg ready to explode as the expansion of Israeli settlements under the policies of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continue to exacerbate tensions. Israel can ill afford to fight a simultaneous three front war. The U.S. deployed significant air and naval forces to the region to reinforce our commitment to Israel’s national security and to protect our own interests in the region by deterring other bad actors from taking advantage of the situation.

The solution is a long way off. It seems that Israel is totally focused on the short term goal of killing terrorists. U.S. shuttle diplomacy by President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken is focused on containing the situation geographically, procuring the release of over 200 hostages, getting humanitarian aid into Gaza, and constructing the outlines of a long term political, diplomatic and economic solution. It is a difficult job, especially when our own domestic political games in the House of Representatives are hindering our ability to provide aid to Israel. Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine is relegated to the back pages of the newspapers while MAGA Republicans want to stop providing them aid in their fight to survive Russian annihilation. It’s a tough world.

The most likely long term solution is for the Palestinian Authority (PA), the nominal government of the West Bank, to assert control over Gaza. The PA will not be able to do so on its own. A combined Arab military mission into Gaza under the auspices of the United Nations seems to be the best solution to stabilize conditions for a gradual reconstitution of the Gaza strip. In the short term, it is unlikely that the Arab world would agree to participate (see paragraph two above). Under further international pressure and without any other solution in sight, it is possible.

Israel is going to do what it feels it must. Despite outside perceptions, the Israelis listen to the U.S. but in the end they do what they want to do, regardless. Given their history, it is understandable, even if sometimes it hurts them in the long run. To conflate Israeli actions in Gaza as being a reaction to, or an attempt to confound the desire for an independent Palestinian state is wrong. Israel was brutally attacked by evil terrorists. They are responding. End of that discussion. Open to debate is how they are responding and whether the two-state solution could lead to a more stable region where people of different religions live in peace.

The anti-Semitic attacks, allegedly in support of the Palestinians, breaking out across the U.S. and elsewhere are dangerous and shameful. It does not help the Palestinian cause. When one only gets information from Instagram and X, it is impossible to understand the complexities of this situation. Emotions overwhelm reason and logic. It does not help the Palestinians or anyone else. It does give great joy to the Chinese and Russian troll farms that want to destroy our country from within.

Only long term diplomatic, political and economic policies are going to resolve this crisis. In the short term, lots of people are going to die or suffer. Israel must defend itself. International organizations need to continue to work to get aid to innocent Palestinians. Neither one is easy.

Terror In The Middle East

Posted: October 13, 2023 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | 1 Comment

The horrifying Hamas terrorist attack from the Gaza strip into Israel last Saturday continues to escalate. The situation is complicated and will get more so, but make no mistake, Hamas is a terrorist organization with one goal and one goal only — destroy Israel by killing Jews. The attack is considered the largest loss of Jewish life in one day since the Holocaust. It’s bad. Really bad. Hamas is evil on earth and no one should be confused about their goal or mix their murderous, immoral and depraved actions with any aspirations that Palestinians may have for autonomy and a free state. Hamas cares nothing about their fellow Palestinians and, in fact, are effectively using their friends and families as human shields along with the hostages kidnapped in Israel and taken back to Gaza.

According to the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, Hamas was created in 1987 at the beginning of the first Palestinian Intifada (an uprising against Israel). It has roots in the Muslim Brotherhood and is concentrated in Gaza, although elements of the organization exist in the West Bank and other areas. In conjunction with the terrorist arm of Hamas, there is also political leadership that won elections in Gaza in 2006 giving them complete control of the population, and rejecting the government and agreements formed by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), Fatah, and the Palestinian Authority (PA) that nominally controls the Palestinian territories. Starting in the 1990s, Hamas periodically fired rockets into Israel and conducted small scale terrorist attacks in Israel. Over this time period, Israel periodically bombed Gaza in retaliation for the rocket and terror attacks and in 2005 conducted a large scale ground attack into Gaza to cripple the infrastructure and leadership of Hamas. There are slightly over two million Palestinians living in Gaza which covers about the same area in size as Philadelphia. It is considered the most densely populated territory on earth.

The attack into Israel on 7 October apparently took the Israelis completely by surprise. In military attacks, it is often possible to achieve tactical surprise (think an Army company getting ambushed). Occasionally, a military force may achieve operational surprise (think the Battle of the Bulge in World War II). It is nearly impossible to achieve a strategic surprise as occurred nearly a week ago. Ironically, in military case studies, the most discussed strategic surprise was the 1973 Yom Kippur War where Egypt and Syria completely surprised the Israelis, catching many of their units unprepared. Israel prevailed, but only after a bitter and hotly contested fight. It is too early for in-depth analysis at this point, and the focus should be on destroying Hamas, but it appears that there are similarities between 1973 and 2023. In the former case, Israeli politicians, intelligence analysts and the military considered the region to be relatively stable and that their enemies were not capable of fighting Israel’s superior military. In particular, Israel believed that air superiority was necessary for any successful ground attack and Israel ruled the skies. What they did not account for were Arab mobile air defense systems that provided a secure umbrella over their ground forces protecting them from Israeli air attacks. In 2023, Israeli intelligence analysts and politicians assessed that Hamas was a nuisance with their periodic rocket attacks, but not an imminent threat to national security. Israeli policies were geared towards normalizing the situation in Gaza through economic efforts (aid and allowing Gazans to work in Israel) and to achieve political stability by working with Arab countries to develop their de facto government and to contain Hamas. They were wrong. Hamas is not a “normal” organization and has no interest in acting in a rational manner. Their only mission is to destroy Israel and kill Jews. Exacerbating the slow military response in Israel is the fact that many troops normally stationed on the Gaza border were moved to the West Bank to protect Israeli settlements there and to northern Israel to deter Hezbollah from attacking from Lebanon. The Israeli forces on the border were overwhelmed by the coordinated, simultaneous and substantial influx of terrorists, something that the Israelis (and indeed much of the world) thought impossible for them to do.

Israel will prevail. Unfortunately, it is going to be ugly and there will be large scale loss of life and many of the casualties are and will be civilians.

There is one nagging thought that bothers me. Hamas had to know that the Israelis would respond with a large, overwhelming military response including a ground invasion. Israeli leaders are very clear that their mission now is to kill every member of Hamas. They intend to destroy Hamas so that they are incapable of ever attacking Israel again. This is a clear mission, but perhaps unattainable. My concern is that if Hamas anticipated this response, do they have some surprise in store for the Israeli forces entering Gaza? In and of itself, rooting out Hamas in Gaza, given that Hamas has prepared for this moment for years, will entail bloody, difficult building to building fighting with Hamas on their home turf knowing the lay of the land far better than the Israelis. That will be very difficult, even with the determination, courage and resolve that Israeli forces have in their DNA and through superior training. But is Hamas drawing them into a trap? Having once surprised the world, do they have one last trick up their sleeve? We will find out in the coming hours or days as the Israeli invasion is imminent.

Wars are easy to start and hard to end. A fact in military planning is that the loser decides when the war is over. If the enemy does not give up, if they keep fighting, however feeble their resistance may be, the conflict is not over. The Israelis will have to make it so painful that Hamas gives up. Their political and military leadership declared that they would only accept unconditional surrender, a very rare and difficult resolution to conflict. Since Hamas true believers are willing to die for their cause, even in suicide attacks, they are unlikely to quit, even if they have little hope of succeeding.

The next great humanitarian crisis is about to explode. There is no place for the civilians, many of whom do not support Hamas, to go in Gaza. The territory is bounded by Israel, the Mediterranean Sea and Egypt. Israel will not allow Gazans into Israel (nor should they). To date, Egypt is unwilling to allow refugees into their country — probably because they are afraid that they will never leave and that they would destabilize Egypt. They simply do not have the ability on their own to feed, shelter and protect a projected one to one and a half million refugees, especially as half of the population in Gaza is under 18.

Among other military aid and intelligence assistance the U.S. deployed the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier along with the guided missile destroyers and cruisers in the strike group. Their purpose is to deter other bad actors from becoming involved in the war. The aircraft and cruise missiles in the strike group are a formidable capability that should make other groups and nations hesitate to aid Hamas or to create their own mischief. U.S. involvement in the current fighting will be avoided (not to mention that Israel does not want it), with the possible exception of special operations forces acting to rescue American hostages taken by Hamas and hidden in Gaza.

At any one time there are thousands of U.S. citizens in Israel on business, touring the holy land, or living in the country. Additionally, there are thousands of dual Israeli-US citizens living in Israel. The State Department is organizing evacuation flights out of the country but inevitably some U.S. citizens will be caught in the fighting (as some already have, at least 27 have been killed and 14 are missing) which will give U.S. military and diplomatic planners cause for concern. The carrier strike group is not configured to evacuate large numbers of civilians. With skill and a little luck, the evacuation flights will get everyone out that wants to go. Not all will want to. For the roughly 600 Americans believed to be working or living in Gaza, for now, they are on their own. They have no way out.

Expect this war to be a long drawn out conflict with large numbers of casualties. Do not underestimate the cruelty and depravity of Hamas. There will be despicable developments surrounding the hostages. Likewise, do not underestimate the determination of Israel to exterminate Hamas. Unfortunately, that will also bring disturbing stories of innocent civilians in Gaza killed and injured. Not because the Israeli forces are targeting them, but because there is nowhere for the civilians to go to be safe and Hamas is not in the least concerned about their well being.

Hamas must be destroyed. It is not going to be easy.

More Trouble on the Horizon

Posted: March 4, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

I waited twenty-four hours to comment on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to a joint meeting of Congress concerning negotiations with Iran over nuclear weapons to see if my initial incredulous reaction changed with contemplation.  It has not.  I think that at best it was a text-book case of political theater and at worst a deliberate attempt to undermine United States foreign policy and to embarrass our president.

For the moment, let’s defer a discussion of whether or not there should be a deal with Iran over nuclear weapons — we’ll get to that in a moment — and instead focus on the spectacle we witnessed yesterday.  I had the opportunity to watch the entire proceedings live, and hope that you did as well. If not, you will find the complete transcript of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech here.

So here is what transpired.  The Speaker of the House invited the head of state of another country to address a joint meeting of Congress, without consulting with the opposition party, the president or the State Department, or even informing them of the invitation until after it was accepted.  The head of state of one our closest friends accepted the invitation without informing our Ambassador or State Department that he intended to come to the United States.  The Ambassador to the United States from that country, born in the United States and who worked on the 1990s Republican Congress’s Contract with America was integral to arranging the visit with the Speaker.  That head of state is in a very tight political fight of his own and is up for re-election in two weeks.  In past campaigns, he has used video and audio of his prior speeches in Congress as campaign ads.  In his own country, a judge ruled that his speech yesterday could only be broadcast on a five-minute delay so that political references could be blocked because his own government and judiciary thought his motives to be political.  And finally, in that speech, he was condescending and nearly insulting to our Congress and especially to our president.

There are very few, if any, other heads of state that could plausibly fill this scenario other than Israel. While technically not a speech to a joint session of Congress (it was a meeting) it had all the trappings of a presidential address to a joint session of Congress, complete with the spouse in the gallery and guests referred to and acknowledged by the speaker as part of the speech.  In every respect, it was designed, intentionally or not, but I think intentionally, to help Benjamin Netanyahu get re-elected as Prime Minister of Israel by allowing him to look tough by taking on the President of the United States in the chamber of our own Congress.

I note that the negotiations that are underway with Iran are not bilateral U.S.-Iranian negotiations. They are multi-lateral negotiations involving the “P-5 + 1” (or the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China — plus Germany).  It is curious that Prime Minister Netanyahu did not go to the U.K. to address a joint session of the Parliament or otherwise visit with or discuss with, or otherwise engage any of the other nations negotiating with Iran.  He only engaged the U.S. in a political spectacle designed to enhance his stature in Israel and to embarrass the president, and he did it at the invitation of the Speaker of the House sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.  Whatever our special relationship with Israel — a relationship I support — in the end, the foreign policy of the United States must support the goals of the United States.  I guarantee, and history supports, that Israel will do whatever it sees in its best interests without regard to what the United States may or may not want.  Most times the interests of both nations coincide.  However, when they do not, the best interests of the United States should take priority over those of any other nation.

I should also note that since 1992, Benjamin Netanyahu has been warning that Iran is only three to five years, or less depending on which assertion of his one wants to quote, away from building nuclear weapons.   He’s reiterated this claim time and again including in his book Fighting Terrorism published in 1995 and in previous addresses to Congress.  He may eventually be correct, but he has no special insight that is not apparent to the national leaders of many countries.

As to whether or not the negotiations underway with Iran are a good deal or, as Prime Minister Netanyahu claimed, a bad deal, we do not yet know.  There is currently no deal.  His speech broke no new ground and did not bring forward any points that are not well know by anyone that has even a modicum of interest in the subject.  Iran is a bad actor.  Nothing new there — they have been the primary source of terrorist activity in the Middle East since the early 80’s.

President Obama already stated, well before Prime Minister Netanyahu, that a bad deal was worse than no deal. President Obama also said in an interview last week that he puts the chances of a deal with Iran at less than 50%.  They are not going to take just any old demand that Iran throws out.   With this in mind, Prime Minister Netanyahu was merely grandstanding and added nothing to furthering the mutual U.S.-Israeli goal of stopping Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.  (Conveniently forgotten is that Israel is commonly known to possess somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 nuclear weapons of its own.)

There may be no deal.  The P-5 + 1 have put a deadline of 24 March for Iran to agree to a substantive settlement or they will walk away (another Netanyahu applause line that is already stated policy prior to his speech).  No one is naive about the Iranians, and it should come as no surprise that they are going to try to get their own best deal.  That is the nature of any nation’s national security policy. This much is fact so far.  The interim deal from two years ago allowed for inspectors to visit Iranian facilities for the first time.  The Iranians are not currently building any nuclear weapons.  If the talks breakdown or scuttled, there is nothing to stop Iran from eventually building a nuclear weapon.

Most troubling to me were the implications near the end of his remarks.  While advocating for, in essence, “no deal” with Iran, a move that may in fact lead Iran to build the weapons, he stated that Israel would be willing to act.  Or in his words:

We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves. This is why — this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.  But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.

Especially in the context of his speech and the way that he delivered these remarks in person, this sounds like a veiled threat that Israel will take military action to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons.  While this is troubling in and of its self — and by all expert testimony will only be a bump in the road for Iran’s ability to build the weapons, and will in fact spur them to increased efforts to do so — it also implies that they would expect the U.S. to join them in that military effort.  In essence, a foreign leader is trying to commit the U.S. to another Middle East war.

I am troubled.  Troubled by the precedent set by this political spectacle.  Troubled by the meddling of a foreign leader of a close and friendly nation to undermine — not influence, undermine — our foreign policy.  Troubled by the blatant attempts to scuttle negotiations that are in a delicate phase.  Troubled by the terms of the deal which must reign in Iran and remove their ability to build nuclear weapons. Troubled by the consequences of a failure to negotiate a settlement.

These are troubling times around the world in many, many ways.  There are no easy answers, although in the rhetoric surrounding complicated issues too many are willing to give one-line sound bite solutions.

While I agree with the caution regarding Iran that Prime Minister Netanyahu outlined in his speech, and while I have no illusions that any agreement with Iran is not fraught with possible problems and that they must be held to account, I am also so very disappointed that our foreign policy is no longer bi-partisan and is used as a political weapon in the face of grave danger to our nation and to our friends and allies.