Syria, Iran and Israel

The threat of rocket fire all over Israel, including Tel-Aviv, is looming large over our heads. There are two very possible scenarios that would bring about such a hellish result. Both scenarios involve best buddies Iran and Syria, as well as their allies Hamas and Hizbullah. If Israel (or anyone else) attacks Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas will attack the entire state with rockets. If NATO intervenes militarily in Syria, then Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas will attack Israel.

Action in either Iran or Syria is stupid. In Iran, an attack on the nuclear facilities may eventually be the last option, but we aren't there yet. Impose tougher sanctions and see if they work. As for Syria, let them deal with their own internal chaos on their own. I'm not willing to risk Israeli lives to save the Syrians who are rising up against Assad.

However, since either situation would lead to all-out war and missiles all over Israel, if one scenario comes to fruition, then the other one should be executed as well. A NATO attack on Syria would make an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities a wise move, provided that Syria does indeed retaliate with rockets. And vice versa - if Iran's atomic plants are attacked, followed by an attack on Israel, NATO should help take out Assad's regime, like it did with Qaddafi.

The Afghan Dilemma

The recent revelation of secret material about the state of war in Afghanistan was both astonishing and unsurprising. That WikiLeaks could obtain 92,000 classified documents is absolutely jaw-dropping. Apparently, there's a huge problem with information security in the United States military.

What isn't surprising is the contents of the documents. Everybody knows that the situation is dire. The Afghan Army isn't anywhere near functional, President Karzai and his government are corrupt, and Pakistan is playing a double game, both aiding the United States and Taliban simultaneously. Normally, I'd say there's not much America and its allies can do there, and that troops should be pulled out, with each country focusing its anti-terror efforts on its own gates - seaports, airports and border crossings on land. But the situation isn't normal. If Afghanistan falls to the Taliban again, nuclear-armed Pakistan will quickly follow. Nuclear arms cannot be allowed to fall into the hands of terrorists.

The two Talibans of Afghanistan and Pakistan are not the same, though they're linked. The Afghan Taliban is only concerned with Afghanistan itself. Their Pakistani counterparts, on the other hand, have a much more global outlook. Imagine these international Jihadists with nuclear weapons. They'd be a much greater danger than even a nuclear Iran could ever be.

Shut Up About Ahmedinijad Already!

Yesterday was Holocaust Remembrance Day here in Israel. It seemed like current geopolitical threats were on the minds of Israel's leaders more than the genocide perpetrated by Nazis 65 years ago. I didn't listen to any of the speeches, but from the quotes I've read it seems like every single one of them mentioned Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, his Holocaust denial and the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons: President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Netanyahu, Vice Prime Minister Sylvan Shalom and Knesset Speaker Rubi Rivlin are just a few examples.

My dear leaders, shut the fuck up! Yes, Ahmedinijad is a Holocaust denying, nuke-building son of a bitch who would like nothing more than to annihilate Israel. This is definitely a problem we have to deal with, but it shouldn't be exaggerated either. If you're whining hysterically in public, you're probably not really getting things done behind the scenes diplomatically.

Also, who the hell is Ahmedinijad to take over all of our discussions of the Holocaust? Sure, his speech at Durbin II on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day didn't help, but there are more important things to learn from the Holocaust, like how we should treat Holocaust survivors or the new survivors of the genocide in Darfur who now live in Israel as refugees.

How about asking ourselves whether "never again" only applies to Jews. The answer should be an unequivocal no. "Never again" should apply to all peoples and the genocides that have occurred before and after the Holocaust should also be addressed without minimizing the horrors of the Nazis, who ran the most efficient, meticulous, calculated and well-planned, as well as largest scale, genocide of all time. We should especially bring attention to the genocides taking place right now and the lack of international effort to stop them.


Maybe in August, around the 64th anniversaries of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if Ahmedinijad is re-elected president of Iran and the Obama administration doesn't seem successful in thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions, Israel's leaders will speak about this favorite subject of theirs again.

Sarkozy: Obama Immature About Iran

Even though I still prefer Obama over McCain, I find the following story from today's Haaretz newspaper very disconcerting:

Sources: Sarkozy views Obama stance on Iran as 'utterly immature'
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is very critical of U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama's positions on Iran, according to reports that have reached Israel's government.

Sarkozy has made his criticisms only in closed forums in France. But according to a senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate's stance on Iran as "utterly immature" and comprised of "formulations empty of all content."

Obama visited Paris in July, and the Iranian issue was at the heart of his meeting with Sarkozy. At a joint press conference afterward, Obama urged Iran to accept the West's proposal on its nuclear program, saying that Iran was creating a serious situation that endangered both Israel and the West. According to the reports reaching Israel, Sarkozy told Obama at that meeting that if the new American president elected in November changed his country's policy toward Iran, that would be "very problematic."

Until now, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have tried to maintain a united front on Iran. But according to the senior Israeli source, Sarkozy fears that Obama might "arrogantly" ignore the other members of this front and open a direct dialogue with Iran without preconditions.

Following their July meeting, Sarkozy repeatedly expressed disappointment with Obama's positions on Iran, concluding that they were "not crystallized, and therefore many issues remain open," the Israeli source said. Advisors to the French president who held separate meetings with Obama's advisors came away with similar impressions and expressed similar disappointment.

According to the Israeli source, Sarkozy plans to begin intensive negotiations with the new American administration, regardless of whether it is headed by Obama or Republican Sen. John McCain, even before the new president takes office in January, with the goal of persuading him to continue the current policy on Iran.

But Sarkozy's pessimism does not stem only from Obama's stance; it also stems from the overall behavior of the international community toward Iran's nuclear program, and particularly its inability to agree on a fourth round of Security Council sanctions against the Islamic Republic. This foot-dragging will make it impossible to effect a change in Iran's nuclear policy, Sarkozy believes.

The French intelligence community believes that Iran has already obtained about 40 percent of the enriched uranium it would need for its first bomb, and that at its current rate, it will obtain the rest of the uranium it needs in the spring or summer of 2009.

However, French agencies are divided over what Iran is likely to do once it has this uranium. One view is that the Iranians will immediately make a nuclear bomb, in order to demonstrate their capability. The other is that Iran will continue enriching uranium without making a bomb - at least until it has enough enriched uranium for several bombs.