Ron Rosenbaum, Writer

December 21, 2006

Footnote 55 and the "One Bomb State"

Filed under: Uncategorized — ronrosenbaumwriter @ 8:38 am

One of the commenters on the previous post made two points, one of which I emphatically agree with. Yes, indict all, all the inciters to genocide. Throw the book at them.

But there is another point I’m afraid I have to disagree with: That Iran would “lose” a war with Israel Perhaps now, perhaps for the next few months or (at most) the next few years. But as soon as Iran has nuclear weapons (if they haven’t bought them already), they can arm their Shehab-3 missiles and foreign bought submarines with them–and is there anyone so naive as to doubt that sooner or later, probably sooner–a nuclear exchange with Israel will result.

That is what people don’t get in this situation: it won’t matter whether Israel has more nukes or bigger nukes or better delivery systems. The logic of nuclear deterrence that once prevailed in the U.S./USSR Cold War no longer obtains. Now one side (Iran) feels it can absorb and survive nuclear retaliation if necessary to exterminate the other side (Israel).

Once Israel had a nuclear deterrent to conventional attack. Now however consider the words to be found in footnote 55 to the indictment of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for inciting to genocide. Footnote 55 to the indictment, the “Referral” to the International Court of Justice under the Genocide Convention described in the previous post, is the heart of the matter, the heart of darknesss.

These words, this genocidal sentiment, which I have been citing since 2002 in writing about the situation, in postulating the prospect of a second Holocuast, were uttered by the leader of what the Western press has lately taken to calling the “pragmatic conservatives” in Iran, Ayatollah Hashemi Rasfanjani:

“If one day the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel’s possession [meaning nuclear weapons]–on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This…is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.”

“Nothing on the ground” versus mere “damage”. In other words, as one rather dramatic version has it, Israel is “a one bomb state”. A state you can wipe off the map, along with its people, with a single nuclear device. Yes Terhan might be destroyed in return, other Muslim capitals as well perhaps, by Israeli retaliation. But at the end of that bleak day there will be “nothing on the ground” in Israel, once the homeland of five million Jews. And there will still be a billion or so Muslims, many of whom will be celebrating the outcome.

The Soviet Union was not suicidal, thus deterrence worked in the Cold War. There is no deterrent to suicidal fanatics who are willing to accept millions of casualties, aka “martyrs” to accomplish the murder of millions of Jews. All “a one bomb state” requires for its extermination is, well. one bomb.

Once Iran was distant from Israel (though within range of the Shehab 3 missile). now Israel’s borders are surrounded by Iranian catspaws, Hizbullah and Hamas.Is there any doubt that, one way or another, sooner or later “one bomb” can reach Tel Aviv? Remind me how Iran would “lose” this war.

There is no deterrent to suicidal martyrdom, involuntary mass martrydom. No deterrent that depends on belief in the value of life by genocidal murderers on a “martyrdom mission”. Is there a solution to this problem aside from pre-emptive strikes which will likely be catastrophic for both sides and probably only postpone a second Holocaust? Are there any deterrrents that will stop Ahmadinejad and his ilk from carrying out their genocidal designs? I wish I could believe there were. Any ideas?



  1. one. Would it have helped if Hitler had been indicted by the League of Nations? I understand your position that Iran is an “existential” threat to Israel, if so military action seems advised.
    two. “on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end.” Its only a quote in long history of remarks but it does seem to suggest that Israel will be less powerful not that ISrael will be destroyed.
    three: there is a very good chance that Iran will be be too busy in Iraq. and that Shia and Sunni across the middle east will be fighting proxy wars in Iraq.
    four: ALl the more reason for Israel to settle the Palistinian issue. Even a bad solution would be better than none.

    Good try, but leaving “nothing on the ground” suggests annihilation, a literal “dead end”. I wish you were right. I personally doubt any “indictment” will stop any exterminationist, nor will any “solution to the Palestinian issue” that doesn’t involve the destruction of of the state of Israel and the “driving the Jews into the sea”. That’s not “a bad solution”, it’s no solution or it’s a variety of a Final Solution.–R.R.

    Comment by jimmy — December 21, 2006 @ 1:31 pm | Reply

  2. One point no one seems to make in this regard. Shiites and Sunnis proselytize each other constantly (with little effect, usually). The Shiites are painfully aware of how few they are compared with Sunni Islam, and want to rectify the situation. Were Shiite Iran to destroy Israel, the Arab “street” would probably switch to pro-Shiite sentiment in a heartbeat. This would mean either Shiite regimes in various now-Sunni countries, or (more likely) those countries having their governments fall, and then joining some sort of loose confederation with Iran. I’ve never thought Ahmed-whatshisname was truly an anti-semite so much as I think he’s power-hungry: in a way, that’s even more scary, because he’s calculating what he can do, and get away with. Regardless of which he was/is, your point is well-taken: someone’s got to stop this guy before things get ugly.

    Comment by David Nicholas — December 21, 2006 @ 4:08 pm | Reply

  3. I have a suggestion, which might work. Out crazy the crazy, by expanding the theater of action.

    State publicly that Israel has 2nd strike capabilities and will not only target Teheran but Mecca, Rhiyad, Cairo, Istambul, Dubai, Damascus, (Paris??) and anyone else, necessary.

    Make it clear that if Israel goes down so will all the leaders of the middle east.

    The deterrence will then become the problem of the other states in the region that are somewhat rational and will not want to be blown up.

    Comment by hallson — December 21, 2006 @ 4:27 pm | Reply

  4. You need to do something that they care about, if they don’t care about death because of their view of the afterlife then screw with that.

    A sepoy mutiny style rumors that pig fat is used in hollow-point bullets favored by CIA assassins followed by the removal of the non-assassination order and… Well the next guy might think twice as he may not live long enough to push the button.

    Comment by rjschwarz — December 21, 2006 @ 5:23 pm | Reply

  5. Things have already gone too far. If the mullahs in Tehran/Qom don’t rein-in Ahmad he will become a night visitor. Nelson DeMille’s “Wild Fire” scenario is a likely result. Hallson is probably correct that we, the US, standing alone and totally rejecting any world criticism, will have to tell the other Mid-East leaders that the death of Tel Aviv will mean the death of their nations’ capitals several heartbeats later. That might focus a few minds on the problem. The “Palestinian” issue is nothing more than a stalking horse anyhow. Muhammad, throughout his life, according to his quotes from Allah, and on his death bed condemed the Jews and called for their eradication. Thus for a practicing Muslim, especially a fundamentalist, Ahmadinehjad is right.

    Comment by Spinoneone — December 21, 2006 @ 5:26 pm | Reply

  6. Then your solution is inevitable since you believe your enemies cannot be reasoned with. They must be destroyed or at least conquered and ruled by people who are not evil. If you dont accept that conclusion, change some of your premises.

    regarding the quote: Its important to remember how paranoid the Islamic world is(which is why they are so dangerous) the crux of the quote is that when Islam has the bomb, they wont have to worry about Israel nuking an Islamic state. yes. it does suggest a very dead and desolate Israel but its not quite an argument for an first strike.

    Its true that the arab world is incredibly anti-semetic(and I dont see how that can change because the Koran is anti-semetic).
    However Palistine is an issue that must be solved(as Ariel Sharon saw). I don’t mean a solution that makes Arabs happy, i mean a solution that creates some degree of separation between two hostile nations.

    What did Israel ever plan to do with all these Palistinians? Very poor planning.

    Comment by jimmy — December 21, 2006 @ 5:44 pm | Reply

  7. If Rasfanjani et al feel that Israel can be destroyed with acceptable losses, perhaps the answer is to make sure that Israel has the means to make the losses unaccaptable. Give them a bunch more nuclear weapons, and long range, second-strike capable delivery systems for same. If all of Islam stands to be destroyed in the inevitable counterstrike, destroying Israel becomes rather less attractive, as do leaders who advocate such madness.

    Comment by Steve — December 21, 2006 @ 6:50 pm | Reply

  8. And just how Jimmy, would you separate a new arab nation and israel?

    Comment by pacific_waters — December 21, 2006 @ 9:00 pm | Reply

  9. The “palestinian” problem was not a problem when the “palestinians” were Jordanians (pre 1946), Egyptians and Syrians. It was only after the land was lost to Israel, that the famed “palestinians” started demanding their homeland. The solution is not to give them a homeland separate from Israel. After all, their publicily and oft repeated goal is to “push the Jews into the sea” “Palestine from the river to the sea”. The solution is not to disarm the Iranians (persians) or any arabs ( or keep them from arming). The solution is to kill the leadership and cause extreme fear in the rest of the population. A well placed tomahawk during the next “death to America, death to Israel” rally would serve quite well. And the sucessors? Ask nasrahlla and company. Targeted killings were very effective. They will only be totally effective if the Arab leadership believes that a) their own lifes are forfeit and b) their holly places are next. If the price is too high, they will cease all violence. The problem is that western civilization refuses to be as barbaric as the Arabs. Think of it. They lionise and we accept, sucide bombers, including children and women who have ashamed their families. Some in the west make excuses for that and even more barbaric behavior by muslims. Is like they were teenage bullies intimidating their betters. The solution is to find a credible deterrent. The only credible deterrent is not the extermination of the Arab street, but of the leadership and the holly places (mecca and medina). Our western morals will not allow us to win. If we can watch Rwanda, hold memorials for the dead and apologize for our inaction while ignoring Darfur, or see 3000 Americans killed in 9-11 and then activelly undermine the fight against those who mean to do it again, we will not be able to win. I weap for the death of enlightment.

    Comment by Rey — December 21, 2006 @ 11:41 pm | Reply

  10. I make a suggestion at my blog in
    this post

    It is not without its own set of consequences, but they seem mild compared to the deaths of millions of innocent lives on both sides.

    Comment by Dr. Sanity — December 22, 2006 @ 9:27 am | Reply

  11. While I fully agree with Dr. S, that targetting the heads of state of the Islamofascists would be the best practice, I must note the real evil-creators.

    The Imams and Mullahs — the Islamic “holy people”. Who believe that Allah himself has given the Arabs oil, so as to have the power to kill the Jews.

    Even before assassinations, there should be tape recordings of the sermons given by the Jew haters, translated into English.

    The oil must be taken away from regimes which are unwilling to respect Free Religion and Free Speech; both Iran & Saudi Arabia. With a lot more pressure on Kuwait — why didn’t the US force Kuwait to become a functioning Arab democracy after it was liberated in Gulf War I?

    The Oil Trust Fund idea is the best bet — so that the Arab people get more cash, and the gov’t/ leaders/ wannabe dictators get less.

    The race is still on as to which side will be first: successful democracy & human rights OR crazy leader with a nuke; and Tel Aviv goes mushroom. I thought with Bush invading Iraq, democracy would win. Now I fear the mushroom cloud wins.

    Merry Christmas!

    Comment by Tom Grey — December 22, 2006 @ 11:46 am | Reply

  12. jimmy–There is no “solution” to the Palestinian issue–at least, none that would hold any appeal for those who support Jewish sovereignty in Israel. You can’t “solve” the problem, no matter how many Peace In Our Time confabs you hold because, bottom line, the true believers truly believe that Israel is an alien dhimmi presence squatting (like a “tumour,” in the colorful locution of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hairy Islamic Hitler)in the bosom of Dar al Islam. As such, its very existence is, you should pardon the expression, unIslamic.

    BTW, Ron. Just finished reading your new book, Shakespeare Wars. It was superb! I devoured it in three days.

    Comment by scaramouche — December 22, 2006 @ 1:50 pm | Reply

  13. Possible solutions without worrying about morality.
    Kill all the Palistinians.
    Expell all the Palistinians.
    Rearrange the borders so that all the Palistinians are no longer in Israeli controlled territory.
    Make all the Palistinians Israeli Citizens.

    ALl you people say there are no solutions. I dont understand why you say that. right now, Israel and the territories are like Siamese Twins. You want a physical space between the nations. A DMZ. Simple as that. No Palistinians allowed in Israeli territory. No palistinians in Israeli territory, no suicide bombers.

    A better solution would have been to grant them civil rights in the early 70s, but its too late for that. Which is I get so angry hearing all these complaints about the evils of the peace process. You cant conquer a territory and make no plans for the people who live there. and the only plan Israel has ever had is anti-terrorism.

    I think the point “you people” as you put it, have is that they would love it if Israelis could live in peace, side by side with a peaceful people, but the party now ruling the Palestinian territories, Hamas, is pledged, by its charter to the destruction of any Israeli state and the elimination of the Jewish people. No side by side. You’ve read the charter, right

    Comment by jimmy — December 22, 2006 @ 2:37 pm | Reply

  14. there is only one solution. it is the same solution we knew about five years ago. it is the same solution that we keep putting off because we are afraid of the possible reverberations. ultimately we will have to do it at a much higher cost.

    the leaders and advisers of sudan, syria, iran, hezzbollah, hamas and al sadr have to be liquidated on the same day at the same time without warning. anyone who complains about it in each country has to suffer the same fate. world opinion must be ignored–just as sherman ignored the cries of the atlanta residents as he burnt the city to the ground.

    these leaders are the generals in this 21st century war. they are the acknowledged terror leaders who are killing at every turn. they fund, lead and inspire others to kill us daily. if we are in a WAR they should be killed immediately. our failure to do this will be our undoing. killing them tomorrow is almost too late. al sadr should be our model. failure to kill him three years ago has resulted in his being a mass murderer in iraq and soon to be it’s political leader if the dems have their way. it is never too early to kill monsters and any that follow……

    Comment by patrick neid — December 22, 2006 @ 3:01 pm | Reply

  15. Ross Perot ruined one of my favorite phrases ‘ you people, those people’

    But to be clear, I am not talking about living side by side with peaceful people but living side by side with Palistinians as they are. only I am suggesting something similar to Cold War Berlin.

    I think Sharon had the right idea. Unilateral withdrawal to a more defensible position.

    I havent read the charter, of course. is it a good read?

    Comment by jimmy — December 22, 2006 @ 4:05 pm | Reply

  16. Ron says:

    “The Soviet Union was not suicidal, thus deterrence worked in the Cold War. There is no deterrent to suicidal fanatics who are willing to accept millions of casualties, aka “martyrs” to accomplish the murder of millions of Jews. All “a one bomb state” requires for its extermination is, well. one bomb.”


    the dynamics of the nuclear threat is such that the Islamicists think that they can gain more by nuking Israel than lose but it.

    It seems to me that they came to that conclusion because of the Western view of “human rights,” and “human justice.”

    If they think that the nuking of a country in this case Israel will only lead to at worst sustainable damage and at best a few trial of the leaders of the country who perpetrated the deed than they will surely be willing to take the chance.

    It should be our goal to make it clear to them that if they nuke Israel or any other country in the name of Islam that Mecca and Median and all the other Islamic sacred sites will be targeted with nuclear weapons.

    In additions it should be made clear to the people in the Muslim world that we will hold the people themselves and not just their leaders responsible for such a horrific deed and will punish them accordingly.

    In the end we need to change the equation in this deadly game of chicken: they bomb in the name of Islam than Islam itself will come to an end.

    One way or another that religion must be held accountable for the deeds of its practitioners and not just a few groups and their leaders!

    It’s up to the clergy in Islam to start changing their mindset or else their religion will become harām or unclean.

    Comment by Mailer — December 22, 2006 @ 4:43 pm | Reply

  17. There is no solution to the Palestinian problem because it is all based on a lie, the idea that any of it ever was “their land” to begin with. So wall them off and let them fester. As for Iran, blockade them, now. From the sea, from the air, and overland. They are a consumer society which manufactures almost nothing, including not even refining the very gasoline that runs their military and civilian vehicles. Make turning over their centrifuges the price of ending the blockade.

    Comment by Dick Stanley — December 22, 2006 @ 7:20 pm | Reply

  18. Believing that there is a “two state” solution in Palestine, is a fool’s dream. However, there is a two-state solution that rational people can accept: The Arab State in Palestine is Jordan. Unfortunately, the Arabs are not rational where it concerns the Jews. They will only accept an “ultimate solution” to the Jewish Problem in Palestine. Anyone who thinks otherwise has taken a trip from reality.

    BTW, we are told that the violence in Iraq is a result of US presence there. What is the excuse for the Hamas – PLO civil war in Gaza and the West Bank? How will we withdraw our troops from those areas? Was that in the ISG report?

    Comment by Drew — December 22, 2006 @ 8:56 pm | Reply

  19. Events are leading up to total war. I doubt there is any “solution” to this other than picking sides and playing to “win.” Israel is fucked without the West’s complete support which it currently lacks (an understatement). There is no magic bullet. Neither diplomacy, the Mossad, “new” deterence strategies nor surgical first strikes can prevent this. And as long as Iran can make realistic, but unanswered anihilisitic threats, even without following through, Zionism is dead. Let me tell you, this is no way to live.

    Shmuel, Jerusalem

    Comment by Shmuel — December 23, 2006 @ 1:01 am | Reply

  20. Hallson has the solution.

    Deterrence does work, just not the deterrence we used with the more rational Soviets.

    We would need to find a deterrence that would have the same sobering effect on the Islamists.

    I vote for Mecca/Medina as the price for an attack on Israel. As Iran cannot destroy Israel without using nukes, the classic answer to one nuke is two.

    The core Islamic worship centers would be destroyed as a matter of course, and whatever capitals/countries are deemed complicit. At that point, with Israel burning, what would it matter?

    Comment by bjbarron — December 23, 2006 @ 5:04 pm | Reply

  21. I know this is probably little consolation, but I pray every night that the righteous will be preserved. I share with you the discouragement and even despair of the present moment, which is very dark indeed. But I believe that prayers are even more necessary now.

    Comment by WasatchMan — December 24, 2006 @ 4:35 am | Reply

  22. Dear Sir,

    I do not think Isreal can be destroyed. She will undergo terrible hardships but will never be fully destroyed. May I refer you to an article that explains why I believe this. If you would please look at Middletown Bible Church Website and type in the search box:

    Can Israel Be Destroyed….the article makes a great deal of sense to me. I am a Christian and believe God has promised Israel His protection and that trumps any power on earth. I do not know if you believe the Bible to be credible but at least it offers an alternative to the One Bomb in Gilead. Another Balm is also avaialble to believers and that Balm is the Lord Jesus.

    Thank you for your article is was very though provoking. God bless you sir as you seek after Him.

    Brown M. Sims
    Four Oaks, N.C.

    Comment by Brown M. Sims — December 24, 2006 @ 9:25 am | Reply

  23. Whether Iran can be deterred is not a simple question. Certainly it would be foolish not to give credence to those who make the threats against Israel. And A. appears to be a genuine apocalyptic – needing a catastrophic war to achieve a religious goal.

    On the other hand, Rafsanjani is a member of a wealthy, influential family and may very well enjoy his earthly goods too much to want a war. Furthermore, Rafsanjani, #2 Ayatollah, is a member of the religious council which holds final authority.

    Israel has a significant deterrent: an anti-ballistic missile system. It would be a really bad day for Iran if they threw a few nukes at Israel which were shot down. The retaliation might give them the apocalypse that A. wants, but without the “glory.”

    Furthermore, it would take a lot more than one fission bomb to destroy Israel or kill 6 million Jews. See for some quantitative details.

    A more frightening question is how one deters anonymous nukes – terrorist delivered nukes with no return address (i.e. no ballistic trajectory that can be back-tracked). What if *someone* (Iran, North Korea, Russia) provides a nuke to the Palestinians, who set it off at along the border? Lots of damager – and depending on the location and weather patterns – lots of radiation death and land unusable for weeks to years. That, of course, is a threat that all of us face, not just Israel.

    …Russia, you say? Russia’s main strategic asset is energy – the higher the price the better. Nuclear retaliation by Israel would make Russian oil and gas much more expensive. And as we saw with the poisoned spy case (and lots of previous history), Putin isn’t above such things.

    Comment by John Moore — December 24, 2006 @ 1:11 pm | Reply

  24. All of this has surely occurred to everyone who considers the situation and the phenomenon of suicide terrorists.

    The first step should be to refuse to be terrorized. Just as we can’t count on deterrence, we can’t appease people (short of converting to their cult of death), who really believe that God wants them to kill us and will reward them richly in paradise.

    The second step is to decide what we ourselves believe in. With moral equivalence and multiculturalism so widely accepted, we’re in danger of being defeated without a struggle.
    If we don’t believe in our system and the values that have made us strong, how can we hope to persuade others they have more to look forward to that blowing themselves up?

    Third, we must show a united willingness to stand up to them, even to the point of destroying their very “culture.”

    It isn’t quite true that they won’t be deterred by such a threat. If they all really desire martyrdom as much as they say, why do they hide from us and fight only with ambush tactics and primarily against civilians? It’s a bluff that we must call as convincingly as anything we’ve ever undertaken in order to separate the sane majority from the fanatics.

    In a way, it’s not really in their interests to solve the Palestinian issue. Kill all the Jews and whom do you blame for all your failures?

    Whether the West is up to confronting these people I don’t know. But we’re not going to get rid of them by kowtowing to them.

    Comment by AST — December 24, 2006 @ 9:23 pm | Reply

  25. When I was being bullied by an older and bigger kid, I went to the younger brother of the bully and said, “Your brother may pulverize me but when he is done, I’ll get my revenge on you.” The younger brother was happy to “talk” the older brother out of his idea of pulverizing me. I’m not sure if that required a wrestling match or all out family war. Didn’t care. How can we use a similar tactic to either get the bloodthirsty jihadists to direct their hate toward each other or get a “brother” to talk or beat some sense into the maniac? Without the media giving voice to the real messages coming from jihadists, we cannot rely on education of the masses. It may require planting clandestine seeds of insurrection at home. It may also take a world leader to voice what the retaliation would look like to send some fear into the hearts of Iranians, who for the most part are more secular and do not subscribe to the rants of a lunatic jihadist in public. We must draw in the secular and rival sects of the region, overtly and covertly… whatever it takes. Just as Gideon defeated the Midianites in ancient times, we must create an environment where evil destroys itself. There sure doesn’t seem to be enough good-guys out there to do the job.

    Comment by noeo — December 25, 2006 @ 2:25 am | Reply

  26. There is little chance the US will accept preemptive use of nukes. It may, may, may allow the use of it in Iran, since we get no oil from them, and any Muslim country that has no oil but the US will not accept the destruction of the territories whose oil allows us to manufacture goods in China and send them to the States for consumption. The US won’t allow it. China won’t allow it. Europe will certainly not follow the logic of bombing the ME. Who knows what Russia thinks. So long as they get their money for building the reactor in Iran they may not care.

    As for finding a two state solution in Israel/Palestine. Israel has offered the Palestinians a state. This is besides their state in Jordan. Israel has tried to get the Arabs to agree to a two state solution since the early part of last century. Those in power did not accept a two state solution unless the two states were Jordan and Palestine. Arafat was offered a state and he refused it. Hamas certainly refuses it and Abu Mazan now acts as though he wants a state ever since pressure made that option more tolerable then his present difficulties. It’s sort of funny that the Palestinians haven’t just unilaterally declared their state. I suspect the UN’s Palestinian Refugee program and the possible cessation of providing welfare for the Palestinian refugees (and decendents) of 1948 ia another issue that makes it difficult to obtain Palestinian acceptance of their own state. They are happy to remain an “Authority” so long as the UN checks keep coming. Now that it hasn’t we might seem Abu Mazan move differently as he deals with Hamas.

    Israel did have a plan for dealing with the Palestinian refugees. In 1967 Israel was trying to hold dialog in which it would hand back all the land it had captured in the 6-Day War, besides Jerusalem, for peace. The Arabs would then be able to deal with their Palestinian refugee problem themselves. When the Arabs refused, Israel went on to build apartments and utility facilities for the Palestinians. They set up schools and various other infrastructures to try and improve the situation of the refugees (efforts that were not made for these same refugees by their own Arab brothers in Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon when they were under these countries’ protection from ’48-’67). The refugees, refusing to part with the label of refugee, refused moving into the brand new apartments. Israel allowed this alien people to enter Israel and work. They tried to integrate the Palestinians while decades of negotiations, wars and various strategies for obtaining peace with their neighbors failed. Israel had a plan. Like all plans it went through adjustments. Like great business idea often do, this plan failed but there was a plan.

    No question, Israel made many mistakes. All ventures run into them. Time was always against Israel because of demographic issues. We are currently witnessing another of the many historical moments in which Jews, as a nation, have an opportunity to grab history and refuse being distracted by the many foreign ideas and bodies that think they have the right choose a course for us. We have ancient traditions. We have time proven standards and morals. We are a nation separate from other nations and we must act in accordance with the lessons our millennia of wisdom has bequeathed us.

    May G-d protect the people of Israel. May all nations be blessed and come nearer G-d’s glory. May all our enemies be destroyed in our day so all nations may live in peace forever. Creation is a wondrous thing and we simply wish to live our days enjoying what has been granted us. Be in peace.

    Comment by Pidyon Ami — December 25, 2006 @ 3:13 am | Reply

  27. Israel needs good ABM system — how good is it? And why not just ship the nuke to lebanon and have Hezb lob it over with a rocket? ABM can’t deal with those firecrackers

    Comment by Gary — December 25, 2006 @ 3:30 am | Reply

  28. One thing that seems to be missing from the main article and the comments — a matter which should be of serious concern to all non-Muslims and Muslims who are not Islamists. While the threats to Israel are very real and should be of utmost concern to all civilized human beings, those who are not as concerned about Iran’s threats to Israel as the rest of us, should be apprised of the proverbial canary in the coal mine rule. All of us should remember that the goal and dream of the Islamists — whether they are the Shiites of Iran or the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia — is for the return of the Caliphate or the complete rule of Islam. Israel, in their view, is only the first, albeit essential phase of this goal. So, anyone who is not concerned about the future prospect of Israel because they do not view Israel as any concern to them, is living in Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland — most probably as the Mad Hatter.

    Comment by Saul — December 25, 2006 @ 11:37 am | Reply

  29. It is well known, but not officially admitted, that israeli second strike tacitc is to strike against anyone who could be a threat to survivors, and not only the attackers. That would probably include every country in middle east, and a few in north africa. Even those with who there is a signed peace deal.

    According to estimates, israel has 200-400 warheads. That’s more then enough. For example, egypt can be more or less wiped out by taking out aswan dam, 90% of population lives on the shores of the nile, which would be under 2 meters of water. If israel wants to be nasty, it can. It can project its nuclear arsenal far beyond their explosive power.

    Comment by shaul — December 25, 2006 @ 11:48 am | Reply

  30. 1. Anyone who thinks the Israeli’s are not already targeting Mecca is being foolish.
    2. Any nuclear attack on Israel will be followed by a massive ground assault. By the Palistinian mobs eager for Jewish blood and gang rape in mass. Looting the wealth of Israel will also be their motive.
    3. Every Islamic nation surrounding Israel will join in the ground assault.
    4. The world will stand by and watch videos of mass gang rape and beheading of Israeli’s survivors.
    They will all be killed except for the ones taken as slaves. All that will be done or said about the attacks will consist of statements condeming the attacks then the Euros and the world will rush in and assist the poor starving radiation poisoned Palistinians. Build some second holocaust memorials and say “never again” again.
    5. Bush will be blamed because of Iraq.
    The Israeli’s need to beef up their strike force with more Nukes and if not already armed with them they need to start on some Chemical responses too. drown every Islamic border with Israel in chemical weapons.
    Really at that time there will be nothing to lose!

    Comment by Barry — December 25, 2006 @ 12:33 pm | Reply

  31. Shaul
    Yes, the Euros can expect some hard Israeli rain too. Is France listening?

    Comment by Barry — December 25, 2006 @ 12:37 pm | Reply

  32. Let’s continue your thought experiment a little farther, Barry. Assume–God help us–that the Iranians lob a nuke onto Israel and the Israelis retaliate with one or more nukes back.

    My guess is the western media and intellectuals would sorrowfully condemn the Iranian attacks and point out the marvelous moral example Israel could have set the world if it had refrained from “Old Testament” vengeance.

    Never again–but if again, not just us.

    Comment by Alex Bensky — December 25, 2006 @ 5:52 pm | Reply

  33. It is worth remembering that massive destruction of muslims is easily accomplished with atomic weapons. They are concentrated in large cities (just look at Iraq), and the delivery of 50 or so Hiroshima size weapons on mideast sites could kill tens, maybe hundreds of millions of muslims
    within days of an attack on Israel.

    If the choices are the abandonment of western civilization and Israel by letting the muslims take over, or destroying mankind, I choose the latter.

    There is no need to preserve human life on earth if its highest accomplishment is Islam.

    Comment by Don — December 25, 2006 @ 8:59 pm | Reply

  34. It is highly unlikely that Israel has the military wherewithal to “take out” Iran’s nuclear facilities. Such facilities are extremely well-defended and built underground sufficiently far to make them immune from all but nuclear weapons, which IMHO Israel will absolutely not use for such purposes. Another strategy, pointed out most recently by Arthur Herman in Commentary, is to take advantage of Iran’s highly vulnerable position with respect to conventional fuels (Iran has very little domestic capacity for refining oil, for example). Such actions require more naval capability than the Israelis possess, though, and would necessitate action by U. S. armed forces, though certainly not a full-scale invasion of Iran. The objective would be to cripple the Iranian economy and hope that the populace would rise up against the mullahs. There is quite a bit of wishful thinking here, I’m afraid, as well as a disregard of Iran’s military partner, Russia. It’s possible it or a variant would work, though.

    Comment by Henry Bowman — December 26, 2006 @ 10:15 am | Reply

  35. I am certainly willing to take Ahmadinejad at his word, but being a fanatic doesn’t mean he’s irrational. So why should he commit suicide to destroy Israel when, with a little patience, Israel will destroy itself and he can be around to enjoy the sight? Remember, Israel is now a country that has shown its inability to defeat an army – Hezbollah – that possesses no mechanized units and no air force, only rifles and second-rate Soviet-era artillery cum missiles. It is also a tiny country with a tired population that’s anxious to get smaller and arm the Palestinian Arabs who surround it on two sides in Gaza and the West Bank. Seen from the Muslim perspective, this is a favorable trend and proof their tactics are working. These people have survived for millenia and they know vis a vis Israel they are winning the important battles of will and attrition. Why risk certain destruction when, at this rate, they just have to wait a few decades and shake the baby a few more times for Israel to disappear on its own?

    Comment by Dan Friedman — December 26, 2006 @ 2:25 pm | Reply

  36. Isn’t this part of what Reagan was driving at when he offered Gorbachev the opportunity to combine efforts on SDI. After all, “pandoras box” is open. Enemy states will come and go, in the end the nuclear bomb is the real enemy. So rather than thinking only of ways to disarm certain countries, shouldn’t we also be thinking of ways to disarm the nuclear bomb? We need to focus on both tactics.

    Comment by Jason — December 26, 2006 @ 3:00 pm | Reply

  37. Some very interesting ideas and comments here and all seem to believe the nuclear showdown is the only possible scenario.
    I think some nation could pursue a destructive war against Iran using chemical or biological weapons. I realize this is so repugnant to most people that it cannot be considered. It is however an approach that has many positives. The population can be decimated without widespread destruction and actual responsibility would be difficult to trace. Unfortunately the use of these weapons is more reprehensible than a nuclear strike. So finding the will to take pre- emptive action is impossible. We must understand and accept that a civilized nation can only utilize weapons of mass destruction as a retaliatory measure.

    Comment by Anonymous — December 26, 2006 @ 7:00 pm | Reply

  38. Any ideas? For six years, the U.S. has had a President risk his reputation to fight the force that will ultimately be the downfall of Israel. What percent of Jewish Americans have supported him? Solve that problem and you can be certain that some ideas will surface. If Jewish Americans can’t recognize the problem, how can anyone else?

    Comment by Mark — December 26, 2006 @ 10:01 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: