Mon, 14 May 2012 20:58:34 -0800WeeblySat, 04 Feb 2012 19:40:27 -0800http://www.aviperry.org/1/post/2012/02/the-inevitable-war-with-iran.htmlThe incoming elections in the US and the flashy rhetoric by Republican presidential candidates have stirred the question of nuclear Iran into the front page. The Muslim Gulf states and Israel have added to the rumbling; they have sustained their pressure on the US administration, urging it to act, to stop Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. The Obama Administration has warned Iran: “pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable; the US would use all means in its disposal, including force if necessary, to neutralize Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.” But to no avail.

Still, Iran keeps its macho talk loud and condescending.  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has just issued a warning—Iran will not cave in to pressure; progress toward a nuclear bomb (he did not say “nuclear bomb”, but he definitely implied it) will not be brought to an end, no matter what sanctions the Americans or the EU impose on the Islamic Republic.

The Ayatollah is serious. Although macho talk in the Islamic Middle East is a standard adopted by all militant Islamic leaders, the Iranian government is flexing its muscles, flaunting its sharp teeth. It believes that economic sanctions will hurt, but not as much as caving in to American demands. In a culture where false honor precedes anything that moves under the sun, where life without “honor” is far worse than death, where honor killing is a religious diktat, caving in to economic sanctions is equivalent to an unconditional surrender. And surrendering to the “Great Satan” merely because life is a little tough is inexcusable, dishonorable behavior; it is treason that merits the death sentence.

The loud rhetoric from all sides has been underlined by considerable measures on the ground. The US has been and is about to keep on amassing a war machine in the Persian Gulf and on several islands within reach of Iran. American, British and French warships and aircraft have been acting around the Persian Gulf and around Saudi air bases respectively, while the Saudis have reinforced their anti-missile defense gear and their delivery facilities around Saudi oil fields and along the Persian Gulf respectively.

Israel has been readying itself for war on all fronts. It has recently conducted large-scale military exercises, both defensive and offensive in nature, including the drafting of reservists under projected heavy missile bombardment of every town, road and base, as well as a large scale parachuting by over a thousand paratroopers, signaling a willingness to engage ground-troops on foreign soil in addition to relying on its air force and its rockets.

Iran has not been sitting idle either. They have announced the start of a three-week exercise in southern Iran and the Strait of Hormuz under war settings. They seem to brace for a noteworthy retaliation with the objective of blocking the flow of oil out of the Gulf. In addition, they have been concocting terror attacks on soft Jewish and possibly other civilian targets throughout the world.

The American Administration is working hard at softening its seeming aim by masking its military buildup with wishful talking points. US Defense Secretary Panetta’s recent implications concerning Israel’s imminent attack plans are part of a grand-scale deception strategy. They have been designed to refocus the Iranians on the most suspicious front rather than the one that would deliver the ultimate blow—the US military. It is obvious that if Israel embarks on a preemptive strike on the Iranian nuclear project, Iran will try to retaliate. Retaliation will not be limited to hitting Israel. The Revolutionary Guards will attempt to attack American interests throughout the Middle East, thus provide a pretext for an American involvement in a large scale “defensive” war against Iran—a war that would be supported by the American public due to its defensive nature, a war that would boost Obama’s standing in the eyes of the American people, shortly ahead of the elections.

The scenario above may not necessitate an Israeli opening (of hostilities) since the Iranian regime is stuck in a macho syndrome, which blinds their rational reasoning. They will miscalculate. They may initiate hostilities against US interests in the Persian Gulf in order to lay bare the risk associated with any American attempt to force them into submission by aggressive economic means.  They do not believe that the US would retaliate by initiating an all-out-war in response. They view the US and President Obama as paper tigers. The Ayatollah will repeat the same mistake that Hezbollah had committed in 2006 when they kidnapped dead Israeli soldiers before Israel responded with an all-out-war they had not anticipated and had not wished for.

There is little doubt that a war with Iran can be avoided. There is high likelihood that the US will lead the effort even if Israel initiates the campaign. There is little doubt that the US is hard at work preparing for war in the Persian Gulf. There is high likelihood that Iran will provide the American people with a sizzling justification by provoking the US and invite a massive retaliation.

There is no doubt. 2012 will see to a new Gulf war. This time, the Ayatollah will be the one to pay the price.

]]>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:47:57 -0800http://www.aviperry.org/1/post/2012/01/the-us-administrations-erroneous-assumptions.html__ When it comes to the Middle East, the US administration has been conducting policy based on erroneous assumptions. Proper conjectures are key to successful outcomes, yet frustration and missteps have been the factors topping the list of US foreign policy roster in the Middle East.

Below is a list of 6 key assumptions guiding US policies and the administration’s thought process. All of them are wrong and require an urgent reality check. So let’s get started.

Assumption: Economic sanctions will convince the Iranian government to end their quest for nuclear weapons.

Reality: The Iranian government believes that economic sanctions will hurt, but not as much as caving in to American demands. In a culture where false honor precedes anything that moves under the sun, where life without “honor” is far worse than death, where honor killing is a religious diktat, caving in to economic sanctions is equivalent to an unconditional surrender. And surrendering to the “Great Satan” merely because life is a little tough is inexcusable, dishonorable behavior; it is treason that merits the death sentence.

Assumption: If the only option left to stop Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons is military action, the US will be forced to bomb the Islamic Republic’s nuclear project sites.

Reality: Restricting a military option to bombing the nuclear project sites will leave Iran free to retaliate and generate havoc in the world economy and to Iran’s neighbors, including Israel. The proper way of handling Iran’s nuclear aspirations is to go after their military, disable their navy, air force and rockets, and only then target the regime and try to facilitate an internal uprising by the Iranian people. The nuclear project can be taken care of once the other objectives have been accomplished.

Assumption: The Arab Spring promotes democracy.

Reality: Islam and democracy are like oil and water - they simply do not mix. Islamists elected to power through democratic means respect the rules of democracy - just until the moment they feel powerful enough to inject their religious rulings and Sharia law into the courts and into the daily life of their citizens. Militant Islam may be delayed a little bit longer, but never for the long-term. True democracy will continue to slowly be eroded until full-fledged, Iranian-style dictatorial autocracy replaces democracy throughout the region. Still, autocratic rulers will continue to refer to their respective regimes as democratic.

Assumption: The Iraqi war was not a total waste. Iraq is the first democracy in the Middle East. It serves as a model for the rest of the Arab countries. It may even have been the inspiration behind the Arab Spring.

Reality: Americans make the mistake of assuming that once a country conducts free elections it automatically becomes a democracy. This is an incredibly naïve attitude. Although free elections constitute one of the most rudimentary conditions for a democracy’s emergence, it is merely one prerequisite of many. True democracy requires a storehouse of democratic institutions: a civil legal system rather than a religious one, civil rights that include the rights of minorities, free press and the freedom of speech, separation of powers including a system of checks and balances that ensure that no single entity may assume absolute powers.

But most of all, true democracy requires a country’s citizens to accept, participate and cooperate in the system, so that new-found freedom does not evolve into anarchy.
The Iraqi democracy is far from functional. Apart from free elections, its democratic institutions are severely lacking; its legal system is faulty; there is no true separation of powers; a sizable portion of the Iraqi people does not accept the system and minority rights are questionable at best.

Assumption: Peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians will bring about peace.

Reality: There are clear red lines that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians will ever accept. Israel will never be able to accept a Palestinian right of return because it is aware that once Palestinians are given the freedom to flock to Israel in their millions, the demise of the Jewish State will not be far behind. And for their part, the Palestinians are unwilling to accept any deal that does not include their right of return.

Israel wants to live in peace within secure borders and under the assurance that the Palestinians will not transform the West Bank into a terror base once a peace deal has been signed between the two peoples. The Palestinians seek an independent state, including the resources to build a strong military with imported arms, sans Israeli supervision.

There is, of course, the small issue of trust: Israel does not trust the Palestinians since the Palestinians offer daily evidence of their true intentions: demonizing Israelis, defining the conflict as a religious war, educating their young to hate Jews and employing Nazi style anti-Semitism, glorifying terror and child-killer terrorists, refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, rewriting history and denying Jewish rights to their ancestral homeland, and keeping an ongoing claim to the territory known as Israel proper.

The Palestinians do not intend to give up any of their demands, attitudes and demeanors. The Palestinian public has been brainwashed with hate and demonization of Jews for too long. It is now impossible for Palestinian leaders to talk this Palestinian generation into embracing peace with “subhuman” Jews.

Assumption: The only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a two-state arrangement, with both peoples living peacefully side by side.

Reality: Whenever people talk about a two-state solution, they ignore the fact that the Palestinian territories are divided between a Hamas-controlled Gaza and a Fatah-controlled West Bank. If one counts Israel as one of the states in the solution (as is the protocol), then there is a minimum total of three states and not two. The third state, Hamas-controlled Gaza, has the in-built goal of destroying the Jewish State. It’s also the main rationale justifying Hamas’ existence. It cannot be removed from the charter unless Hamas itself is removed from the political scene. The Palestinian Authority considers Gaza an integral part of a Palestinian state. A two-state solution between Israel and the PA that excludes Gaza is not acceptable to Palestinians in the West Bank.

Consequently, present conditions being what they are, a two-state solution—like the rest of the assumptions on this list—is simply infeasible.

]]>Sun, 15 Jan 2012 07:55:17 -0800http://www.aviperry.org/1/post/2012/01/more-on-the-looming-war-with-iran.html_ On 1/9/2012 I wrote in http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=252675) that Iran would launch a Pearl Harbor type “surprise” attack on the US navy in the Persian Gulf, and that attack would serve as a justification and a pretext for a retaliatory move by the US military against the Iranian regime.

I was amazed to see the numerous (practically viral) editorials and blogs that cited this part of my article, claiming that the use of quotes around the word: “surprise” carried the implication that the US would manufacture an “incident” (I am using quotes again) where the Iranians would appear to have initiated an attack on a US warship, except, the US would initiate a provocation, inviting that attack.

No! I did not try to convey the above interpretation. You guys were all wrong!

The Iranian regime is stuck in a macho syndrome. It blinds their rational reasoning; it prevents the Mullahs from breaking off their quest for nuclear weapons even in the face of severe sanctions. The regime’s rhetoric has raised the temperature in Persian Gulf by having the Revolutionary Guards issue multiple threats against the US and its allies. Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz; they would not allow US carriers to re-enter the Gulf; they would continue to develop their nuclear capability—all pose crossings of red lines, inviting a massive retaliation by the US.

The latest incident in the Gulf where Iranian gunboats approached an American ship without having any shots fired is a first in a series of non-violent close encounters. The Iranians are playing a dangerous game. They are experts in setting up deceptive mirages, conditioning American misconceptions with regard to the Ayatollah’s true intentions.

The Iranians will continue approaching American ships, then seem to blink by shifting direction, moving away, until the Americans learn the fake drill, letting down their guard. Then and only then, the Iranians will be able to draw near—sufficiently close for a deadly strike on a key American warship.

American warships presence in the Persian Gulf is the only “provocation” required for the Iranian Mullahs to feel provoked. They have already confirmed that assertion. There is no need for a conspiracy on the part of the US. American military presence or Israel’s existence are sufficiently provocative in the eyes of these bullies.

Some people say that the Iranians are not crazy enough to start a war on the US. I disagree. The Iranians will miscalculate. They do not believe that the US would retaliate by initiating an all-out-war in response. They view the US and President Obama as paper tigers. The Ayatollah will repeat the same mistake that Hezbollah had committed in 2006 when they kidnapped dead Israeli soldiers before Israel responded with an all-out-war they had not anticipated and had not wished for.

In today’s world where proportionate responses to aggression rule the roost of the politically correct universe, the Iranians will expect a limited American response, confined to local retaliation and accompanied by loud rhetoric from political opportunists. They will not anticipate the actual reaction because they will not understand the boiling rage they have been affecting in the US since the hostage crisis in the 1970’s. They will not understand the determination of the American government to see to it that the Persian Gulf does not fall under their control. They will fail to realize that their big-headed quest for nuclear weapons is a bloody red line that a president on the verge of elections may not be able to overlook.

My prediction in my previous article: “2012 will see to a new war. This time, Iran will initiate it” is NOT a wishful thinking; it is a logical inference of an unpleasant reality where the Iranian regime will be successful in bringing about its own demise due to its own miscalculation.


]]>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:46:32 -0800http://www.aviperry.org/1/post/2012/01/the-looming-war-with-iran.html_ Watching the New Year Sunday Talk Shows on US TV, the experts were all of the opinion that neither the US nor Israel will embark on attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities in 2012. I tend to agree. Neither the US nor Israel will initiate an attack on Iran. Still, I believe that these experts were off by a million miles.

Iran, just like Nazi Germany in the 1940’s, will take the initiative and “help” the US president and the American public make up their mind by making the first move, by attacking a US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, trying to sink it.

The Iranian attack on an American ship will serve as a justification and a pretext for a retaliatory move by the US military against the Iranian regime. The target at that time would not be Iran’s nuclear facilities. These would turn out to be an addendum.  The US would retaliate by attacking Iran’s navy, their military installations, missile silos, airfields. The US would target Iran’s ability to retaliate, to close down the straits of Hormuz. The US would then follow by targeting the regime itself.

Elimination of Iran’s nuclear facilities? Yes. This part would turn out to be the final act, the grand prize. It might have been the major target had the US initiated the attack. However under this “Pearl Harbor” scenario, where Iran had launched a “surprise” attack on the US navy, the US would have the perfect rationalization to get it done right, to put an end to this ugly game.

Unlike the latest Iranian people’s attempt at revolution, this time the US would not stay away, rather, it would go public, openly calling for the Iranian people to join in with the US in working to overthrow the corrupt Islamic fundamentalist regime. And the Iranian people would respond in numbers.

Spring would reemerge, and the Iranian people would join the rest of the Middle East—this time with the direct support of the US.

The greatest irony behind this most significant episode in 2012 is that the Iranian regime would effect their own demise. Attacking the US navy in the open seas is equivalent to carrying out a suicide bombing.

The Iranian government has become bolder by the day. Their hubris has been mounting as a result of the world’s inability to bring to an end their quest for nuclear weapons. If the Revolutionary Guards achieve that final step, and demonstrate their nuclear capability, their bullying conduct would swell beyond their geographic region. It would grow to be catastrophic.  The responsible world understands that the Ayatollah must be stopped, but the US, the EU, Israel are in no mood to instigate a military confrontation for fear of its negative economic impact due to a potential closing of the straits of Hormuz and one more bloody war engulfing Israel and its neighbors.

Iran’s mullahs understand the world’s anxiety and its lack of resolve when it comes to confront them militarily. The Iranian government is blinded by its own ability to intimidate, to call the shots, to ignore warnings. What the Iranians fail to realize is that some of the lines they are about to cross are red—bloody red.

2012 will see to a new war. This time, Iran will initiate it. This time the US will respond. This time the Iranian regime will bring about its own demise. This time the Iranian Spring will bear fruits.

This time the Iranian nuclear cloud will evaporate before it rains down on the infidels.
]]>Mon, 26 Dec 2011 07:35:42 -0800http://www.aviperry.org/1/post/2011/12/the-next-iran-warits-fiction-but-its-real.html_ It’s April 1st, 2012.

Vital, undisputed intelligence have been pointing to the sorry reality that Iran is merely two-months away from having assembled a nuclear bomb. US presidential elections are only seven months away. If Iran is left unchallenged and becomes a nuclear power, Obama and the democrats will go down in history as the great cowards who let it come to pass. The Republicans will make sure of that before winning the race to the White House.

Not to be concerned. Obama is motivated and so is his team. The Israeli government is ready. Let’s go!

The Iranians have amassed most of their air defenses all around their nuclear installations. Their early warning systems have also been geared toward alarming in the event of an approaching attack on these sites. Hezbollah and Hamas are on a standby mode. Just in case, they would retaliate with a non-stop missile barrage on all major Israeli cities, including Jerusalem. So what if some Palestinian Arabs become martyrs? It’s good for moral…

The buzz is in the air since the US has moved one more aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf. The price of oil has skyrocketed already. Russia and the rest of the oil exporting countries are laughing their way to the banks.

Day 1:

It’s D-Day. A pre-dawn coordinated attack by US and Israeli forces has just been launched. But wait... Iranian nuclear sites are left untouched. Where are they hitting?

The reports are sneaking back in to Jerusalem and to the Pentagon. The Iranian navy has been sunk; the Iranian long range missiles have been destroyed on the ground; the Iranian air force and airfields have been damaged beyond repair. The mullahs and their Revolutionary Guards have lost their ability to retaliate. The straits of Hormuz will remain open to oil traffic; however, no container ships are ready to set sail as of yet.

In midday, Hezbollah and Hamas launch rocket attacks on Israeli cities, and the Israeli air force is busy taking them out; Lebanon’s infrastructure is merely devastated. Both Hezbollah and Hamas are crying foul; they want the Israelis to stop while they keep carrying their rocket attacks. Israeli reserves are called in. They are amassed along the Lebanese, the Golan Heights and along the Gaza border with Israel. It’s still quiet along the Israeli-Syrian border, but it could turn ugly at any moment.

Day 2:

It’s leadership day. Iranian command and control, Revolutionary Guards headquarters and training camps including major outposts, as well as top political and military leadership—are all targeted. It’s a slow but crucial day. On the Israeli front, rocket fire continues; Israeli air and ground forces continue their push; Israeli citizens bear severe consequences, but the attacking Arabs are the ones calling for the UN and Russia to intervene.

Day 3:

Finally, Iranian nuclear sites are in the crosshair of US command. Iranian air defenses in and around these sites are being disabled by American stealth bombers and cruise missiles. At the same time bunker buster bombs are hitting the underground nuclear facilities. Massive explosions can be heard many miles away.

The Israeli air force is on the go over Lebanon and Gaza. Israeli tanks and armored vehicles cross into both territories. Tel Aviv, Haifa and the rest of Israel are under rocket attacks, but no missiles are getting off from Iran itself.

Missiles, air and ground war keep going. Gaza is surrounded and is under siege. The Hamas leadership is nowhere to be seen. Hezbollah has been successful in launching a single long range missile that was intercepted in midair. Hezbollah bases in Southern Lebanon have been run over by Israeli military.

Day 4:

Iranians are crowding the streets in Teheran. The Iranian Spring is on its way. Rocket fire from Gaza has been diminishing considerably. Egypt intervenes diplomatically, trying to arrange for a seize fire. The Gaza strip is cut in half and the Southern Philadelphia corridor has been taken over by the Israeli military. The Israeli Military has been seen in the outskirts of Gaza. Rocket fire from Lebanon is still significant.

Day 5:

Russia has been quiet all throughout the campaign. It has enjoyed the resulted high price of oil, then why hurry? However, the end is near, and Iran will survive. Russia needs this weighty trade partner. Time has come for some blaring rhetoric. The UN has been working hard to impose a cease fire between Israel and Hezbollah. Efforts are underway and it looks like a day or two before final signatures.

Day 6:

It’s relatively quiet along the Israeli borders. A cease fire has been arranged between all warring parties in Israel’s vicinity. Iran is embroiled in a full scale uprising. It looks and sounds like a civil war. The nuclear cloud has been whited out; the Revolutionary Guards have been demoralized; the Iranian nation has been trying to reap the fruits of freedom, taking it away from the dictatorship of the religious militants.

Day 7:

The sun still rises in the East. It’s a new spring day. Life will be beautiful one day soon.
]]>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 12:18:47 -0800http://www.aviperry.org/1/post/2011/12/obamas-and-his-teams-failed-nave-doctrine.html_ In his latest speech at the Brookings Institute, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta offered Israel his words of wisdom. “Just get to the damn [negotiating] table, reach out and mend fences with the Palestinians, or risk facing even greater isolation. If the gestures are rebuked, the world will see those rebukes for what they are, and Israel’s moral standing will grow even higher.”

Echoing these words so that Mr. Panetta could benefit from his own wisdom would sound like this: “Just get to the damn [negotiating] table, Mr. Panetta, reach out and mend fences with al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea or even the Republican Party back in Washington, or risk facing even greater foreign policy failures, and further political deadlock at home...”

Really?

There are two traits which point to the core of the faulty doctrine utilized by the United States:

It would appear that US President Barack Obama’s administration does not seem to comprehend the meaning of extreme ideology. Their faulty logic postulates that all humans are reasonable, rational people who could be convinced once the truth is presented in a clear, transparent form, supported by facts and reinforced by historical or scientific evidence.

What Obama fails to understand is that fervent insistence on maintaining an ideology (including deep-seated religious beliefs) makes evidence, expertise or any line of reasoning irrelevant.

If some people believe that they possess the absolute truth, they view those who disagree with their point of view as fundamentally wrong and misguided (in many cases they deem those who disagree with them as criminals). Evidence contradicting their beliefs becomes irrelevant, a violation. Respectful arguments not in line with their ideology are of no use. Compromise is a bad word since it shows frailty and weakness.

Obama seems to understand this simple truth where it applies to his own situation concerning al Qaeda, yet he fails to apply the same logic when Israel enters the picture.

Both Hamas and the Palestinians provide the same threat to Israel that Iran and al Qaeda provide to the US. These Islamic extremists are trapped inside their own ideology. Peace and compromise are deemed blasphemy. The more you concede to these adversaries the bolder their actions become. It’s a war they started; they won’t end it unless Israel is destroyed, unless the US is defeated. To their minds, it’s an all-or-nothing guiding principle where no middle ground is possible. This conclusion is supported by so much evidence that to list it would require volumes upon volumes.

The second piece of faulty logic on the part of the Obama administration is the belief that compromise is always possible because both sides to a conflict or an argument always swear by a common goal like world peace or global economic growth. The president and his team believe that all people are reasonable; they all strive for the same goal of bettering the lives of their fellow citizens.

Obama fails to appreciate that many of his adversaries do not share his goals, or even view them as valid points of view. If the other side wants you dead, disappeared, or even wiped off the map—even at the cost of their own wellbeing, they will never compromise since their talk concerning peace and cooperation is designed to mask their true intentions.

Iran and North Korea see Obama’s attempts at compromising as a sign of weakness and stupidity (can’t this idiot see what we are up to? They must ponder). They will never admit failure of their policies. Instead, they will double down.

The Palestinians will never accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Instead, they continue to promote hate speech and glorification of terrorist murderers. They continue to fire rockets at Israeli civilians. They brainwash the young generation, employing Nazi style anti-Semitism, so that real peace will be prevented from taking root for the next century and beyond.

The Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world’s Islamists do not see peace with Israel as their objective. Their only aim is to see Israel wiped off the map, whereas Israel’s objective comprises a peaceful co-existence. These two ends could never intersect. Accordingly, no compromise can take root and no negotiations around the “damn table” can bear fruit.

Obama’s olive branch offer to Iran’s leaders at the commencement of his government’s rule was, and still is viewed as weakness and stupidity. Iran will not pull away from their path toward becoming a nuclear-armed superpower simply because Obama is logical and clearheaded. Their intentions collide with Obama’s. Iran does not look forward to world peace because they are lying in wait for Armageddon. It’s their crazy religious dogma and their Islamic ideology that stand in the way of any compromise or logical undertaking.

]]>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 07:56:56 -0800http://www.aviperry.org/1/post/2011/11/my-interview-with-al-jazeera.html_ Al-Jazeera, the Qatari-based TV news network is in the process piecing together a program titled “The day Israel crossed the nuclear threshold.” The main objective of this program is intended to expose the “truth” about how Israel satisfied its “military nuclear ambitions” while resorting to sophisticated deception, seedy lies and extortion when dealing with its supreme ally—the United States of America.

Producing a program of that magnitude and scope requires expert knowledge, analysis and opinions by those who are familiar with nuclear technology in general and Israel’s nuclear history in particular. The ideal, most credible program participants are Israelis who would explain, elaborate and confirm (on camera, in their own words) the assertion concerning Israel’s methods of deception, blatant lies and extortion schemes employed in Israel’s quest for nuclear arms capability.

Al-Jazeera approached me for an interview on the subject, and I agreed.

Right from the outset, I tried to set the record straight by arguing against the al-Jazeera’s characterization of Israel’s nuclear project as “military ambitions”. “They were not,” I claimed. “The phrase “Military ambitions” carries the implication of aggressive intentions. Israel’s intentions have not been a product of military ambitions; rather, these have been legitimate defense and deterrent needs.” Then I added. “The world doesn’t really have hard evidence that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, but regardless of whether they do or don’t,” I took a short breath before concluding, “Israel should possess these weapons of last resort.”

 The al-Jazeera interviewer seemed astounded. His facial expression resembled a question mark. “Nuclear weapons,” I expounded, “have not been used in wars since World War II. In today’s world the only reason for utilizing weapons of true mass destruction is when the underlying objective is genocide. And Israel is the only nation in the world that is subject to a genocidal threat.” I offerred examples. “Abd el Nasser announced in March 1965, “The liquidation of Israel will be liquidation through violence. We shall enter Palestine, not covered with sand but soaked in blood.” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been talking about wiping Israel off the map. Other Arab leaders have been echoing both leaders’ words and intentions. “No other nation in the world is facing these kinds of jeopardies,” I added. “Israel should never be caught naked if and when one of its genocide-seeking enemies possesses nuclear weapons. Israel must be able to defend itself, while possessing a compelling deterrent, making its enemies forego the use of nuclear weapons against the Jewish state for fear of massive retaliation.”

The questioning moved to the issue of deception. Al-Jazeera attempted to cook the background by describing the US-Israel cooperation, stressing the alliance (including the “Atoms for Peace” project) between the Jewish state and the Americans before demonstrating how Israel “double-crossed” its most dependent ally, covering up and lying about the purpose and function of its nuclear reactor in Dimona.

I rationalized. “We need to put it all in perspective.”

“During Israel’s early days following its independence, contrary to common views held throughout the Arab world, the US was not Israel’s most trusted ally. In fact, the US placed Israel under an arms embargo that lasted until the late 60s. The US refused to sell high quality arms to Israel even in the face of massive buildup of Egyptian and Syrian arms caches by the Soviet Union.

“France was Israel’s true and sole ally at that time, and cooperation between Israel and France on the Dimona project benefitted France as well. The French were working on designing and fabricating their own nuclear capability; they made use of Israeli patents, and got help from Israeli nuclear scientists. Furthermore, in 1956 a war broke out between Israel and Egypt. The war was joined by France and Great Britain (GB). The two countries invaded the Suez Canal after Nasser had nationalized it. The Soviets threatened France and GB with a nuclear attack should they refuse to withdraw their forces from the canal. The US, under the Eisenhower Administration applied pressure on France, GB and Israel to withdraw rather than standing up to the Soviets’ threats. France, GB and Israel felt betrayed by the Americans.

“To facilitate Israel’s withdrawal from the Sinai, Eisenhower provided Israeli Prime Minister, Ben Gurion, with security guaranties including the demilitarization of the Sinai and an American direct military involvement in case Egypt attacks Israel. Both guaranties proved hollow during 1967 when the Americans under the Johnson Administration did not stop Nasser’s aggressive military buildup in the Sinai, his closing of the straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping and his announcements concerning and preparations for Israel’s bloody, imminent demise.”  

In response to al-Jazeera’s questions concerning the American “Atoms for Peace” project I added. “Israel was working with the French (not with the Americans) on its nuclear project. The construction of the Dimona reactor started in 1953 with French help. The American “Atoms for Peace” project had nothing to do with Dimona. It was initiated in 1955, two years following Israeli-French nuclear cooperation on the Dimona reactor. In 1960, following Ben Gurion’s admission that the Dimona project was a peaceful nuclear reactor, the US under the Kennedy Administration insisted on inspections of the facility.   

“After some delays, the American visits took place but failed to uncover activities or materials indicative of nuclear weapons production. In the following years as more American inspections took place, the US administrations of Johnson and Nixon came to the realization that Israel might possess the means for nuclear bomb production even though the Americans had never uncovered any hard evidence proving their assumptions.”

Here I added my own caveat. “The Americans main concern was not Israel’s own nuclear weapons. They worried that Israel’s nuclear project may instigate a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, that it would lead to a closer collaboration between the Soviets and their Arab clients on the nuclear issue, and that it would bring about Arabs’ dependence on the Soviet Union. The Americans finally realized that Israel would never attack an Arab country with nuclear weapons unless there was a threat to Israel’s existence.  The US and Israel came to an understanding that as long as Israel had not introduced—test, announce or threaten its adversaries with a nuclear attack—the risk of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East would have been diminished. The Americans realized that a nuclear Israel may even contribute to stability due to Israel’s powerful deterrent. Consequently, US administrations starting with Johnson’s were willing to replace France as the main arms supplier to Israel. It was not an Israeli blackmail or any unreasonable political pressure that brought about stronger military ties between Israel and the US.  It was the realization that a strong Israel was essential to keeping the peace, to facing up to the Soviet Union.”

At this point the al-Jazeera interviewer asked about the means and the methods used by inspectors to detect efforts designed to produce nuclear weapons, and the measures taken by a nation, trying to mask these activities. I felt at home talking about Uranium enrichment process and Plutonium reprocessing. I avoided discussing details of the second part of the question other than saying that masking nuclear activities for military applications is possible.

We concluded the interview with my assertion that the world should be applying a double-standard on the issue of nuclear Iran. The civilized world understands that a nuclear Israel does not hold a real threat of launching nuclear attacks on its enemies unless Israel is attacked first and it faces a potential Holocaust. On the other hand, Iran has announced its aggressive intentions; it is a terrorist state, ruled by religious fanatics who may try to engineer Armageddon to fulfill their vision of some sick and crazy prophecies. There must be a different standard when dealing with a nuclear Iran.

Al Jazeera was trying to expose the double standard by demonstrating that Iran has been copying Israel’s expedition towards a nuclear weapons capability. I trust that my responses to their questions helped make clear that Iran must be subject to a different standard concerning their quest for nuclear weapons.

My bottom line message was: “A nuclear Iran must not be tolerated, while a nuclear Israel needs not be feared.”

The interview will be aired by al-Jazeera in the near future (no date is available at the time of this writing) after they apply their own creative editing.

Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at PNN (Paltalk News Network) is the author of “Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks,” and more recently, “72 Virgins,” a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories distinguished staff member and manager, a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to UN International Standards body, a professor at Northwestern University and Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government. More information is available at www.aviperry.org
]]>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 07:02:24 -0800http://www.aviperry.org/1/post/2011/10/the-palestinian-two-state-confusion.html  I was watching CNN the other day when the anchor asked the “expert” for his opinion regarding the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange deal. “Do you believe it would help advance the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians?” he inquired.

The “expert” responded positively, “it would,” he concluded.

I almost screamed. “Are you totally oblivious to the fact that the Shalit deal was between Israel and Hamas while the so-called, non-existent “peace process” is between Israel and Mahmud Abbas who has nothing to do with Hamas?”  “Don’t you see that relating the Shalit deal to the peace process is like tying NASA shuttle program to the recent price of cottage cheese?”  

But then I realized that the rest of the world’s opinion-setters including the leaders of the US and Europe are just as confused.

In reality there are two separate Palestinian entities; one ruled by the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the major cities of the West Bank, the other is ruled by Hamas in Gaza. Abbas, the PA president, pretends to have jurisdiction over Gaza; it’s his personal fantasy, one that proves convenient to the civilized world.

What do they mean when they refer to the two-state solution? Does this solution include Hamas in Gaza?

Yes in the world of make-believe; No in the real world.

Abbas does not represent Gaza, and Hamas does not recognize Abbas’s authority, not even where he actually governs, not even in the West Bank. If anyone wishes to allude to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they must stay real and recognize that either a two-state solution does not include Gaza, or alternatively, the only comprehensive solution is a three-state solution.

The informed public knows that Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. The core of this terrorist organization is formed around the concept of wiping Israel and its Jews off the map. They have even refused to support the UN move for recognizing a Palestinian state within the 1949 borders, because it would have implied a de facto recognition of Israel’s existence. Hamas will never sign a peace agreement with Israel. In their eyes, the mere idea of it is worse than blasphemy; it undermines their own existence.

Consequently, a two-state solution that does not include Gaza will not end the conflict between Israel and Hamas and its supporters in the West Bank. A peace agreement between Israel and Abbas will not constitute a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Furthermore, there is a strong probability that it may not last long, not even between Israel and the West Bank, because Hamas is too popular in Nablus, Jenin, and Hebron, and once Abbas retires peace (if ever concluded) will fade away together with him.

Unfortunately, this reality is not on the table when the two-state solution is pursued by the US, the EU or the media. They all pretend that Abbas is in charge of the two Palestinian entities. They all choose to ignore reality. They all want to pursue a convenient fantasy of a two-state solution where Mahmud Abbas is the head of a single Palestinian entity. They all ignore the fact that Gaza is not under Abbas’s jurisdiction, and that any agreement that includes Gaza without Hamas’s seal of approval is not going to stick.

Any talk of a two-state solution must spell out the nature of the Palestinian state. It must make sure that Gaza under Hamas is excluded from any such agreement. It must recognize that there are two different Palestinian entities, and that Abbas is in charge of only one of them.

Israel must make it clear to the rest of the world that a two-state solution is not a comprehensive solution, and that a three-state solution is infeasible as long as Hamas insists on wiping Israel off the map.

Enough with fantasies. It’s time for a reality check.

]]>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:43:39 -0800http://www.aviperry.org/1/post/2011/10/the-price-of-gilad-shalits-freedom.html On June 25, 2006 Palestinian militants crossed the border from the Gaza Strip before sunrise through a tunnel hundreds of meters long. When the terrorists surfaced in Israeli territory, they came up behind the IDF troops, then attacked Shalit’s Gaza-facing tank.

Two Israeli soldiers jumped out of the tank and were gunned down on the spot. Shalit emerged from the tank a little later, and was taken captive. A fourth soldier who was wounded and unconscious was later rescued from the tank by Israeli soldiers.

Most people, including Israelis living in Israel, do not recognize the names and the faces of Lt. Hanan Barak and Staff Sgt. Pavel Slutzker. The two Israeli soldiers killed in action during Shalit’s abduction became one more case in the long list of distant statistics. At the same time, Gilad Shalit, the only lucky survivor of the June 25 ambush has become a national hero, a celebrity, a family member in most Israeli households. He became a lost brother in an urgent need of rescue.

On October 12, 2000, two Israeli reservists, Vadim Nurzhitz and Yossi Avrahami, traveling in the West Bank, mistakenly entered Ramallah. Reaching a Palestinian Authority roadblock, where they should have been turned back as had been done in previous cases, the reservists were detained by PA policemen and taken to the local police station. Hearing rumors that undercover Israeli agents were in the building, Palestinian rioters stormed the building.

The soldiers were beaten, stabbed, had their eyes gouged out, and were disemboweled. At this point, a Palestinian (later identified as Aziz Salha), appeared at the police station window, displaying his blood-stained hands to the crowd, which erupted into cheers. One of the soldier's bodies was then thrown out the window and stamped and beaten by the enraged mob. One of the bodies was set on fire. Soon after, the mob dragged the two mutilated bodies to Al-Manara Square in the city center as the crowd began an impromptu victory celebration [see Wikipedia, 2000 Ramallah Lynching for further details]

On October 18, 2011, Aziz Salha, the butcher of that incident in Ramallah, was scheduled to be released with other 1026 Palestinian terrorists in a deal between Israel and Hamas that freed Gilad Shalit from captivity.

Why was Israel willing to pay such a high price, 1027 terrorists, many with blood of innocent Israelis on their hands, for one Gilad Shalit? Was it too high of a price or was it just right?

The answer rests on whom you ask.

I can understand GIlad’s parents, family and friends. No price would ever be too high for them. They would have given in to any terrorists’ demand, regardless of how outrageous, extreme or damaging it would have been. Gilad is their son; he is their everything. Every caring parent would have done the same.

But what about the rest of us? Why do over 70% of Israeli citizens not seem to be bothered by the high price? Why do Israelis value Gilad Shalit more than the ones who may die or be kidnapped because Israel has emboldened and energized those who concluded that violence is the answer?

Isn’t it true that all things considered, the Shalit deal has proved that the consequence of a long term imprisonment as a deterrent for murdering Israelis is trifling since Hamas will try to replicate the Shalit episode in order to have these terrorists set free prematurely? Isn’t it true that the apparent PA’s way of non-violent resistance seems to yield no results, that Hamas’s unyielding violent position has proved to be spot-on?

The answer rests on the fact that Gilad’s parents with the patronage of the Israeli media were able to run a professional campaign supported by a skilled organization backed by considerable financial contributions. They were delivering Gilad’s image to every Israeli home for the past five years; they were pleading for his release; they were conveying their personal pain, their own grief, his loneliness, his anguish, his life-threatening jeopardy. Their version became the talk around the dinner table; Israeli citizens grew to know Gilad and his story, his family and their plight. Israelis developed intimacy to the Shalits, and then, they adopted Gilad. He became a brother, a son. He turned out to be an integral extension of their family.

There was no opposing, organized movement. Although there were a few cries in the dark there was no persistent voice or media inducement explaining the consequences of giving in to Hamas’s demands, of boosting Hamas image as the true flag bearer of the Palestinians’ cause. There was no methodical campaign which could bring to light the dangers associated with letting loose life-term murderers of innocent Israelis to a place where they will continue to spray their poisonous venom.  There was nothing of the kind that could match the painstaking campaign calling for Shalit’s freedom at any price— nothing!

As a consequence, the systematic campaign to free Gilad at any cost, prompted Hamas to toughen their stand; it enhanced Hamas’s negotiating position; it inevitably raised the price paid for bringing about Gilad’s freedom, and it pressured the government of Benjamin Netanyahu to go along and accommodate the wishes of its citizens.

It is impossible to assess the exact damage affected by the high price paid for Shalit’s freedom. The next Israeli victims, killed or kidnapped as a consequence of the deal are not yet known; they are not, and may never become family members in most Israeli households. Their tragedy will indeed cause pain—a short-lived one, but by and large these victims will not benefit from a campaign designed to elevate emotional sentiments over logical reasoning. These victims will become anonymous statistics shortly after they lose their lives.  And consequently, most Israelis will never comprehend the repercussions fueled by the Shalit deal.

Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at Paltalk News Network, is the author of “Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks,” and more recently, “72 Virgins,” a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories distinguished staff member and manager, a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to UN International Standards body, a professor at Northwestern University and Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government. More information is available at www.aviperry.org

]]>Sat, 08 Oct 2011 04:56:30 -0800http://www.aviperry.org/1/post/2011/10/shooting-ourselves-in-the-foot.html Undermining government policies, inhibiting successful acts designed to improve quality of life for its citizens is what the political opposition does in a democracy. But when these destructive actions are reinforced and amplified by the media, when they work against the national agenda, when the majority of the citizens swear by the false concepts the media is shoving down our throats, the outcomes may turn calamitous.

This is the situation we are in at the moment. Someone needs to set off the alarm bells and call the bluff, switch direction, and bring about a turnaround.

Case 1: The huge rallies, the ads, the protests, the outpouring sympathy designed to apply pressure on someone for releasing of Gilad Shalit from Hamas’s captivity do not help the poor kid. They accomplish the exact opposite. They raise the price we must pay for his freedom; they elevate his captors’ status, provide them with powers they would have never assumed, had the media and the public lowered the volume.   

The result—Gilad is still in captivity with little hope for being set free—an exact opposite of the protesters’ objective.

Case 2: The world media including many world leaders have fashioned a trendy, misguided perception that the existing state of affairs between Israel and the Palestinians is unsustainable, that time is running out on the current status quo, that a peace agreement with the Palestinian Authority is absolutely essential.

Here in Israel people have deemed a peace agreement necessary in being able to move toward a more permanent and a more stable international standing, a more prosperous economy, and a more favorable view of Israel as a fair and just democracy.

These people point to the latest ostensible political tsunami—the Turkish condemnation and threats, the Egyptians’ attack on the Israeli embassy, the Jordanians’ hostile position, a world’s support for the unilateral Palestinians’ move in the UN—as proof of their world outlook. They accuse PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s, claiming that his policies are the root cause for Israel’s isolation.

Truth is, the situation Israel has found itself in lately is not new or unique, and certainly not worse than any past state of affairs. The Jewish state has been living under a cloud of isolation including an existential threat since before its birth. In fact, Israel’s international standing is relatively stable; its economy is growing faster than most of the world’s highly developed nations, and quality of life in the Jewish state is relatively high and reasonably safe—safer and better than at any time in its past one hundred years.

Once again, this flawed assessment is the primary motive behind the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) refusal to negotiate, to compromise. This false urgency weakens Israel’s negotiating position, brings about universal frustration with Israel’s inability to move the “peace process” forward as if this process is a matter of life or death for Israel—not for the Palestinians.  

Unfortunately, the status quo is the best “bad” option Israel has at this point in its history. All other options—a single dual-national state with no Jewish majority or a return to the 1967 cease fire line with no security guaranties—are far worse. Israel must adopt the status quo option and sell it to the rest of the world even if most nations refuse to buy it.

Accepting the false notion that time is running out on the present status quo, that the existing state of affairs between Israel and the Palestinians is unsustainable, is a self-fulfilling prophesy. It invites international pressure; it weakens Israel’s resolve, and it might even bear much worse consequences.

Case 3: Erroneously, the world keeps considering Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, as the representative of the Palestinian people. This view is obviously out of touch with reality. There are in fact two separate Palestinian entities, the PA, which is unstable at best, and Hamastan in Gaza , which is not under the PA's influence or jurisdiction. Furthermore, the government in Ramallah may be replaced by a terrorist regime before long, subsequent to signing of a peace agreement with Israel.

Although the Israeli government keeps reminding the world that Gaza is a terrorist nest, the world continues to regard Judea, Samaria and Gaza as the territory of the future Palestinian state following a peace agreement between Abbas and Israel. The contradiction and the insanity of this concept does not seem to register with anyone concerned with the peace process.

How will Israel defend itself against a terrorist state, with which it has signed a peace agreement? Won’t it be much more logical to hang on to the status quo, keep the checkpoints and maintain Israel’s legitimate right for preemptive means in self-defense?

By accepting Mahmud Abbas as the representative of all Palestinians, Israel continues to promote a fantasy. It reinforces a false notion and helps promote the Palestinian demand for a single Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Ignoring the facts that there are two separate (geographically and ideologically) Palestinian entities and the fact that Abbas is potentially replaceable by a Hamas leader is like claiming that Yasser Arafat was worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, or that the Palestinians want to live in peace next to a Jewish state.

Accepting the imaginary notion that a peace agreement with Abbas would end the conflict with the Palestinians (including the regime in Gaza) and that Israel should strive for a two-state solution is the main reason for the world’s frustration with Israel’s inability to close on a peace agreement with the PA. Israel must make clear to the world that Abbas represents a small sect of the Palestinian people, that peace with Abbas is not peace with the Palestinians, and that peace with Abbas will only inhibit Israel’s ability to guard against Islamic terror practiced or supported by the majority of the Palestinian population in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

]]>