Posted on by Nathan Riley

Who Won? Israel or Iran?

July 4th was a significant news day. Finally, there was hard news about who won the Israel-Iran War.

Seymour Hersch, who has a distinguished record writing about the U.S. military, had just made an extraordinary journalistic  prediction. On the Friday before Israel attacked Iran, that is, the day before the attack began, Hersch, in his Substack post, predicted the start of the war.

On July 4th, Hersch answered the question, “Did Israel and the U.S. destroy Iran’s nuclear preparations?” According to this veteran journalist, the Iranians moved their “more than 450 pounds of the enriched gas… [to] at another vital Iranian nuclear site at Isfahan…[that] was pulverized by Tomahawk missiles fired by a U.S. submarine.” Trying to safely store its enriched uranium, Iran mistakenly moved it to a site that was “pulverized.” In Hersch’s view, the Iranian attempt at safeguarding its enriched uranium failed completely.

Most of Hersch’s article discussed the Defense Department’s leaks reaching the opposite conclusion. It hinted that Iran’s enriched uranium remained a threat. Not so, Hersch wrote. The United States and Israel denied their military success. They were inflating the Iranian threat.

Also on July 4th, the Financial Times looked back on the war and reached this conclusion: “Saudi Arabia sticks with Iran after Israel war.” The Saudis and Iran follow different branches of Islam. This led Saudi Arabia to lean towards the United States, but this changed in 2023 after China brokered normal relations with Iran. The war did not disturb these changes.

On Sunday, the New York Times concluded that China and Russia did not rush “to aid Iran during its war with Israel or when U.S. forces bombed Iranian nuclear sites.” According to the Times interpretation, Iran did not receive the support it should expect from an ally.

 The Times was not exploring an equally obvious conclusion. China and Russia refused to escalate a hot war between the U.S., Israel, and Iran. If this interpretation wasn’t brought to the public’s attention, it certainly registered with keen international observers. The Times article embraced the idea that China and Russia should have joined the war if they were true allies of Iran. That is hardly obvious. Their choice to diffuse tensions is clearly reasonable and arguably in Iran’s best interest. Had the war gotten hotter, the damage to Iran would have been greater.

The current issue of Bulletin of Atomic Scientists sketches the extensive damage done to Iran. Water supplies, the petroleum industry, and shopping centers were attacked. It seems likely that the Gulf states, China, and Russia will help Iran rebuild.

China, Russia, and North Korea, in all probability, will help Iran replace missiles and drones destroyed in the war. Tehran did not beat Israel, but its government was uplifted by demonstrations of support from Iranian citizens. Israel remains the most powerful nation in the region, but Iran demonstrated its ability to damage Israel.

Israel couldn’t deliver a death blow. Iran was fighting until the end and caused extensive damage, demonstrating that Israel’s vaunted missile shield could be penetrated.

Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA analyst, prepared a map showing 17 sites in Israel that suffered extensive damage. Israel was as happy as Iran that the fighting stopped after 12 days. Israel has an edge over Iran, but it is no longer the undisputed military power in West Asia.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Trump the Statesman?

Does Make America Great Again mean Make Trump Great?

Trump ended the Iranian Israeli war quickly and one expects the warring nations sighed with relief. “During the conflict, Israeli cities sustained several hits from Iranian ballistic missiles, and Iranian military targets were subjected to widespread bombing. Neither side wanted the war to go on much longer, at least at that intensity, and both were eager for a way out that they could portray as a victory,” reported the Wall Street Journal.

Iran and Israel will return to their hostile coexistence. Such tension is frequent in international relations: the U.S. and U.S.S.R, South and North Korea, Cuba and the U.S. Even if you do not love each other, war isn’t necessary.

It is a stateman’s obligation to stifle war between hostile nations. A responsibility frequently lacking in the U.S. Congress, where war hawks play an important role supporting Israel’s use of force against Palestine and Iran.

Unlike President Biden, Trump recognizes that promoting peace and avoiding wars enhances U.S. influence.

After the 12-day war tested Trump’s loyalty to Israel, he said to hell with it and simply told Iran and Israel stop. In the process he stopped the spread of nuclear weapons by bombing Iranian facilities.

It is unknown if this no-war objective will remain a fixture of U.S. policy, but it should be. Joe Biden picked sides backing Ukraine against Russia and Israel against Palestine. He associated the U.S. with bloody crimes against humanity and did not stop fighting. Trump faces political headwinds if he tries the “stop fighting” mantra on Russia and the Ukraine. While Iran and Israel could both claim victory, such an ending has not surfaced in the Ukrainian and Russian war. There is no evidence that Trump is willing to accept a reality where Russia wins and Ukraine must cooperate with Russia.

But one thing is clear, Biden didn’t try to stop fighting, he picked sides, and the wars continued.

In West Asia, Trump stayed close to Israel but intervened only on the international principle of nuclear nonproliferation and then flatly told Iran and Israel stop fighting. An action that could lead to Israel backing off its hopes for a greater Israel and pave the way for coexistence between Muslin and Jew.

To take this position, the President acted alone without consulting Congress. According to the Wall Street Journal, a pro-Trump publication, he created “a new American foreign-policy doctrine focused on clearly defining national interests, aggressively negotiating to achieve them and the use of overwhelming force if necessary.”

A problem remains: Trump acted alone like a king. As the WSJ reported, “U.S. officials who would normally play a role during such a crisis were also left out of the loop, administration officials said, a sign of how narrow is the circle of advisers Trump trusts.”

It is possible, even common, to blast this President as a dictator, but one alternative receiving little consideration is for the Democrats to change their policy and support Trump’s posture. The Democrats could become the party of peace by avoiding dividing the world into liberal Democracies and authoritarian nations. The United States should be a party of world order and reject the misguided belief that it will only back countries who have governments approved by Americans.

Many nations reject U.S. political institutions but avoiding wars with them and between them is the path of wisdom and statesmanship. With one party backing the primacy of peace it becomes possible to reduce the threat that Trump becomes dictator.

Trump is hardly consistent, and his accomplishment in the West Asian war could easily be a one-off. But it is important that those of us who believe war is the evil and peace must be the object of policy to recognize that what Trump did reflects this principle.

This is not to say Trump is a good President or to ignore his attacks on immigrants, his requirement that people wanting medical care to seek employment, or his battle against an anti-racist program like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Trump is not the President trying to create harmony and fairness in the United States.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Trump’s negotiating style

On Friday, Trump’s high tariffs on Canada and Mexico were in effect. On Monday they were gone.

On Tuesday Trump said the Palestinians must leave Gaza, the most extreme demand of Netanyahu’s ultra nationalist coalition. The United States should take over Gaza, he added. Within hours, European and Arab States including Saudi Arabia and Egypt said no way.

Trump had to have been pleased. The most extreme Israeli proposal had been trounced and died without Trump leaving any fingerprints. Indeed, he roped in the most extreme supporters of Israel. The ones most likely to contribute to the Republican Party and most willing to call Democratic doves antisemites were happy. They were convinced that their President Donald Trump was a true friend of Israel, uncontaminated by wishy washy moderates.

The Arab’s rejection presumably was music to Trump’s ear: no American troops would go to West Asia. But Trump was the crazy man who wanted to use American power in Palestine. Democrats’ reaction is still taking shape. They and their friendly media accused Trump of being a mad man, exactly the image he wanted to project.

The other step Trump took offered Iran unspecified goodies if Tehran gave up atomic weapons. A proposal that presumably sits well with the Saudi Arabians. Trump reached this step without looking like a moderate. Netanyahu was neutralized. He was a major endorser of Trump and has damaged, if not destroyed, his relationship with Democrats. Trump’s headline grabbing proposal to turn Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East” is actually the opening gambit for the intricate negotiations that could lead to stability.

Bloomberg reported, “US President Donald Trump said Wednesday he’s willing to immediately start working on a new nuclear deal with Iran that allows the country to ‘peacefully grow and prosper,’ seemingly softening his stance on the Islamic Republic.”

In a matter of hours, Netanyahu’s visit had generated a proposal to reduce tension with Iran. An outcome from the first face-to-face meeting between the President and the Israeli leader that nobody predicted. Trump had gotten the better of Netanyahu. Democrats were left sputtering. They don’t support the removal of the Palestinians and consider Trump’s Riviera proposal outlandish. Accusations that usually have the effect of increasing Republican confidence in Trump and making it unlikely in the near future that Democrats will play a constructive role.

There is no mystery to Trump’s method: open with an idea that will be rejected and then move on. Putting Israel in a box might create a stunning success—a cease fire that lasts.

The Democrats project competence as opposed to Trump’s chaos, but they lack Trump’s showmanship. The voters are evenly divided but Democrats should not be fooled with the comforting belief that Trump is crazy and incompetent. It’s safe to say that eventually Democrats will make more specific, even damning, criticisms of Trump’s Middle East policies.  

Posted on by Nathan Riley

A Ceasefire Would Benefit Israel and Iran

Throw a party, that is what Freedom Democrats should be doing. They should be getting stronger and finding new supporters.

Get everybody together, the election is over, the Democracy is safe. Donald Trump’s days of overthrowing the government and falsifying election results seem finished now that he has won. He wants to be boss and leave his mark on history.

Wars in Palestine and Ukraine agitate Freedom Democrats. War is the opposite of freedom. In war the powerful tell the weak what to do, and the soldiers kill to prove they mean it. President Kennedy said that peace does not require some fantasy of harmony. “It requires only” that nations and groups “live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement.”

Freedom Democrats favor peace. Got a complaint take It to a lawyer or a diplomat. Don’t shoot and be a brute.

In Ukraine and Palestine, bullets and bombs are flying;  families are crying. Young men with lives to live are robbed of their future; tens of thousands are dead or their bodies mangled.

Israel is bringing out a blood lust among its own people and leaders in the United States. Trump’s love of Israel is part of a larger movement in the U.S. accepting all-out war. To be a supporter of Israel requires tolerance of brutal warfare.

Trump’s choice for Defense Department Chief, Pete Hegseth, argues there is only one way to fight, that is fight to win. In this view, wars are not a popularity contest where local groups can be persuaded to support our side. The objective is forcing an invaded nation to submit to our policies or face fatal consequences.

When we left Afghanistan, the people we thought were on our side fled and in a matter of days the Talian took control. We thought that supporting women’s rights, schooling, and other services would win popular support. But the Afghanis realized that without U.S. soldiers the Taliban were going to rule and Muslim Sharia law would prevail.

Hegseth’s view is that soldiers must be warriors and should have the full backing of the U.S. government and fight until they win. Afghanistan is 2.5 times larger than France. Pacifying, or perhaps the word is “subjugating,” such a large country would cost billions. The number of soldiers required probably would prevent the U.S. from fighting anywhere else in the world.

Thus, Hegseth’s ideas lead to two potential conclusions: Afghanistan is not that important and shouldn’t be the United States’s number one priority. In this case the argument leads to nonintervention. Or, alternatively, the size of the U.S. military must be drastically increased, and the U.S. budget must pay for all-out war.

People in the United States are not joining the military in large numbers. The U.S. avoids confronting this issue. It adjusts its targets down to coincide with new enlistments; only with this sleight of hand can the D.O.D. claim its targets were reached. Why all-out war in a far-away nation like Afghanistan would increase enlistments is beyond my comprehension.

Hegseth’s nomination is controversial. He is not crazy and Republicans may well unite to back him, and it might be possible to split the Democratic minority in the United States senate, giving Hegseth additional support.

The downside to his view is that American public opinion should accept an extraordinary level of violence. The movement towards an American security state and away from democracy would proceed by making the country accustomed to all-out war. This is a dangerous prospect.

This article is being written before the Israeli cabinet has agreed to a ceasefire in Lebanon. Stopping the killing is a victory for Israel; it means that the Palestinians are abandoned. Iraq accepts Israel’s domination of this people and the increase in Israel’s size to include Gaza and the West Bank.

Presumably, Israel should curb its hostility towards Iran. Iran in turn will likely accept Israel’s right to drill for oil and gas in the Mediterranean off the Lebanon coast. In other words, Iran and Israel will benefit from the ceasefire and the Palestinians get nothing.

Hamas will have left the Palestinians crushed. No other Middle East nation is willing to risk Israel’s wrath by going to war in support of the Palestinian cause. Undoubtedly, this is a lesson that the United States and Israel hope will be accepted by the Palestinians. Rather than think of Hamas as heroes they will be convinced that Hamas’s adventurism has harmed their lives. Surely, this is a lesson that Israel and the United States support.

If there was world government, then Palestine could take its complaints to the United Nations and try to end the apartheid separation between Muslim and Israeli. Unhappily, the ceasefire will demonstrate to Israel and the Middle East that policies deemed genocide by the International Criminal Court prevail.

The Palestinians will be left to suffer without any meaningful international support. World government could produce an opposite result without death and destruction.