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

Can Diplomacy Bring Peace To Ukraine?

The need for creating Freedom Democrats has never been greater. As this blog is being written, Trump continues his effort to negotiate with Russia on a wide range of issues: nuclear weapons, European boundaries, and creating normal relations between Russia and the United States.

While Trump’s plans for Europe and Russia might end the Cold War relic of deep-seeded Russian-U.S. hostility, the Middle East is deeply troubled. Today (Tuesday, March 4, 2025), a conference of Arab nations starts. On Sunday, Israel cut off aid to the Palestinians as part of a plan to crush Hamas.

The agenda of the Cairo conference was the reconstruction of Gaza. It begins by removing the rubble and unexploded ordinances in the first stage. The next stage would be a massive housing and infrastructure construction program. On the one hand, Israel’s shutoff of aid and demand that Hamas collapse put one set of pressures on the Cairo conference. A second piece of bad news was that the leaders of two of the most powerful Gulf nations— Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (Edit: Haaretz reported that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were in fact at the meeting and of course the United States, for the very first time, opened face-to-face discussions with Hamas)—would be no-shows at the Cairo summit. Their absence sowed doubts about unified Arab support for Egypt’s plan. Dark clouds cast an ominous shadow over the Arab conference in Cairo. The ceasefire is in peril.

While Trump preserves the U.S.’s historic ties to Israel, he remains steadfast in his still inchoate plan for peaceful relations with Russia, even if it shatters European unity.

A new group of Republicans are insisting that the proper relationship with Russia is “let’s talk.” Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, used to call Putin “a gangster;” now he supports Trump’s plan. Another Republican who is changing his position is South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. Senator Mike Lee from Utah is backing this dovish turn, as is Congressmember Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky. Rand Paul, a Kentucky senator, is gleefully supporting this shift in U.S. policy.

This change among U.S. leaders means they are abandoning the good guy (democracy) bad guy (authoritarian) view of international relations.

Under the Joe Biden administration theory, Ukraine is defending its sovereignty and its right to be a democracy. Russia’s 2022 invasion was lawless aggression by a nation eager to control Europe. Support of Ukraine was making Europe safe for democracy. Russia was never provoked; its dictator was hostile to freedom loving Europe. This Hollywood good guy vs. bad guy worldview is suspect.

The subtext—who is the most powerful nation?—is also being revised. The previous administration believed that Russia overestimated its power and could not stop the good guys (us) from spreading liberal democracy. The CIA and its related agency USAID had demonstrated their real power by ousting Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. He wanted cooperation with Russia. In this U.S. view, Russia was too weak to withstand a challenge from the democratic forces united in NATO. Like a Hollywood movie the good guys would win.

Freedom Democrats should encourage Democratic leaders to support this Trump’s shift towards diplomacy with Russia.

A basic cause of the Ukrainian war is Russia’s conviction that Ukraine is an existential threat. They are not crazy. Ukraine is the second-largest country in Europe after Russia. Kyiv’s army is the sixth largest in the world. Its drone fleet is the world’s largest. Anyone looking at a map would see that a hostile Ukraine endangers the city of Moscow. Many Ukrainians hate Russia. One manifestation of this hostility was Ukrainian moves to ban the teaching of Russian. Russia complains that many members of the Ukrainian government are Nazis.

A reminder, there is no entity that enforces international rules. In this situation of near anarchy, this decision that an existential threat exists is decided by one nation in a dispute. Russia believes it is threatened, and it makes the decision.

A bit of history, Russia did more than that. After a friendly Ukrainian government was undermined, Russia invaded in 2014 and captured Crimea and Black Sea ports open all year around. Russia drew a red line, demonstrating it was serious when it said an existential threat existed and proved it by occupying Ukrainian territory.

What happened next is stupidity. A rational response would be okay guys, let us sit down and figure out how we can all get along. The pugnacious response would be to train Ukrainian troops, supply weapons, and provide funds. Even have it join NATO. The good guys would spread democracy and contain the weak Russian dictator and his authoritarian government. This view made war likely.

Eight years later Ukraine got its answer, Russia invaded. An existential threat existed to Russian power and to the Ukrainian government’s survival. The United States and friends imposed sanctions and shutdown diplomatic discussions. The U.S. believed that Russia was isolated and would bend to NATOs power.

Unhappily for the administration and the “friends” of democracy, Russia had allies. North Korea and China supplied funds and weapons. India continued its decades old policy of not taking sides and bought Russian oil that used to go to Europe. Russia was not isolated; it had new allies. Nations that faced Washington’s hostility made common cause with Russia.

Negotiations faltered after the invasion. The Russian generals who failed the test of leading under conditions of real combat were replaced. Russia increased the size of its armed forces, who became battle hardened, perhaps making them the best soldiers in today’s world. Certainly, U.S. troops are not battle tested. Ukraine, the U.S. proxy does the actual fighting. Ukraine lost territory and there is no sign that bombing Russia is intimidating this great power or placing President Putin in a difficult situation.

Far from bringing peace and supporting democracy in Ukraine, the pugnacious response has brought war and made the nation lose territory.

Being a democratic nation does NOT make the U.S. the good guy. It allied with Israel and gave them the means to wage savage war against the Palestinians, stripping Joe Biden and America of its good guy reputation and giving credence to Russian fear of an existential threat from NATO.

Washington’s claim that it was on the side of peace looked hollow with its history of “forever” wars and the combat in West Asia and Ukraine.

Trump’s belief that normal relations with Russia was the best policy looks reasonable and was one of his campaign messages.

Freedom Democrats should find ways to end the proxy war between NATO and Russia. Just because Trump supports it, does not make it a bad idea.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Is The World Heading Towards Catastrophe?

The nightmare of Trump joining Putin in damning Ukrainian President Zelensky signals the end of NATO and the unraveling of a world order, bringing a proliferation of atomic weapons as nations seek protection. Wars will break out all over the world. Concerns like these animate international affairs.

Israel with U.S. support will attack Iran while invading Palestine to remove its population. Russia will come to the aid of Iran, its ally. Taiwan watching the epidemic of violence will seek China’s protection. U.S. troops will converge on this trouble spot deserting South Korea. Japan will be on its own and rearm. Violence will break out with China at its Philippine border, bringing Australia into this international maelstrom.

In West Asia, forcing Palestinians out of their homeland will inflame tensions between Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Turkey will protect its interest in Syria. Europe will unite and form an armed service to protect itself from Russian expansion.

In an optimistic view, there is no necessity for these trouble spots to bring armed conflict.

On Friday Feb 21, in Saudi Arabia a $20 billion Egyptian plan to redevelop Gaza under the supervision of the U.S. will be discussed by a working group preparing for an Arab summit in March. “The Arab proposal, mostly based on an Egyptian plan, involves forming a national Palestinian committee to govern Gaza without Hamas involvement and international participation in reconstruction without displacing Palestinians abroad.” The Arabs believe their 20-billion-dollar contribution will entice Trump while Israel will get a sweetener. Its firms will receive contracts. The Arabs want to prevent the expulsion of Palestinians, a human rights nightmare trumpeted by Netanyahu and Trump. Last week’s genocidal removal of the Palestinians could end with a reasonable solution and the rebirth of Gaza. Israel lowered tensions by publicly considering allowing Palestinians to emigrate voluntarily.

South Korea is getting a new President who may want the U.S. armed forces to leave. Japan may be thrilled and seek the end of U.S. supervision. What looked like a catastrophe might seem like a new beginning for Japan and South Korea. Japan and China share a mutual security interest; they depend on freedom of the seas. Food, fuel and other necessities must be delivered by ship. A pullback of U.S. forces would encourage the two nations to enter into cooperation agreements.

A calamity is not inevitable.

Everybody recognizes that forcing Zelensky out will have international repercussions. It’s possible to oust Zelensky without accepting the controversial view that Ukraine provoked the crisis. During Trump’s first term, Zelensky cooperated with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in making the argument that Trump was pro-Russian. The first impeachment of Trump revolved around the Ukraine and Zelensky sided with the Democrats. This political history demands a Trump reprisal against Zelensky.

But the bottom line remains, Putin is winning the war and is under no obligation to make concessions.

As is normal, the future is laced with possibilities, and we may hope that human wit will avoid disaster.

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

The News is about Peace

Since this piece was first published, immediately after the ceasefire, several criticisms became obvious. John Measheimer stressed there can be no peace with Israel where the Jews dominate the Palestinians just as the whites dominated blacks in apartheid South Africa. Unless Trump’s special ambassador Steve Witkoff can breathe new life into the Abraham Accords, allowing Arab gulf states to finance Arab peacekeepers, Israel will be the sole country judging if Hamas is complying with the terms of the peace treaty. In this circumstance, it is widely expected that Israel will renew its attack on Hamas. With the release of the hostages, Hamas will have lost its trump card pressuring Israel to act peacefully. Whatever else is true, this ceasefire is at best only a beginning.   

Friday, January 17, 2025

Days before Trump officially becomes President peace has become the news story. If all the provisions of the agreement become effective war between Israel and Palestine might be over.

Antiwar analyst John Mearsheimer concluded that the proposed treaty preserves the close relationship between Hamas and the Palestinians.

Palestinians will be able to return to their homes and Israelis will leave Gaza. Hostages will be released, and some Palestinian prisoners will get out of jail.

Israel might be compelled to live with a Palestinian nation says Mearsheimer, a professor of International Relations at the University of Chicago, who believes the goal of a Greater Israel might be over if this treaty begins a real peace process.

Although negotiated by President Biden’s appointees many Democrats are conceding that Trump’s forceful backing was critical. Trump promised to end the Ukrainian war on day one, but actually he may started peace in the Middle East on day one. A task everyone thought would be much harder. It is a stunning challenge to the Democratic Party.

Presumably a lasting peace will require peacekeepers. Trump is not going to send U.S. troops. One possibility is using Egyptian soldiers financed by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. In return Israel will establish normal relations with other Muslim nations.

Iran would be on the sidelines. As a Shia nation it doesn’t fit easily with the Sunni Muslims who border Israel. In other words, optimists believe this is a big deal that might give Trump a place in history.

Nothing is certain but in a matter of days peace has become possible and this has worked a revolution in the political dialogue.

Consider the impact on the religious fundamentalist Trump appointed Ambassador to Israel. Mike Huckabee will have the happy task of soothing relations between Israel, the U.S. and Palestine. He won’t be a cheerleader for Israeli aggression that was the widespread anxiety in December. Rather he will speak a common language with Israelis who justify their actions by citing the Bible’s Old Testament.

This is a shocking possibility. The Republican hope that Jews will switch parties. It might happen because the new President is more diplomatic than the Democrats.

Democrats have spent years condemning Trump as lawless and stupid. What happens if it was the Democrats who refused to listen and evaluate?

Posted on by Nathan Riley

World Government Could Prevent War in the Middle East

During my college years I concluded that in Vietnam the United States was the bad guy. I still believe that.

The October 7th massacres in Israel ironically happened in areas well known as centers of support for those Israelis working to improve relations between Israel and Palestine.

Current standards in international affairs give Israel, the victim, free rein to punish its attackers.

The wisdom of this arrangement is doubtful. If my sister is attacked the law stops me from punishing the attacker. A neutral party, the police, investigates, and their findings are reviewed by lawyers and judges. The victim may be heard but is sidelined.

That didn’t happen in Gaza, Israel, the victim, imposed the punishment. The Israeli Defense Forces were told to meet violence with violence and punish Hamas, designated an Iranian proxy.

Almost simultaneously, it came to light that Israel had sent millions to Hamas. A finding contradicting the notion that Hamas is an Iranian proxy.

There is no world government to investigate this complicated relationship. Israel controlled the facts and determined the punishment without any neutral investigators intervening. Well-organized groups in the United States prevailed on the President and Congress to assist Israel’s war against Hamas, as if Hamas were a sovereign nation, and Israel’s conclusion that war against this group was the best course of action.

A world government would have prevented Israel from striking back and from deciding the facts and imposing the punishment.

“Draconian” does not do justice to Israel’s conclusion. As a secular Jew I keep silencing the voices in my head saying Israel is proposing a final solution, or, as the Israeli Defense Minister promised, “to remove the evil threats against us.” They are using violence to destroy Hamas. This war aim makes peace doubtful; Hamas is in a fight to the death.

In turn, Israel, like the United States in Vietnam, becomes the bad guy. Israel is way more powerful than the Palestinians, just as the U.S. was over Vietnam. Using bullets, however, brings unpredictable results—the U.S. was forced out of Vietnam.

A simple empirical test will help clarify the reason Israel has decided to punish all Palestinians for the acts of Hamas. When the fighting stops, will the Palestinians return to their homes or will Israelis live in what used to be Gaza?