Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘wmd’

Israelis Willing to Renounce Nuclear Weapons for Mideast Nuclear Free Zone

Tuesday, January 17th, 2012

Shibley Telhami recently released the extraordinary results of a recent poll (see full results) of Israeli public opinion about its country’s nuclear program and Iran’s.  The answers to the poll’s questions showed rather amazing level of pragmatism regarding Israeli attitudes on the subject:

1. Israelis were almost equally divided on the issue of whether Israel should attack Iran, 43% favored a strike and 41% opposed.

2. 68% believe Iran will eventually develop nuclear weapons.  This statistic isn’t surprising.  But given this number the results of the following questions are.

3. 65% believe it is better for neither Israel NOR Iran to have nuclear weapons.

4. 60% favor inspections of all nuclear facilities in the region (including Israel’s) in preparation for a nuclear free zone.

5. 63% would favor all nations in the region (including their own) renouncing nuclear weapons in the context of creating a nuclear free zone.

6. 64% favor the creation of a Mideast nuclear free zone.

A separate poll released by Haaretz indicates that nearly 60% of Israelis believe that an attack on Iran will lead to a regional war involving Hezbollah and Hamas.

Several years ago, I published a post here based on a poll of Israeli public opinion regarding Iran and the numbers were much less hopeful.  As I recall, the vast number of respondents supported an Israeli strike on Iran, and agreed that Iran was an existential threat to Israel.  Telhami’s numbers indicate that Meir Dagan’s campaign to make Israelis aware of the dangers of an Israeli strike have taken hold and had great effect.  Though to be forthright, I also found this 2007 poll result saying Israelis at that time opposed Israel attacking Iran on its own by a wide majority.  If both polls are accurate, it could indicate that support for an Israeli attack has actually risen since then.

Telhami’s poll also indicates just how out of sync the Israeli political leadership is with the body politic on this issue.  Even before Israel attacks Iran, almost half the population thinks it would be a bad idea.  In my experience, the leadership of a country that goes into a war with the citizens already divided on its efficacy is potentially in big trouble.

Most Israelis also disagree with much of the opacity of Israel’s current approach to its own nuclear weapons program.  They favor a nuclear free zone, they favor allowing nuclear inspections (Israel has refused to join the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty which provides for such inspections), and they favor abolition of Israel’s arsenal in the context of mutual renunciation of such weapons by all their neighbors.

Israel’s nuclear program is a huge irritant in the overall scheme of Israeli-Arab relations.  It is one of the reasons (though not the only one) Iran is pursuing a nuclear program (whether or not its pursuing a nuclear weapon is undetermined).  It is one of the greatest hypocrisies of Israel’s own claim of “existential threat” post by that country for having the chutzpah to want what Israel has in such great numbers.

Israeli Intelligence All But Takes Credit for Isfahan Blast, Black Ops as Route to War

Tuesday, November 29th, 2011

Sheera Frenkel, reporting in the Times of London has gotten several high-level Israeli intelligence officials to go on record confirming yesterday’s explosion at Isfahan’s uranium enrichment facility was sabotage, and not an accident as Iran initially reported (later it withdrew this claim and said no accident had occurred at all). Iran’s outright denial that any accident occurred is reminiscent of Hezbollah’s denial that it’s arms cache in south Lebanon exploded recently, despite the fact that local villagers, the Daily Star, and an Israeli source here in this blog reported the sabotage.

Among the more colorful and typically Israeli macho statements was by Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland who said coyly that he didn’t know if the Mossad did it, and that it could very well be “the hand of God:”

 ”There aren’t many coincidences, and when there are so many events there is probably some sort of guiding hand, though perhaps it’s the hand of God,” he said.

How many nations in today’s world do you know whose citizens would refer, even obliquely, to their spy agency unironically as the hand of God??

The tragedy of this black ops program is that it will not rattle or deter Iran, as Israeli intelligence believes. It will have the opposite effect. It will make them redouble their efforts. It will make them less, rather than more willing to compromise in any meaningful way with western efforts to rein in their nuclear program. And once Iran has a nuclear weapon it will make it more, rather than less likely it will use such weapons as North Korea does–as a cudgel over the heads of their enemies.

One false argument neocon hawks and the Obama administration make is that a nuclear Iran will use WMD to force hegemony on its neighbors.  The truth is that the only thing that will do that is driving Iran to the wall, attacking it, and trying to wipe out its nuclear program.  If you turn Iran into a martyr regime, it will become our worst nightmare.  This is what makes Israeli and U.S. policy a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Contrary to what Israeli generals believe, the Iranians are not pushovers, they can’t be intimidated.  They’re willing to die for their country even more than Israelis.  They’ve fought defensive wars going back decades and lost millions in conflict.  A few explosions, assassinations, and computer viruses will not spook them.  In fact, I believe Iran would be far more willing to absorb casualties in any ongoing conflict than the Israeli public would.  That’s why I think alas, Israel’s policy is one devised by fools.

I’ve come to the reluctant conclusion that Israel knows that black ops will turn Iran more intransigent.  It welcomes such Iranian rigidity because it means the day is closer when it will be set loose on the Iranians. Israel’s policy toward Iran is scorched earth. It has decided the Ayatollahs are willing to die for their nukes and Israel wants to make their dreams come true. But it wants the world to go along, at least tacitly, which is the only reason it hasn’t attacked already.

Israel, like Dick Cheney circa 2003, has a complex agenda that involves reinforcing Israeli hegemony over its regional interests.  In truth, Iranian nukes are not an existential threat to Israel.  Rather, the true existential threat (as viewed by the Bibites) is Palestinian sovereignty.  Spooking the world with the specter of Iranian nukes is a convenient diversion from the far more important and intractable problem of Israel-Palestine.  There would be nothing like a little regional war to take Israel’s and the world’s mind off the rights of the Palestinian people.  It should be good for at least a two year respite I should say.  Meanwhile, teaching the Iranians a lesson would go a long way toward intimidating any other regional powers like Turkey, Syria or Egypt who give any thoughts toward competing with Israeli interests.

Further, Israeli wars go a long way to puncturing any social justice movements seeking to point to economic and political inequities inside the country.  No Israeli activist or political party with a reform agenda can make any headway against a far right government pursuing a war policy.  Just as they will in Iran, the common folk will rally round the flag and the nation under threat.  All other competing tensions or interests will be thrown aside in a bid for national unity.  This is yet another tragedy of war (cf. 1982, 2006, 2009, 201?).

Returning to Iran, contrary to the war hawk view of its policymakers as intent on mystical national suicide, probably understands Israel’s intent.  This may be why Iran has reacted in a tightly controlled manner to the attacks.  It understands that much is at stake and that it is being goaded into overreacting so the west can use this as a pretext to strike.

On a Collision Course: Israel, Iran and the U.S.

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011

UPDATE: This event has been postponed till February. I apologize for any inconvenience.

on a collision course: iran, israel, and the U.s.Is a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities possible as a result of the dramatically increasing and unstable relationship among Iran, Israel and the U.S.? What does this mean for them, for us, for the rest of the world? Two outstanding speakers will address this complex issue at Seattle’s St. Mark’s Episcopal Cathedral on Friday, December 2nd at 7:30PM.

USC Chemical Engineering Prof. Muhammad Sahimi, who has written extensively on Iranian politics and that country’s nuclear program will join Richard Silverstein, writer of the progressive political blog, Tikun Olam for this discussion of these critical and complex issues. These will include the current program of covert black ops like the Iranian missile base explosion last week, cyberwarfare in the form of Stuxnet, economic sanctions and whether they can work, and whether Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. If so, what can/should the world do about it, if anything?

The evening will also include film clips from PBS and KUOW travel guru Rick Steves’ program,“Iran: Yesterday and Today.”

Sahimi is an active journalist having written for Payvand, Antiwar.com and the Huffington Post. He has been a regular columnist for PBS Frontline’s Tehran Bureau since 2008, and has written also for the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Harvard International Review and The Progressive.

Silverstein was recently featured in a front page NY Times story about his involvement with FBI whistleblower Shamai Leibowitz, who leaked secret U.S. transcripts documenting the aggressive intervention of Israeli diplomats into U.S. politics in order to create a hostile, anti-Iran climate. Silverstein is currently a regular contributor to Truthout and has also contributed to Comment is Free and Al Jazeera English.

The event is sponsored by Sabeel Puget Sound, the Cathedral’s Mideast Focus Ministry and American Friends Service Committee. Admission to the event is by donation. If you cannot attend but would like to help defray costs, please click the Paypal button in the sidebar. Tax-deductible donations may be made by special arrangement with SABEEL. Contact me for further information. Join the Facebook event page or invite others in the Pacific NW who might attend.

Link Discussions on Iranian Nukes to Israeli WMD

Tuesday, October 11th, 2011

Reuven Pedatzur has an interesting article in Haaretz about challenges posed internationally to Israel’s nuclear program.  While it doesn’t break much new ground, there is an interesting fear that he warns Israeli policymakers about, which could prove quite fruitful if added to a progressive agenda concerning nuclear weapons in the Middle East:

Israel’s nuclear potential will not disappear from the international agenda. The position of Egypt, which through the years has led the moves to expose Israel’s nuclear capability, is likely only to become more extreme. If there is one issue that all Egyptian parties can unite behind in the election campaign scheduled for the end of the year, it is Israeli nuclear capability. More and more voices are calling for a link between pressure on Iran about its nuclear program and Israel’s nuclear program.

I think this is a brilliant idea.  Probably someone’s already thought of, or written about this.  But why not approach the problem of nuclear weapons in the Middle East in a comprehensive, rather than country-by-country basis.  Instead of singling out Iran, why not say we’ve got to deal with every country in the region which has, or threatens to gain nuclear weapons.  This may mean we have to take much more seriously the notion of a nuclear free zone, which currently is something that the nuclear-haves scoff at.  Why not tell those nuclear countries that if you want to keep your nukes, then be prepared to admit new members to your club.  Members you might prefer to bar, rather than welcome.

On the other hand, if you’re willing to de-nuke along with all other nations in the region, you’ll render the Middle East a lot less volatile place, which will increase your own national security.  I don’t think this will work sans peace treaty resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  But it’s a target worth aiming for.

If Iran were smart it would make a generous offer to resolve the nuclear impasse, but tie it to restrictions on Israel’s nuclear program as well, including its entrance into NPT and decommissioning a specified number of nuclear warheads, and progress toward a nuclear-free Middle East.  This would put Israel in the extremely uncomfortable position of being the impediment to a nuclear deal which the U.S., Israel and the western powers claim to have sought for years.  Similarly, if Iran truly seeks a region that is more stable and less militarily volatile, it should welcome the opportunity to reduce the danger posed by one of its enemies to all states in the Middle East.

Returning to Israel, someone needs to tell it in no uncertain terms that if it wants to maintain anywhere from 200-400 (depending on whose counting) nuclear warheads, then it will also encourage nations like Iran to follow suit.  If Israel wishes to remain outside the Non Proliferation Treaty, then it will have no right to criticize the actions of a country like Iran which is inside NPT.  It’s really an issue of hypocrisy.  Israel simply cannot make demands of others which it isn’t willing to respect itself.

Dagan, Panetta Warn Bibi Against Iran Adventure

Monday, October 3rd, 2011

If you only read the Israeli English language press from earlier today you’d get an entirely skewed idea of Leon Panetta’s visit to Israel and his consultations with Ehud Barak.  The Haaretz story says Panetta warned Israel against pursuing policies regarding Iran that were not “coordinated” with its international allies.  Sheesh, some tough statement, right?  If that was all that was said, the F-16s would be fueled by now and ready for takeoff.

Later in the day, the language of the stories seemed to have been toughened considerably.  The Hebrew language stories are considerably more intense.  The coverage also adds a previously unheard from actor in this drama, Meir Dagan.  Anyone who’s read this blog over the past few months knows the astonishing facts of Dagan’s bold and unprecedented public warning against an Israeli attack on Iran.  Today, the former Mossad chief continued his offensive.  The Hebrew headline of Amos Harel’s Haaretz story is:

Dagan Seeks to Restrain Netanyahu and Barak:
Iran Still Far from Nuclear Weapon

Harel writes that Panetta came to Israel with a single message: that Washington opposes an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.  Dagan too delivered a timely lecture the same day at Tel Aviv University, in which he said that:

“The military option is still far from being the preferred one for Israel.  As of now, there are still  tools and means available that are far more effective.”

He also said that Iran remained far from the point of no return in its nuclear program.  In fact, Dagan asserts that Iran is currently facing one of the most “problematic periods” in its history since the 1979 revolution.  The radical camp among the clerics is embroiled in internal difficulties.  Dagan added that while Israel’s military status is especially good due to the fact that there is no immediate war threat, its strategic position was “the most grave in the nation’s history.”  For this, he lays the blame squarely at the feet of Bibi Netanyahu:

I disagree with many of the decisions made by our side which contributed to this predicament.

He was undoubtedly referring to the deterioration of Israel’s relations with Turkey and Egypt, among others.

Walla’s coverage of Dagan’s speech notes that he disagreed with recent IDF reports that warn of the danger of a multi-front war which would involve the use of WMD.  On the contrary, the ex-Mossad director says it is Israel’s own leadership that endangers it.  The nation’s political leadership is most likely to damage its legitimacy on the international stage.  In other words: we are our own worst enemy.

Haaretz portrays Panetta’s message to the Israelis thus:

His message for Barak, at their second meeting in two weeks, appeared to be simultaneously embrace and restrain: America is standing by Israel, but an uncoordinated Israeli strike on Iran could spark a regional war. The United States will work to defend Israel, but Israel must behave responsibly.

Washington has been worried by statements various senior Israeli officials have made recently that seemed to take an aggressive line on Iran. The issue has taken on new urgency because, in the view of many Western military experts, the window of opportunity for an aerial assault on Iran will close within two months.  In normal winter weather conditions, it would be very difficult to carry out such a complex assault.

israeli planes refueling

Israeli war planes refueling in mid-air as they would during flight to attack Iran

I’ve consulted with several Middle East observers who’ve told me they believe Israel cannot attack Iran without direct U.S. assistance.  Of course, it has received some of that with the delivery of 50 bunker buster bombs that would be necessary to penetrate Iran’s heavily fortified nuclear facilities.  But Israel will need even more help including the types of massive air refueling tankers we have, and which it does not have enough of to conduct such a long-range mission.  If we assume that Obama opposes such a strike and will not provide the operational support necessary to carry it out, then perhaps what we’re seeing is more saber-rattling by Israel to distract the world from its woes in other quarters like Egypt and Turkey.

And speaking of those refueling tankers, Yediot’s print edition published a profile of the IAF’s first and only female flight engineer which contains tantalizing references to preparations for a mission that likely involves an attack on Iran:

The air crew is now preparing for one of the most complex, sensitive flights that the air force conducts: “Our mission is to refuel war planes to lengthen the distance they can fly.

The article closes with a bit of human interest about the flight engineer, who had just been married:

As she brought her hand in front of one of the jet engines suddenly a ring sparkled.  Captain Dana married the boy of her dreams a week before we flew with her.  Now, instead of a honeymoon flight, she prepares for a bold, and entirely different flight mission.

Bibi: Israel Will Raise ‘David’s Sword’ Against Iran

Wednesday, September 28th, 2011
david's sword

Will Bibi's sword slay Iran?

While Yisrael HaYom may be the best paper Sheldon Adelson’s money can buy on behalf of his political fixer, Bibi Netanyahu (and Bibi may be the best Israeli politician Adelson’s money can buy), there are sometimes benefits to reading it.  You do get to read the unfiltered Bibi, unfettered by concerns for the sensitivities of his western audience.

For example, after his UN speech he gave an exclusive interview to the newspaper in which he waxed eloquent on the imagined accomplishments of his UN speech.  First, he (almost single-handedly to hear him tell it) stopped Palestinian statehood.  Second, the rest of the world now “understands” Israel’s views on these matters.  Note, he didn’t say “agrees” with Israel, because he knows that would be a lie.  But in his skewed view just having the world “understand” Israel’s hard right nationalist outlook is a genuine achievement.  Third, Bibi believes, with a straight face no doubt, that he’s done more for peace than Yitzhak Rabin.  Don’t ask me how he determines this.  I don’t recall any peace treaties he signed, any international agreements he initialed, all of which Rabin did.  I suppose Bibi may mean that he kept Israel more secure than Rabin in terms of few terror attacks.  But this is a cold peace, not a true peace.  Rabin aimed for a true peace and didn’t get there because one of Bibi’s supporters assassinated him.

Later, Bibi clarifies his claim and seems to undermine it completely when he says:

Someone compared the last speech Rabin gave in the Knesset a month before his murder to mine and said I went farther toward peace.  In a certain sense this is correct because there is a great willingness within Israeli society to make real strides toward peace.

This is either a total non sequitur or Bibi is admitting that it is not HE who is doing anything for peace, but Israelis themselves who are ready to take steps toward peace.

Bibi pointedly in the interview does not claim that Pres. Obama supports Israel or the Israeli leader’s views.  Instead he describes Obama and any American president as a captive of American public opinion which is supposedly completely pro-Israel.  In this view, a president could not, even if he wanted to, abandon Israel or even oppose Israel.  As proof of that fact, Bibi points to a walk in Central Park with his wife in which not a single person who approached him (through the thicket of his security agents no doubt) had anything but effusive praise for him and for Israel.  That’s how Bibi feels the love for Israel in the American body politic–through a walk in the park.

But the most interesting and frightening element of the interview was his comments about Iran.  Other reporters have been noting that Bibi lately has been waxing apocalyptic and mystical about the possibly oncoming war with Iran.  In this interview he says:

Iran’s nuclear programs are turning it into an existential danger to the State of Israel.  The question is not just what Israel is doing to stop it, but what the world is doing.  The awareness by the world community that Iran is progressing on a track toward developing a nuclear weapon obligates it to act so that Iran does not get this weapon.  With every day that passes, Iran gets closer.  The obligation of the international community to act grows as the fear [that Iran progresses toward a bomb] does.

You must keep in mind: that we aspire toward peace; but at the same time we must wield the sword of David to defend the Jewish State.

Of course, in Bibi’s skewed world-view, David’s sword was raised only to defend his people, not in aggression against a victim.  But we should keep in mind that David’s sword slew an Israelite enemy and led to the killer’s annointment as King of Israel.

Amos Harel in Haaretz Magazine writes (Hebrew) similarly about Ehud Barak, who would be Bibi’s close partner in any such Iran assault:

Several of those who’ve conversed with him [over the past few months] were shocked by his apocalyptic tone [regarding Iran].  In the case of Barak, the question always arises whether he really means what he’s saying…does he believe that if Israel prepares a military option and threatens persuasively enough, that the world will awaken and take action on its [Israel's] behalf.  But nevertheless, more and more people are worried that Barak is serious, and they are frightened by this.

Bibi (and to a lesser extent, Barak) have a very complicated complex that is little short of messianic and frightening.  In the past, I’ve written dismissively about Bibi saying he has no principles and that even his so-called Jewish values appear to be manufactured.  Now, I’m not so sure.  And I don’t know which is worse, a megalomaniac with no principles or values; or a Jewish megalomaniac with religious-nationalist principles and values.  They both scare the living hell out of me.

You’ll recall a blog post I wrote about a column by Shalom Yerushalmi in which he warned Bibi not to engage in any military adventures that would divert attention from the political threat the J14 posed to him.  The Eilat terror attack was manna bestowed on the Israeli leader from on high, which did just that.  Now, given the disastrous developments Bibi’s faced over the past few months on the world stage, could he use an Iran adventure to divert the world’s attention from his failures?  Would such a attack relieve some of the pressure being brought to bear on Israel’s prime minister to compromise on multiple fronts in order to achieve peace in the region?

Now for a dose of reality.  Reuters published an evaluation of various sources which gauge how close Iran is to getting a nuclear weapon.  The most pessimistic forecast comes from a neocon think tank, whose analysis is disputed by other researchers.  It claims that Iran could have enough fissile material to create a bomb in two months.  Let’s put aside the fact that this claim is seriously disputed by others.  What it also neglects is that having enough uranium to make a bomb is only the first hurdle to surmount.  You have to weaponize it, figure out how to detonate it, then figure out how to get it to your target.  These are all serious impediments to developing a usable weapon.

In this report, the most balanced observers believe it would take Iran about two years to get to the point where it has not only the enriched uranium, but a detonator, and missile delivery system.  So the question needs to be asked: what is so urgent from Bibi and Barak’s point of view that the issue must be dealt with now?  Other than the fact that Bibi has driven Israel into a ditch on the world stage and may be desperately searching for a way to distract the world from the fact that he’s made a fool of Israel and himself over developments concerning Palestine, Turkey and Egypt.   I’ll leave you to ponder the answer in the comment threads.

Abusisi: Hamas’ Nuclear Bombmaker

Saturday, August 13th, 2011
Abusisi's Hamas WMD

Abusisi's Hamas atom bomb design and signed confession. Caption: 'Atom bomb (very dangerous, to kill Jews!). I confess that I designed this. March 8 2011'

Haaretz, Maariv and Yediot all agree that Dirar Abusisi is Hamas’ chief rocket designer and the mastermind behind every missile that lands inside Israel.  He’s also responsible for hiding Gilad Shalit and knows where he’s imprisoned.

But that’s not all.  And I’ve got the (till now) secret documents to prove it.  The drawing you see is so sensitive that the Israel court, which released Abusisi’s Shabak interrogation transcript, refused to allow its publication.  But I have my sources and zey hav zehr vays (as Werner von Braun might’ve once said).

Now I can report without any doubt that Abusisi is not just a rocket designer, but that from his extensive online nuclear research he has designed a Hamas nuclear bomb; or as Shimon Peres would say: “a flying Holocaust.”

This man is a veritable devil incarnate and Shabak caught him in the nick of time.  Had it not nabbed him asleep on that Ukrainian railroad train, there’s no telling how much damage he might’ve done, not just to Israel, but the entire western world.

You thought Richard Reid, the shoe bomber was bad.  Pshaw.  Child’s play compared to the boom-boom Abusisi had designed for his good friend in Hamas, Mohammed Deif.  And you know where he meant to detonate it, right?  No, not on the prime minister’s office.  That would’ve been too obvious for our genius engineer.  No, he was going to wait till Eric Cantor and Aipac brought one-quarter of the U.S. Congress to Israel for their annual haj and drop the big one killing a ton of birds with one ‘stone,’ so to speak.

I am also trying to confirm a rumor that he was the 19th hijacker on 9/11.  If my source is correct–move over Mohammed Atta, you don’t hold a candle to terror mastermind, Dirar Abusisi.

On a slightly more sober note, my Israeli friend, Ed Mad X has created a hilarious spoof of the Dirar Abusisi “confession” published in the major Israeli papers yesterday.  An Israeli court released the transcript of Abusisi’s Shabak interrogation in which he confessed practically to being Hamas’ Werner von Braun (as an Israeli aerospace researcher put it in the Fresh discussion forum).

What’s most remarkable is that he developed these proficiencies, if Shabak is to be believed, entirely through The Internets!!  And also with a PhD he earned online from the Internet School of Aerospace and Rocket Technology (http://www.dropthebigonenow.com).

Edo’s image puts the absolutely Bozoness of the Shabak transcript into perfect context.  Here’s the original drawing which the artist used for his spoof.

Iran: It’s Not Munich, 1938–It’s Cuba, 1962

Friday, September 10th, 2010
fidel castro

Fidel sees danger of nuclear war between Israel-U.S. and Iran (Reuters/Desmond Boylan)

Bibi Netanyahu is fond of saying, regarding Iran, that it’s Munich and the year is 1938: what the west does now will determine whether Iran will get nuclear weapons and whether Israel’s existence will be endangered as a result.  Capitulate and we will have another Holocaust.  Resist Iran’s nuclear ambitions and we will stop the next Hitlerian nation from threatening world domination and conquest.  So goes his thinking.

But it’s not Munich and it’s not 1938.  Rather, it’s Cuba and it’s 1962.

I was 11 years old then and I remember the panic, fear and hysteria that we faced in the run-up to a possible nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the U.S. over Cuba.  I remember the, in retrospect, laughable duck and cover drills in which we dropped under our desks, as if that would protect from Soviet nuclear fallout.  And what I’ve read since then indicates we were even closer to such a potential conflagration than we knew at the time.  All I can say is thank God Khrushchev blinked.

Jeffrey Goldberg just interviewed Fidel, who told the former a few things he may not have wanted to hear.  One of them in particular fascinated me.  Castro, it appears, is deeply frightened of a Middle East war between Israel and Iran.  And he’s frightened precisely because of his own personal experience during the Cuban missile crisis, in which he strongly advocated that the Russians protect their nuclear missiles with a counter-assault should the U.S. attack his island.  Such an act would’ve undoubtedly involved, or led to the use of nuclear weapons:

Castro ha[s] become preoccupied with the threat of a military confrontation in the Middle East between Iran and the U.S. (and Israel, the country he calls its Middle East “gendarme”). Since emerging from his medically induced, four-year purdah early this summer…Castro has spoken mainly about the catastrophic threat of what he sees as an inevitable war.

I was curious to know why he saw conflict as unavoidable, and I wondered…if personal experience – the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 that nearly caused the annihilation of most of humanity – informed his belief that a conflict between America and Iran would escalate into nuclear war.

Somewhat incredibly, Castro in retrospect thinks he was a fool (though he didn’t use that term precisely) to have allowed things to get that far.  That immediately made me think, even before I read Goldberg’s piece, of the crisis that both Bibi and Barack face in contemplating their own Iran Waterloos.  Do we face a prospect in 50 years time, in which leaders of Israel and Iran will look back on this period and say what fools they were that they came this close to war over this?  Or will they look back, having gone to war, and regard with horror the carnage that resulted from the massive miscalculations that led to bloodshed?

Here’s how Castro, in his twilight years, both analyzes the current conflict and his own behavior during the missile crisis. It’s eye-opening stuff:

Castro went on to analyze the conflict between Israel and Iran. He said he understood Iranian fears of Israeli-American aggression and he added that, in his view, American sanctions and Israeli threats will not dissuade the Iranian leadership from pursuing nuclear weapons. “This problem is not going to get resolved, because the Iranians are not going to back down in the face of threats. That’s my opinion,” he said. He then noted that, unlike Cuba, Iran is a “profoundly religious country,” and he said that religious leaders are less apt to compromise. He noted that even secular Cuba has resisted various American demands over the past 50 years.

We returned repeatedly…to Castro’s fear that a confrontation between the West and Iran could escalate into a nuclear conflict. “The Iranian capacity to inflict damage is not appreciated,” he said. “Men think they can control themselves but Obama could overreact and a gradual escalation could become a nuclear war.” I asked him if this fear was informed by his own experiences during the 1962 missile crisis, when the Soviet Union and the U.S. nearly went to war other over the presence of nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba (missiles installed at the invitation, of course, of Fidel Castro). I mentioned to Castro the letter he wrote to Khruschev, the Soviet premier, at the height of the crisis, in which he recommended that the Soviets consider launching a nuclear strike against the U.S. if the Americans attack Cuba. “That would be the time to think about liquidating such a danger forever through a legal right of self-defense,” Castro wrote at the time.

I asked him, “At a certain point it seemed logical for you to recommend that the Soviets bomb the U.S. Does what you recommended still seem logical now?” He answered: “After I’ve seen what I’ve seen, and knowing what I know now, it wasn’t worth it all.”

“It wasn’t worth it all.” Telling words. I hope someone’s whispering them into Barack Obama’s ears as I write this. I have less confidence that either Ahmadinejad or Netanyahu understand what Castro is saying. They, like him in 1962, are absorbed in the moment and not contemplating the impact of decisions they make today or tomorrow on history. That’s why Fidel’s words are so important. This is a man who lived through it all. In fact, with the death of Robert Macnamara, Fidel may be the last active participant in the crisis left living. He now can look back with historical perspective on what he did and said then, and say in retrospect, it was rubbish.  This is an incredibly valuable perspective.  I only wish Obama could hear those words directly from Castro himself.  If our own stupid policy towards his country was reformed, he might be able to do so.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE