Tag Archives: Israel

This isn’t Suez in 1956 and it isn’t Vietnam in 1966; it’s Iran and it’s 2026

Posted on by
1

This war with Iran is one that had to be fought, and so we were right to fight it on our terms at a time before it became harder to win. The way Iran has lashed out at civilians everywhere, including with indiscriminate killing machines it denied having, has confirmed that.

But I recognize that there are arguments and counterarguments. Some of those are just the lame “Orange Man Bad!” or “Orange Man Good!” type, but others are more principled.

Here are two arguments – one against the war and one for it – that sound principled, even scholarly, but at the core are just sophistry.

First is the one that is against the war. It says, “Another Vietnam catastrophe!” (Yes, the argument is typically presented replete with the exclamation point, which should give you a clue that you’re about to receive more heat than light.)

But Vietnam was not really a catastrophe. It was indeed poorly conducted, but it achieved for a time its main objective: to stop the Communist advance through Southeast Asia.

The Communists eventually did get South Vietnam (and ironically have turned it into a haven of export enterprise) but we delayed that by at least 15 years.

And the Communists never did get Indonesia, Malaysia, or the Philippines, to say nothing of Australia and New Zealand. Was that worth 50-some thousand Americans? History’s jury is still out.

The point here is that Vietnam was not the debacle that kids today are taught in “schools” where they are indoctrinated by the teachers’ union arm of the Democratic National Committee – an organization sworn to pacifism except when their opponent is America.

When comparing Iran to Vietnam, here’s the bigger point. Vietnam was 60 years ago. Vietnam was literally much closer in time to World War One in the year 1918 (that’s One, not Two) than to today in the year 2026.

It should not need to be said that weapons, battlefield tactics, global economies and world alliances are vastly different now compared to 60 years ago.

We saw that in the first hours of the Iran war when the U.S. and Israel eliminated the Iranian leader and many of his subordinates. That’s the first time that’s ever happened in a modern war.

On the other side, we see the Iranians responding with inexpensive but sometimes effective missile and drone attacks throughout the Middle East, and a dramatic show of their capability of launching a missile as far as London or Berlin. (The accuracy of those missiles, and how long before their stock is depleted, are separate questions.) We also see them blocking the flow of 20% of the world’s oil supply.

In short, this is not Vietnam. This is not your dad’s war.

On the other side, supporters of the war sometimes compare it to the Suez Crisis in 1956. That’s when Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, ousting the U.K. and French interests that had controlled it. The U.K. and France tried to reclaim it, but backed down in the face of international pressure. The U.S. through President Dwight Eisenhower sided against the U.K. and France.  

Since then, the U.K. and France have never held much sway in the Middle East. According to supporters of the Iran war, the lesson to be learned is “never back down in the Middle East.” Or “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!”

But this “lesson” forgets the broader context. The U.K. and France don’t hold much sway anywhere, not just in the Middle East. Their economies and militaries were never completely rebuilt after being ravaged in WWII.

Even more ravaged were their national psyches. The cultural collapse we’re seeing today in the U.K. and France was not triggered by Suez. Rather, Suez was triggered by their already-emerging cultural collapse.

An equally valid – or invalid – lesson might be learned from the Camp David Accords in 1979 when Jimmy Carter in probably the best feat of his Presidency (I know that’s not saying much) moderated a lasting peace between Egypt and Israel. In that peace deal, both sides compromised – both sides backed down.

Of course, the Camp David Accords don’t teach us much about the Iran war, either.

The most that can be gleaned from the events of history is usually allegorical. Platitudes about history are of little use in another time under different circumstances. They are no substitute for hard analysis. In analyzing Iran, they’re about as useful as Aesop Fables.

The crux of the hard, real analysis on Iran is the point I made at the outset. Whether Donald Trump is a genius or a fool, war was inevitable. We were smart – it was the product of hard analysis – to choose the time and circumstances.

So, when should the war end? Again, it will take more than history to answer that question. Again, it will take hard analysis – of the costs, benefits, risks and rewards. Let’s have the patience and courage to undertake that analysis. Damn the Midterms.

Are the Dems rooting for Iran because Iran is America’s enemy, or because the new Supreme Leader is gay?

Posted on by
1

Given Iran’s half century of cruel barbarism in the Middle East, it’s hard to understand why the Democrats seem to be rooting for them in the current war. I have two theories.

One is the obvious one. The Dems are not so much rooting for Iran, as rooting against Iran’s enemy. Bad as Iran is, its enemy is even worse in the eyes of the Dems.

Iran’s enemy, you see – or at least the Dems see – has a history of its own cruel barbarism going back to at least 1619. Iran’s enemy has engaged in genocide against native people. Iran’s enemy has wrongly oppressed workers of the world who sought freedom in the workers’ paradises of the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, Red China and Eastern Europe.

Dems believe that Iran’s enemy has raped the earth, ruined the climate, undermined the sacraments of diversity, equity and inclusion, elected a man with bad orange hair to the Presidency, increased the wealth of everyone but at the cost of especially increasing the wealth of the wealthy, made “woke” a four-letter word, and is rapidly driving Starbucks out of business.

Iran’s enemy is of course America, which happens to be the Dems’ primary enemy as well. So, in a textbook example of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend,” the Dems see Iran as their friend.

That’s all that matters to the Dems. Forget about Iran’s atrocities. Forget about the hostage-taking, the baby-beheadings, the rapes, the murders, the incinerations. Forget about the imprisonment of people for political beliefs, the torture of dissidents for dissenting, the belligerent development of a nuclear bomb for use on Israel, and the throwing of gays off tall buildings for being gay.

(Correction: A reader has informed me that Iran does not throw gays off tall buildings; they pay ISIS to do that. Homer nods.)

Which brings me to my second theory. It has been reported that Iran’s new Supreme Leader who assumed the supremacy after the supreme demise of his supreme father is . . .

. . . gay.

President Trump, a supporter of gay rights, was reportedly pleased by the news. He laughed.

Gayness is not a sin, in my view. It’s barely worthy of mockery. For cheap mockery material, it’s on the order of baldness.

But under these circumstances it’s notable. The new Gay-atollah could be a second reason why the Dems are rooting for Iran.

It would be a DEI “resistance” exercise by the Dems, now that ordinary DEI has been outlawed or at least discredited. As in “I want the gay guy to win!” Or “I want the gay guy to beat Trump!” Or just “I want the gay guy!” (“But the bushy beard? Eww!”)

As for that newly-supreme-and-outed gay man serving as the putative Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran while cowering in a corner somewhere, he has yet another thing to watch out for. He has to watch out for not just bombs in the sky, but himself in the sky. Stay away from tall buildings, my friend.

Can there be any doubt what Iran would do with nukes?

Posted on by
2

The argument against the war with Iran boils down to two points. The first point is that this war was initiated by the hated President Trump, and so it should be opposed. That point cannot be rebutted because it is not a point at all; it’s simply a reactionary expression of hate by people who scarcely bother to conceal their hope that Iran wins.

So, let’s move on to the second point.

The second point is that we were able to handle Iran’s aggression for many years without going to war, and so we could have continued to handle its aggression for many more years without going to war. There was no “imminent threat” from Iran.

That argument ignores the fact that circumstances were on the brink of changing.

The impending change is that Iran was getting ever-closer to having a nuclear bomb in its arsenal. And it already had hundreds of ballistic missiles to carry that bomb across the Mideast and beyond.

In addition to the risk of ordinary nukes, there’s the risk of Iran using “dirty bombs.” Those are conventional explosives laden with semi-enriched uranium. A dirty bomb doesn’t produce the megaton explosion of a nuke, but it does contaminate the surroundings with lethal radiation.

Iran could construct a “dirty bomb” of sub-fissile enriched uranium, which it has thousands of pounds of, and mount it on one of its hundreds of remaining ballistic missiles.

Even more worrisome, Iran could dispense with the missile. It could instead smuggle abroad a refrigerator-sized dirty bomb, and position it in a leased office on an upper floor of a building in a major city where the detonation could produce catastrophic and long-lasting radiation contamination.

Think Chernobyl (and the Chernobyl contamination originated near ground level, not 50 floors up in the sky).

Let’s hope Iran has not already constructed and smuggled a dirty bomb to a detonation site where it is waiting only for someone, somewhere to push a red button.

If you think Iran is too pacific and humane to do such a thing, then you haven’t been paying attention. This is a regime that tosses gays off tall buildings, stones women for adultery, dismembers shoplifters, sponsors unspeakable acts of terrorism against women and children and babies, has chanted “Death to America” for half a century, and obdurately refuses to give up its nuclear weapons program.

In the course of the last week, Iran fired thousands of missiles and drones at American bases. Fine, I suppose that’s part of war. But Iran has also followed its policy of firing missiles and drones at both military and purely civilian targets in Israel – as well as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Türkiye, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Jordan.  

Iran’s aim is not to subdue those countries – heck, most of those countries are not even in the fight.

Rather, Iran’s aim is to produce a conflagration of the Mideast and the world. “If we go down, we’ll take you with us” is their apocalyptic cry. These are theocrats from the 12th century.

Can there be any doubt that an Iran possessing nuclear weapons would use them?

Sure, it’s annoying to see the price of gas go up, and to see the stock market drop a couple of percent. But it would be more annoying to see millions of people killed, to see civilians with the lifelong pain of radiation burns, to see cities rendered uninhabitable, and to see a generation of babies with birth defects.  

If necessary, bomb the Iranian leaders back to the age and time they’ve chosen for themselves — the stone age.

War with Iran was inevitable, so Trump was smart to choose the timing

Posted on by
2

Iran consistently promoted and sponsored terror throughout the Middle East and the world. They’ve been chanting “Death to America” for half a century. They’ve been working on a nuclear bomb for decades. Their radical Islami-fascist theocracy repeatedly vowed to wipe Israel off the map, because they believed Allah willed it.

War with Iran was therefore inevitable. The only question was when.

We could have waited for Iran to attack us. America’s unspoken policy over the years, after all, has been not to attack an adversary until the adversary attacks us first.

That sounds noble, but might not be smart. Waiting for Japan to attack us at the outset of WWII almost cost us the war. If not for the lucky fact that America’s aircraft carriers were out at sea rather than at base in Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, the entire Pacific Fleet might have been destroyed.

So, too, with Iran. We could have delayed this war for months and even years until after Iran restocked its weapons from the blows inflicted last summer by the Israelis and Americans.

By then, Iran would not only be restocked with replacement weapons, but might have a few new ones – such as nuclear bombs or at least a “dirty bomb” that is designed not to produce a nuclear explosion but to simply spread radioactive contamination over a large area such as Tel Aviv – or Washington, D.C.

President Trump was right to stop Iran now, before it regrouped and re-weaponized.

In doing so, Trump showed a level of maturity, discipline and vision that I’ve sometimes doubted he possessed. It would have been easy to just kick the Iran can down the road, down past the mid-terms, down past his presidency, to let some successor deal with the problem.

Yes, the problem would be bigger down the road, but it would be someone else’s problem, not Trump’s.

Trump’s predecessors did exactly that. Biden was of course half asleep, and paid little attention to anything. But I’m less forgiving of Obama, who consciously entered into his 2015 agreement with Iran to let them develop nuclear weapons after ten years – a ten-year period that expired last year.

If Trump hadn’t cancelled Obama’s Iranian deal and if the Israelis and Americans had not taken out Iran’s underground uranium enrichment facilities last summer, it’s quite likely that Iran would have nukes today.

Re-read that last sentencer. Under Obama’s approach, Iran would probably have nukes today. Some of the ballistic missiles they’re raining down on Israel, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere would probably bear nuclear warheads capable of killing millions.

So, when you read the “war-is-hell” headlines from CNN or the depictions of mass-murdering Ayatollah Khamenei as a kindly grandpa from Al Jazeera or the latest “Trump-is-Hitler whine from the hypocritical, pusillanimous Democrats, remember: This war was inevitable – in fact, the Iranians have been fighting it for many years. The only question was when we finally decided to fight back – now when they’re weak, or later when they’re armed with nukes.

How many genocides result in a net increase in the population?

Posted on by
3

After Hamas invaded Israel two years ago to behead babies, rape women, torture men, burn people alive, and take hostages, they gleefully promised to do so repeatedly.

Israel sought to prevent that. They went into Gaza to root out the barbarians from their underground tunnels. In the process, some people got killed.

Sometimes that was because Hamas put civilians in harm’s way. Sometimes they did so for the purpose of hiding behind them, as when they set up their military headquarters in civilian hospitals. Sometimes they did so for the very purpose of getting the civilians killed in order to increase the overall body count.

Israelis often went out of their way to avoid civilian casualties. Sometimes they issued warnings to civilians about an upcoming military mission, even though they thereby lost the element of surprise and also endangered their own soldiers. Israel literally tried to protect the enemy’s people more than the enemy themselves did. 

Tragically, civilians did die, despite the efforts of the Israelis and due in part to the counter-efforts of Hamas. Hamas sees civilians as expendable propaganda tools in their war on the Jews.

As Hamas intended, the worldwide Left took this Hamas propaganda and ran with it. They seized on the casualty figures to claim that Israel was conducting a “genocide” against the Gaza residents.

Let’s apply some simple math to that claim.

Hamas reports that Israel killed over 60,000 Gazans out of a population of over 2,000,000. (That figure from Hamas is clearly overstated, but even if it’s a fraction of that, it’s a tragedy.) Let’s accept Hamas’ overstated figure for purposes of this discussion.

To judge this purported “genocide,” we need to know the net reduction in population. In the gold standard of genocides, the population of Jews in Europe was reduced by two-thirds in the Holocaust – about six million people were murdered. To this day, the Jewish population in Europe is less than half what it was in 1939, while the overall population of Europe has nearly doubled.

Back to Gaza. The birthrate in Gaza is very high, about 3.9. That means women in Gaza have an average of 3.9 children over their lifetimes. That produces a doubling of the population about every 20 years. (For comparison, the birthrate in the United States and most of Europe is less than 2.0 – which results in an ever-declining population.)

Given this birthrate of 3.9, how many births occurred in this Gazan population of 2,000,000 over the two-year period since Hamas started this war?

You can do the math (exponential equations, anyone?) or you can ask AI to do it. The answer is around 140,000.

In summary, even if you accept Hamas’ exaggerated figure of 60,000 deaths, the 140,000 births in Gaza more than offsets that. In fact, it means that the population of Gaza increased by a net of about 80,000 over the last two years.

As genocides go, the Israelis’ “genocide” of the Gazans was conducted ineptly and failed miserably. It’s almost like the Israelis didn’t even intend a genocide.

In contrast, the Gazans and their Leftist colleagues on American college campuses and elsewhere are fond of chanting “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free.” (Chants have always been a specialty of the Left.)

That river is of course the Jordan River east of Israel, and that sea is the Mediterranean west of Israel. If the Israelis were expelled from the River to the Sea, they would be exterminated.

It’s the Left that is seeking a genocide – the second in less than a century.

The whole world celebrates impending peace in Gaza – except American “peace” protestors

Posted on by
1

The indefatigable Trump team looks to have achieved the impossible. They secured the support of a diverse and conflicted world for a peace plan in Gaza, they persuaded the parties who mutually hate one another to accept it, and they got it signed.

All remaining hostages are being released by Hamas, the Israelis are freeing over 1,000 terrorists and prisoners of war, and Israel has commenced a cease fire and partial withdrawal from Gaza.

People are jubilant – in both Israel and Gaza. How many wars end with jubilation on both sides?

In Tel Aviv, they’re chanting “Donald Trump!” In Gaza City, they’re chanting . . . well . . . “Donald Trump!”

Even CNN and MSNBC have admitted that this is a diplomatic triumph – by a person who is not known for being particularly diplomatic. If diplomacy was to succeed here, it would require a different kind.

Trump was exactly the right person at the right time to deliver this different kind of diplomacy. Diplomatic niceties are not effective with baby-beheading Hamas, and probably not very effective with Israel’s hard-bitten, former Special Forces member, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Hamas, especially, understands only force. Trump permitted the Israelis to deliver that force. The result is peace, at last, at least for a while.

Ah, but not everyone is celebrating.

There’s no celebration in Russia or China or North Korea or . . . among American Democrat protestors.

The Democrat leaders have of course said what they are obligated to say. But the thousands of anti-Israel and antisemitic protestors on college campuses and elsewhere have said nothing. No celebrations, no statements, no candle lighting, no congratulations to the people of Gaza or the people of Israel or the people of the world.

They’re literally dancing in the streets of Tel Aviv and Gaza City to celebrate the peace, while the protestors on American college campuses who purportedly protested for peace, sometimes violently, are, for once, silent.

I’m left wondering, if it wasn’t peace that they were protesting for, then what was it?

What do you do with two million Gazans?

Posted on by
7

Question: What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
Answer: A good start.

Old lawyer joke

Generally speaking, the people of Gaza are barbarians. That’s not true to a person, but it’s true as a people.

Their education level is extremely low, even in comparison to the education levels in Democrat-controlled big cities in America.

They live in abject poverty. Their economy is primitive and much of it is barter-based. Their currency, to the extent they use one, is the Israeli shekel but U.S. dollars and Jordanian dinars are in regular circulation as well.

Their unemployment rate is thought to be around 80%, though figures are hard to come by. There’s scarcely any industry. There are few stores, and their shelves are empty.

Most of this squalor is endemic. The Israeli occupation — which the Gazans brought on themselves — has worsened things, but things were already very bad.

About 98% of Gazans are of a religion that, according to many adherents, advocates the violent conversion or death of “infidels,” which are defined as anyone who does not believe in that religion, or who believes in it but interprets it in a manner deemed apostatic by the powers du jour.

The most hated infidels are the Jews of neighboring Israel. The Gazans are indoctrinated informally by friends, family and culture, and formally by the few schools in operation there, to hate the Jews, to kill them, and to destroy the nation of Israel. No hatred in the modern world equals the hate that Gazans feel for the Jews.

It’s likely that Nazi Germany hated the Jews less than the Gazans do.

Gaza is a cesspool of humanity, and the world would be better off without the Gazans. That sounds moralistic, and it is.

But not entirely. Ancient barbarians and, to some extent, even modern ones are the product of their culture. If I were born and raised in Gaza, to Gazan parents and surrounded by Gazan friends, family and propaganda, would I be any less barbaric than the Gazans? I like to think the answer is yes, but I doubt it. Civilization is not in our genes, but in our culture. Bad cultures produce bad people, and the Gazan culture is bad.

In any event, we have Gaza, and we have Gazans. Over two million of them. Their reproductive rate is among the highest in the world – they nearly double their population every generation. At this rate, the population of Gaza will exceed the population of the United States in 150 years. (Ah, the miracle of compounding!)

On this sad two-year anniversary of their barbaric incursion into Israel to slaughter, rape, torture and take hostage innocent men, women and children, it’s worth asking, what now?

What is the long-term solution to this? (I won’t ask, “What is the final solution?”)

The short-term solution is fairly obvious. Hamas will release the few still-alive and many dead hostages it has taken. There will be a disarming, of sorts, of the terrorists and potential terrorists (which means essentially all males over the age of 10). Promises will be made and broken. Peace will come, a little, and go, a lot. The Arab nations will have some say and little responsibility.

But what about the long term?

Readers know that I’ve always been a strong supporter of Israel, particularly since the horror of two years ago. Israel must do what’s necessary to survive. They have, and I’m very glad of that.

That said, the long term will include a new Middle East nation of “Palestine.” (I use scare quotes here because “Palestine” is a misleading word, but, alas, that will be the name of the new nation.) Two million people, going on four million, cannot be under Israel’s guardianship forever. It’s not fair to Israel to impose the burden of guardianship on them, nor is it fair to unborn Palestinians to be guarded.

Their state will not be the West Bank, north of which is the Sea of Galilee, west of which is the Israeli coast, and south of which is Jerusalem, the ancient and modern capital of Israel.

When you separate people who are engaged in age-old lethal warfare, you can’t put them within a stone’s throw of one another. Over the long term, the West Bank will be part of Israel, formally.

Will the new state instead be the 4-mile-wide strip that is Gaza? Same problem.

Will a new nation be carved out of the relatively abundant Arab lands in the Middle East? Good luck getting the Arabs to agree to that.

The problem seems insolvable.

Until a permanent solution evolves, the Trump proposal that has been endorsed by the Arabs and almost the entire rest of the world (with the predictable exception of outlaw states like Russia) is the best we can hope for. With that in place, humanitarian aid can flow freely (assuming the terrorists can be prevented from intercepting it).

Trump probably deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. Imagine the creative and tireless behind-the-scenes negotiating and jawboning and strong-arming that he and his administration have put forth to get the world’s buy-in for his peace proposal. It turns out that to “give peace a chance,” you have to work at it, not just chant it.

Trump and his team put in the hard work. It’s hard work that his predecessors never had the energy or will or organizational skills or raw boldness to undertake.

By the way, those aid packages to the Gazans should include birth control pills.

CNN publishes a stolen, inaccurate report in an effort to help Iran

Posted on by
4

CNN last week got their hands on a classified document stolen from the National Security Agency. That’s a felony punishable by ten years in prison, by the way.

The stolen document guessed that the efforts by Israel and America to neutralize Iran’s nuclear weapon program had set back the program by only “a few months.”

CNN and the rest of the media cabal could hardly contain their glee. They celebrated the failure of America and Israel.

Hardly mentioned in CNN’s report was that the document itself noted that its conclusions were merely “preliminary” and were expressed with only “low confidence.” 

This week, a more considered report was published by the Institute for Science and International Security (which, ironically, has been going by the acronym ISIS since long before the ISIS terrorists came around).

ISIS – the good one – is a non-partisan think tank and investigatory group. If anything, it might lean a bit to the left, as its financial supporters include left-leaning organizations such as the McArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. 

The Wall Street Journal reported on ISIS’s findings. (The Journal’s report is behind their paywall here, but you can click into ISIS’s underlying report here.)

ISIS concluded that Iran’s nuclear weapons program has been “effectively destroyed.”

That conclusion is supported in their report by extensive review and detailed analysis of the attacks and the videos, aided by intimate knowledge of the layouts of the Iranian facilities and interviews with international inspectors of those facilities.  

In some particulars, the ISIS report shows that the stolen preliminary report as characterized by CNN is simply wrong on the facts about what facilities were attacked, and how.

Apart from CNN, everyone else knows that the Iranian program has been hit very hard. The Israelis concluded that the Israeli and American efforts have set the Iranian program back “many years.” The U.S. Director of National Security, a dove who downplayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions a few months ago, reported yesterday that the Iranian facilities have been “destroyed.” President Trump himself reported last week that the facilities have been “obliterated.”

The head of the CIA said yesterday that Iran’s program had been “severely damaged” and would require “several years” to rebuild. Even the head of the nuclear watchdog at the U.N. – not exactly an Israel fan club – reported that the damage had to be “very significant” in view of the “the explosive payload utilized and the extreme vibration-sensitive nature of centrifuges.” Well, duh.

Meanwhile, Iran has congratulated itself on its “decisive victory.” The Ayatollah proclaimed that Israel has “almost collapsed and been crushed” and America has been delivered “a slap in the face.”

CNN has not gone that far, yet. But as of this writing, the stolen, erroneous NSA preliminary report is still on CNN’s website – with little of the contradictory reports mentioned.  

Why do the media (with the notable exception of the Wall Street Journal in this case) distort or even lie about facts, to make Iran look good and strong and make America look bad and weak?

Well played, Mr. President

Posted on by
2

In what is already being called “The 12-Day War,” the bad guys have surrendered.

It took a bit longer than its namesake, The Six-Day War, but it was every bit as heroic. Israel beat an opponent that outnumbered it nine to one. An opponent that was on the verge of nuclear weapons to make good on its decades-old threat to obliterate Israel from the River to the Sea. An opponent that has fomented terrorism throughout the Mideast. An opponent that militarily, financially and logistically supported the horrible October 7 pogrom, a slaughter of unspeakable cruelty.

This time, Israel got some help in the end. Only one country on earth is willing to publicly ally itself with the Land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Fortunately for Israel and the world, that country is the United States of America, a country still armed with the most powerful military in history – a country that is still the arsenal of democracy.

Israel pilots (the second best in the world), Israeli intel, and Israeli stones did the dirty work of neutralizing the Iranian air defenses.

Then, it was the U.S. of A. that destroyed the Iranian nuke sites with stealth bombers that Iran never saw coming and couldn’t have intercepted if they had, carrying bunker-buster bombs that went half way to China. (Are you listening, China?)

In a face-saving move of retaliation, Iran then lobbed a few missiles toward an American air base. Although there was no danger of them hitting their target, Iran made sure by phoning in an advance warning.

The Democrats and the Never-Trumpers have been waiting and praying for a catastrophe for 12 days now. Sadly for them but happily for the world, it seems there won’t be one. But they will continue to hope.

OK, it’s not technically a surrender by Iran. It’s merely a permanent cease fire. Technically, it’s possible that Iran could restart hostilities if they decide they’d like another dose.

I’m betting against that.

I’m also betting that Slo Joe and Kamala-lala would not have had the stones or the brains to pull this off. For that matter, I’m not sure George W. Bush or Richard Nixon would have.

President Trump did.

I admit that I’ve had my issues with Donald Trump. In fact, I recently expressed doubt that he would follow through on Iran. I’ve had other issues with him, as well.

But on balance I’ll take him over any of the alternatives. That – and this – is why I voted for him three times. God bless him.

Hurrah for the IDF, but does Iran already have a nuke in Tel Aviv?

Posted on by
4

This war has been distinctly one-sided so far. It’s been all Israel and no Iran.

But we won’t know for days or weeks how successful the Israeli Defense Forces were in their main objective of disabling Iran’s nuclear weapon program.

Israel says it intends to pound Iran for two weeks. If that pounding entails anything like the strikes yesterday which involved about 200 aircraft, and if Iran’s air defenses don’t improve (in fact, they are apt to deteriorate even more from the bombings) then Iran could be crippled for decades.

I’m all for it. But here are some known unknowns:

First, Iran might already have nukes. We think that’s not the case, but, as everyone now knows, that thought is only as good as our intel on the matter. When it comes to intel, remember Russiagate? Remember Hunter’s laptop? I’m betting that the Mossad has better intel operations than we do, but that bet is no sure thing.

Let’s assume the intel on Iran’s development of nukes is accurate – that they’re still weeks away from enriching uranium to bomb-level enrichment concentrations.

That doesn’t mean Iran doesn’t have a bomb. There are thousands of nukes in the world, held by bad guys that are friendly to Iran because Iran is hostile to the west. That includes North Korea, Russia, China, Pakistan and India on some days. Nothing would stop one or more of those bad guys from simply flying or trucking a nuke over to Tehran, especially if Iran paid them some real money to do so.

The explosion from a nuclear bomb is all out of proportion to its size. A bomb that fits in an ordinary truck – not even a semi – could easily take out Tel Aviv.

Ah, you say, but Iran lacks the hardware to mount this bomb-in-a-truck onto one of their thousands of ballistic missiles. So how would they deliver their bomb-in-a-truck to Tel Aviv?

In the truck.

The Ukrainians delivered truckloads of drones thousands of miles across Russia. Surely a single truck could be smuggled into Israel and parked in a storage unit in Tel Aviv.  

Nukes are most destructive if they are detonated a few hundred feet above the ground. So, this bomb-in-a-truck detonated in a storage facility in Tel Aviv would be only, say, 30% as destructive as it could have been if detonated a few hundred feet in the air.

It could still easily take out Tel Aviv.

Ever since I was an aerospace engineer for Boeing, I’ve been puzzled by the inordinate interest in bomb delivery vehicles. Cruise missiles can deliver a warhead across a thousand miles of complicated terrain by flying a few feet off the ground – under radar detection. That’s marvelous, I thought, but why don’t we just rent a U-Haul?

I assume (though I was never privy to such information even when I had a security clearance from Boeing) that we did indeed rent U-Hauls, and so did the Soviets. I assume that we had nukes tucked into strategic locations across the Soviet Union, and they similarly had nukes tucked into strategic locations across the U.S. I assume that Russia took over control of those nukes when the Soviet Union fell, as they took over the rest of the Soviet Union’s nukes. I assume that China, similarly, has nukes residing in the U.S.

It would be military malpractice not to. I’m afraid that the answer to the question I asked myself at Boeing – why don’t we just rent a U-Haul? – is, “Because Boeing doesn’t make U-Hauls.”

The million-dollar question is, does Iran have a nuke – or access to the detonator of a nuke – in Tel Aviv? We’ll probably know one way or another within days.

In a life prior to law school, Glenn Beaton was an aerospace engineer for Boeing.