WarSclerotic

The Fingerman: Jewish Fact Check #12: Obama, Brzezinski and Middle East peace plans.

As a reporter in the Jewish press throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, there were many rumors about Barack Obama that I found myself writing about, and debunking — but none may have been more persistent than the one about Zbigniew Brzezinski being one of his foreign policy advisers. If I was doing “Jewish Fact Checks” back then, it was the kind of thing I probably would have written about.

The charge had a grain of truth undergirding it — Brzezinski had endorsed Obama and introduced him at a foreign policy speech Obama gave early in the primary campaign. But the Obama campaign, and even Obama himself, insisted that the former Carter national security adviser was no more than a prominent endorser of the candidate, and no role in the campaign or in formulating Obama’s foreign policy views.

Which is why I was so surprised and disappointed when I read yesterday’s David Ignatius column in the Washington Post suggesting that the administration was thinking about proposing an American peace plan for the Middle East. Whatever the wisdom of such a plan, I was struck by one of the “advisers” pushing such a policy…Zbigniew Brzezinski! As Ignatius writes:

Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser for presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, spoke up first, according to a senior administration official. He urged Obama to launch a peace initiative based on past areas of agreement; he was followed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser for Jimmy Carter, who described some of the strategic parameters of such a plan.

The New York Times even added that Obama had dropped in on the meeting — which also included a number of other former national security advisers, although not Condi Rice or Stephen Hadley from the Bush II administration (Colin Powell, who was NSA during Bush I but Secretary of State during W.’s first term, was part of the meeting.)

This is really kind of stunning, when one looks back at the efforts the Obama campaign went to in order to make sure Jewish voters knew that they had nothing to do with Brzezinski and his ideas on the Middle East. And there was good reason for that: Brzezinski is not considered much of a friend of Israel by many pro-Israel voters. Last fall, he even suggested that if Israel sent jets to attack Iran’s nuclear program, the U.S. should shoot them down.

Obama surrogates, and even Obama himself, insisted that they had virtually nothing to do with Brzezinski, constantly making this case to Jewish and pro-Israel voters for months. Take this comment from an appearance Obama made before Jewish voters in Ohio in February 2008:

There is a spectrum of views in terms of how the US and Israel should be interacting. It has evolved over time. It means that somebody like Brzezinski who, when he was national security advisor would be considered not outside of the mainstream in terms of his perspective on these issues, is now considered by many in the Jewish Community anathema. I know Brzezinski he’s not one of my key advisors. I’ve had lunch with him once, I’ve exchanged emails with him maybe 3 times. He came to Iowa to introduce for a speech on Iraq. He and I agree that Iraq was an enormous strategic blunder and that input from him has been useful in assessing Iraq, as well as Pakistan, where actually, traditionally, if you will recall he was considered a hawk. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party was very suspicious of Brzezinski precisely because he was so tough on many of these issues. I do not share his views with respect to Israel. I have said so clearly and unequivocally.

Such a statement didn’t stop either Hillary Clinton supporters or Republicans from continuing to spread the charge. In fact, it started to annoy me how much this apparently false information was being spread. Back in March 2008, not long after Clinton adviser Ann Lewis had been quoted saying that Brzezinski was an top Obama foreign policy adviser, I asked her at a panel during the UJC Young Leadership conference why she kept repeating that charge. She responded that she had read the information in the media — after which Obama adviser Dan Kurtzer replied that Brzezinski wasn’t even an adviser to the campaign — something that seemed to genuinely surprise both Lewis and McCain rep Larry Eagleburger.

Then Republicans, most prominently the Republican Jewish Coalition in ads like this one, continued to parrot the charge all through the general election campaign. And the Jewish press tried to set the record straight, as my former colleague Ron Kampeas did here and here, noting that while Brzezinski did represent the campaign once on a call for Democrats Abroad, he played no role in the campaign.

The Brzezinski stuff even continued after the inauguration — I noted that Florida Republican leader Adam Hasner had incorrectly repeated it in a March 2009 piece at the American Thinker.

Well, I don’t know what was happening a year ago, but, now, after Ignatius’ piece, it looks like Hasner has been proven right. No, Brzezinski’s not an official member of the administration, but administration officials are openly soliciting and, apparently, taking, his advice — and then touting it proudly in public. If the RJC wants to run those ads ripping Obama for having Brzezinski as an adviser this November or in 2012, they won’t hear any commplaints from me — because they’re now supported by the facts. If one wants to argue that Brzezinski isn’t as “anti-Israel” as groups like the RJC claim, that’s fine — but there’s no argument that he’s involved with the administration in a somewhat serious way.

Do I believe that the Obama campaign advisers — who are now serving in the administration — telling me and others that Brzezinski had no role in the campaign were lying or trying to mislead me? No, I don’t — I think they were either telling the truth as it was at the time or at least believed what the candidate was telling them. But do I feel like sort of a sucker for actually defending the campaign against those spreading the Brzezinski rumor when the administration turns around a little more than a year later and brags about getting advice from the guy? I sure do.

Meanwhile, a postscript: Kampeas wrote in one of the articles linked above that the Obama campaign insisted that Obama’s views were close to Dennis Ross, not someone like Brzezinski. And while it’s unclear how influential Ross is in the administration, it’s interesting that while anonymous administration officials are talking positively about Brzezinski, at least one anonymous administration official late last month smeared Ross, telling Laura Rozen of Politico that Ross “seems to be far more sensitive to Netanyahu’s coalition politics than to U.S. interests.” Quite a change from the campaign…

Netanyahu cancels trip to U.S. nuclear summit – Haaretz – Israel News.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu canceled a planned trip to Washington, where he was scheduled to participate in a nuclear security summit hosted by U.S. President Barack Obama, government officials said.

Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister Dan Meridor will take Netanyahu’s place in the nuclear summit.

Obama has invited more than 40 countries to the summit, which will deal with preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to terrorist groups.

Netanyahu was due to arrive in Washington on Monday evening and was set to take part in three or four conference sessions the follwoing day, before returning to Israel on Wednesday.

Officials said the PM canceled the trip over fears that a group of Muslim states, led by Egypt and Turkey, would demand that Israel sign up to the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT.

A senior government official told Haaretz that that Israel was “disappointed” with developments in the run-up to the conference.

“The nuclear security summit is supposed to be about dealing with the danger of nuclear terror,” the official said. “Israel is a part of that effort and has responded positively to President Obama’s invitation to the conference.”

The official added: “But that said, in the last few days we have received reports about the intention of several participant states to depart from the issue of combatting terrorism and instead misuse the event to goad Israel over the NPT.”

The White House said it had been informed Netanyahu would not attend the summit and that Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor would lead the Israeli delegation.

“We welcome Deputy Prime Minister Meridor’s participation in the conference. Israel is a close ally and we look forward to continuing to work closely on issues related to nuclear security,” said Mike Hammer, White House National Security Council spokesman.

In New Orleans, hundreds of party loyalists at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference applauded when they were informed Netanyahu had just canceled his visit to Washington.

At the gathering, Liz Cheney, daughter of former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, blasted Obama for his “shabby” treatment of Netanyahu at the White House recently, saying it was “disgraceful”.

She added: “Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East and one of our strongest allies anywhere around this globe. And President Obama is playing a reckless game of continuing down the path of diminishing America’s ties to Israel.”

One hundred eighty-nine countries, including all Arab states, are party to the NPT. Only Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea are not.

Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons but operates a policy of ‘nuclear ambiguity’, never publicly confirming or denying their existence.

Many Muslim countries have voiced alarm at alleged nuclear programs in Israel and Iran, and have repeatedly called for an agreement to ban nuclear weapons from the region.

In late March the Arab League called for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons during a closed-door sessio, calling for a review of the 1970 NPT in order to create a definitive plan for eliminating nuclear weapons .

They also called on the UN to declare the Middle East as a nuclear-weapons-free region.

Evelyn Leopold: Iran Sanctions Negotiations Start at UN With No End in Sight (Update).

UNITED NATIONS – The first talks at the United Nations on US proposals for sanctions against Iran began on Thursday but could take a month or even two months before any resolution is adopted by the 15-nation Security Council.

“I’m not prepared to predict when they will conclude or not — we’re working to get this done swiftly within a matter of weeks in the spring,” Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the United Nations, told reporters.

The talks were made possible by the consent of China to negotiate on possible new sanctions against Iran for refusing to suspend uranium and discuss its nuclear activities.

China, which gets 11 percent of its oil and gas from Iran, was perhaps persuaded that diplomacy had reached an end, at least for the time being, after a recent visit to Beijing by Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili. Iran could reverse this by agreeing on a fuel-swap deal that would send out some of its uranium for a research reactor for refining in Russia and France.

Yet, despite all the hype, particularly from Washington, in predicting negotiations for weeks, the key participants in the discussions – the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany – would not on Thursday admit the talks had started or that they were being held at Britain’s UN mission, where reporters were waiting.

France’s Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner first announced the talks on Wednesday. He told reporters in Paris that “China will participate in a meeting tomorrow in New York. Whether they will talk about the text, whether it’s just to respect formalities, I don’t know.”

The negotiations follow a scathing attack by Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against President Obama, calling him an “inexperienced amateur” who was quick to threaten to use nuclear weapons against U.S. enemies. He was reacting to new US restrictions on the use of nuclear weapons in the new Nuclear Posture Review that nevertheless left Iran and North Korea as potential targets.

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes but has not allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect all suspected sites. The UN Security Council, in three previous rounds of sanctions that China approved, has demanded Iran suspend all enrichment of uranium, which can be used in bombs.

“Obama made these latest remarks because he is inexperienced and an amateur politician,” Ahmadinejad said on Iranian television, Reuters reported. “American politicians are like cowboys. Whenever they have legal shortcomings, their hands go to their guns.”

The US proposals, agreed with European allies and shown to Russia and China in early March, include sanctions against Iran’s banking, shipping and insurance sectors, mainly those run by the Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Guards are increasing their hold on the Iranian economy as well as playing a leading role in brutally crushing any opposition. The draft also broadens the list of individuals facing a travel ban and assets freeze. China as well as Russia is expected to dilute the measures but energy supplies are not on the list.

In Prague, where Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and President Obama signed an arms reduction treaty on Thursday, the Russian leader said he was in favor of “secure strong sanctions” but that they should not bring hardship to the Iranian people. He said he had presented the American president with a list of what was and was not acceptable.

If the six powers agree, the other 10 Council members must support the measures and the United States wants at least 14 votes, expecting Lebanon to oppose or abstain as its government now includes the Iranian-backed Hezbollah group. But Brazil and Turkey, which have rotating seats on the Council, also have reservations.

Separately, both the United States and the European Union are considering further unilateral sanctions. But UN Security Council sanctions in the long run can have more impact as they apply to all states. Council diplomats said that one aim of the sanctions was to show the Iranian establishment it was isolated and that increased penalties, no matter how incremental, would become more costly than pursuing a nuclear arms program.

How far Iran is from making a bomb is in dispute. But Tehran kept its program a secret for 18 years, revealing it to the UN International Atomic Energy Agency only six years ago.

Still, like Iraq’s late President Saddam Hussein, having or pretending to have weapons of mass destruction, is often a step towards regional one-upmanship. “In some perverse way, Iran made (nuclear energy) attractive,” said Mohamed ElBaradei, the recently retired director general of the IAEA. “Nuclear power, in many ways got sexy.”

Con Coughlin: The Price of Iranian Sanctions – WSJ.com.

By CON COUGHLIN

As U.S. President Barack Obama intensifies his efforts to garner international support for fresh U.N. sanctions against Iran, Tehran is quietly putting its own measures in place for renewed confrontation with the West. Watching how a conventionally armed Iran manages to destabilize the entire region only serves to underline how dangerous a nuclear-armed Iran would be.

For all of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s public bluster, the Iranian regime likely feels threatened by the prospect of further sanctions—so much so that it has now embarked on a well-organized and coordinated effort to attack or undermine Western interests throughout the region. The most sinister trend is the revival of Iran’s international terrorist infrastructure, which is evident in neighboring Afghanistan where NATO intelligence officers have reported a marked increase in cooperation between Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and Taliban insurgents.

A senior Taliban commander claimed last month in Britain’s Sunday Times that hundreds of his fighters had been taught how to conduct ambushes at training camps run by Iranian Revolutionary Guards located along Iran’s border with Afghanistan. At the camps young Taliban recruits were given instructions on how to attack American, British and other NATO troops, as well as how to construct the deadly roadside bombs that account for the majority of NATO casualties.

Tehran has also revived its interest in Iraq, where the Revolutionary Guards’ elite Quds force has a long history of attempting to radicalize the country’s Shia community. The inconclusive election result last month has delivered the balance of power to Muqtada al-Sadr, the Iran-backed radical Shia cleric who waged war against U.S. forces at the height of Iraq’s insurgency. At present Mr. al-Sadr is living in exile in the Iranian holy city of Qom, where he is undergoing intensive religious training. But after his Sadrist Movement (the political arm of his Mahdi Army that has in the past fought bitterly with U.S. forces) won between 30 and 40 seats in Iraq’s 325-seat assembly, Mr. al-Sadr suddenly finds himself in the unlikely position of being courted as a potential king-maker by secular Shia leaders, such as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and his main rival, Ayad Allawi.

Mr. al-Sadr’s unexpected return to Iraqi politics has resulted in the almost inevitable surge in sectarian strife. After Tehran was accused of organizing the execution-style murder last weekend of 25 Sunnis in a village south of the capital, Sunni suicide bombers subsequently attacked the Iranian embassy in Baghdad.

Nor is this increase in Iran’s terrorist activity confined to its immediate borders. Saudi intelligence officials have blamed a detachment of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in north Yemen for the recent increase in al-Qaeda terror attacks against Saudi Arabia. Following the failed Christmas terror attack on a Detroit-bound airliner, Yemen has emerged as a major training center for al-Qaeda. Iran’s claim that it has sent its Revolutionary Guards to protect Yemen’s minority Shia community has raised fears in intelligence circles that they might be attempting to cooperate with al-Qaeda terror cells.

Finally, there are Iran’s well-documented ties with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, which have been strengthened in recent months in anticipation of renewed hostilities with Israel—one obvious consequence of any increased tensions between Iran and the West. Israeli intelligence estimates that Hezbollah now has more rockets at its disposal than it did during the Lebanon war of 2006. Meanwhile, Iran is continuing to supply Hamas with the military means to attack Israel’s southern border. One aspect that has been overlooked in the row over the January assassination of Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai is that al-Mabhouh was negotiating with Iran to ship weapons to Gaza at the time of his death.

With so much Iranian activity taking place throughout the region, the message is clear: Any attempt by the West to increase the pressure on Iran over its nuclear program will result in an explosion of violence throughout the Middle East and beyond. The problem is that doing nothing about Tehran’s nuclear ambitions would be even more dangerous.

Mr. Coughlin is executive foreign editor of London’s Daily Telegraph. The updated edition of his book “Khomeini’s Ghost” has just been published by Ecco.

Iran will not beg to avoid sanctions: Ahmadinejad | Reuters.

(Reuters) – Iran’s president said on Thursday he would not plead with opponents of Tehran’s nuclear program in order to avoid sanctions as Russia and the United States said new measures might be necessary.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who Wednesday called President Barack Obama a nuclear-armed “cowboy”, said Iran would “try to make an opportunity out of sanctions” rather than change its stance to avoid them.

“We do not welcome the idea of threat or sanctions, but we would never implore those who threaten us with sanctions to reverse their sanctions against us,” he was quoted as saying by the official news agency IRNA.

Ahmadinejad was speaking as Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a nuclear arms reduction treaty in Prague. The two were “working together at the United Nations Security Council to pass strong sanctions on Iran,” Obama said.

Medvedev said he was unhappy with Iran’s stance over its nuclear program which the West believes is aimed at developing atomic weapons.

“Tehran is not reacting to a range of suggested constructive compromise agreements. We can’t close our eyes to this. That is why I do not exclude that Security Council will have to examine this question again,” Medvedev told reporters.

Obama is hoping to persuade Russia and China — both Security Council veto holders — to drop their traditional reluctance to the new sanctions.

His campaign is likely to continue next week when both Medvedev and Chinese President Hu Jintao attend a summit on nuclear security in Washington.

MILITARY WARNING

While dismissing the sanctions threat, Iran has also warned against any military steps against its nuclear program.

After several warnings that it would hit back at Israel if attacked from there, Iran’s military chief said Thursday he would target U.S. forces stationed in the Middle East if Washington attacked.

“If America presents Iran with a serious threat and undertakes any measure against Iran, none of the American soldiers who are currently in the region would go back to America alive,” Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars news agency.

U.S. troops are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which border Iran.

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a military ceremony, Firouzabadi said a strike on Iran would also put oil supplies at risk.

“If America wants to have the region’s oil and its markets then the region’s markets would be taken away from America and the Muslims’ control over oil would increase,” he said, according to state broadcaster IRIB.

Israeli minister touts new ‘oil weapon’ – UPI.com.

Iran vows to strike American troops in Middle East.

Ahmadinejad: Sanctions won’t deter us.

By JPOST.COM STAFF
08/04/2010 20:14

Iranian defense minister says “Israel is no match for Iranian military.”

Sanctions imposed by the United Nations will hold no weight over Iran’s nuclear program, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying Thursday.

MEMRI – Middle East Media Research Institute.

The Armageddon Scenario – Op-Eds – Israel National News.

There is a clear rationale for employing nuclear terrorism and countering it needs calibrated policies of prevention
The time to prepare for the Armageddon scenario is now.
and possibly US-Israeli cooperation. The time to prepare for the Armageddon scenario is now.

For the past 15 years, Israel’s focus on the Iranian nuclear threat has been nearly all-encompassing, eclipsing virtually all other threats. While understandable, this preoccupation may have distracted Israel from a threat which may be no less likely and actually far more dangerous; nuclear terrorism. Unlike “traditional” terrorism, nuclear terrorism poses a catastrophic threat to the state.

Moreover, those most likely to conduct nuclear terrorism (al-Qaeda, Hizballah, Hamas, Iran, and others) may be fundamentally nihilistic and thus undeterrable. As millennial movements who believe that Israel’s destruction is a sacred mission, they may view a nuclear attack, even assuming a devastating Israeli response, to be a worthy means of ushering in a messianic era.

A nuclear terrorist threat against Israel might be designed for:

Actual Use – to deal Israel a devastating blow

Deterrence – to counter Israel’s conventional superiority and purported nuclear capability, to deter Israeli attacks, or to conduct attacks with relative impunity

Compellence – to exert a decisive influence on Israeli decision making during crises or over fundamental issues, holding it hostage by the threat of an attack

Weakening – to severely erode Israel’s national resilience due to the ongoing need to live in the shadow of nuclear terrorism

Back Up – to strengthen the deterrent value of a state-based (Iranian or Syrian) capability

Decapitation – to remove the Israeli political and/or military leadership

The potential means of conducting nuclear terrorism against Israel would be similar to those applicable to other
Rockets, such as those already in Hizballah’s possession, could be fitted with nuclear warheads
countries (sea, air, and land-based), with one important addition: rockets. Rockets, such as those already in Hizballah’s possession, could be fitted with nuclear warheads. Though unsuited for ordinary military purposes, they could be effective weapons of terror.

Policy Options

Prevention

Prevention includes a variety of intelligence, interdiction, and other offensive measures to detect and prevent a nuclear terrorist capability from being developed or used. If still under development, Israel will have sufficient time to pursue a range of preventative options, alone and in conjunction with the US, from targeted to massive military operations. Once a capability exists, the window for action will be severely attenuated and preventative efforts will have to include any and all capabilities to guarantee success at all costs. While a unilateral Israeli operation might be sufficient if the capability is still being developed, the need for immediate and guaranteed success to thwart an operational capability may require American involvement. The challenges posed by detection and elimination of a terrorist nuclear weapon are hugely difficult.

Deterrence

Deterrence is commonly thought to be ineffective against nuclear terrorism, due to the presumed nihilistic nature of potential perpetrators. However, Hizballah and Hamas, while certainly extremist, have populations for which they take responsibility and have proven over the years to be deterrable. Although their acquisition of a nuclear capability would pose severe threats, such as the ability to terrorize Israel’s population with relative impunity, it does place them in the appropriate context.

Iran would presumably be willing to suffer great losses in pursuit of Israel’s destruction, but would have to take into account that Israel is considered by the international community to be a nuclear power and that a nuclear crisis could lead to a devastating exchange. While a precise assessment of Iran’s cost-benefit analysis is unknowable, it does appear to be fundamentally rational and thus deterrable.

The biggest question mark is in regard to al-Qaeda, whose presumed nihilism may indeed make it undeterrable. It is questionable whether this would truly be the case in the face of threats of annihilation of their leadership and families, Muslim population centers, and sites of major importance to the Muslim world.

Potential perpetrators of nuclear terrorism must be convinced that Israel will preempt/retaliate devastatingly. For Israel, this means a “shoot first, no questions asked” policy. Both those clearly responsible for an actual attack (if any) and those reasonably suspected of involvement must be held accountable, and Israel must retaliate with all the means at its disposal.  In the absence of irrefutable and immediate evidence to the contrary, Israel’s retaliatory
Potential perpetrators of nuclear terrorism must be convinced that Israel will preempt/retaliate devastatingly
policy should hold Iran and/or al-Qaeda responsible with an absence of irrefutable and immediate evidence to the contrary. In the event of a declared nuclear terrorist capability, a stated intention to acquire one, or an advanced suspected one, the known or suspected perpetrator and host country should be attacked in advance with the amount of all of the force necessary to prevent the threat’s materialization.

As a global power, the US will be unlikely to adopt such a “no questions asked” policy and will require nuclear forensics. Nevertheless, American determination to prevent nuclear terrorism and retaliate devastatingly against those responsible must be beyond question. US declaratory policy on the nuclear terrorist threat to Israel would not need to be significantly different from its posture on nuclear terrorism generally, but could be further elucidated.

US-Israeli Cooperation

As with so many other areas of Israeli national security, cooperation with the US is a primary option for dealing with nuclear terrorism. In this case, however, the US would only be able to provide limited assistance. “Extended deterrence” would have little if any value in the face of nihilistic terrorists. Heightened cooperative preventative efforts, while important, may not suffice when the US lacks a satisfactory response to nuclear terrorism.

Conversely, global American efforts to minimize the threat of nuclear terrorism might be of significant indirect benefit for Israel. These efforts include, inter alia: heightened diplomacy to make better international use of existing diplomatic tools and to adopt new ones; intensified pressure on states to deny terrorists assistance and sanctuary; improvements in control over nuclear facilities, stockpiles and personnel; strengthening the NPT; heightened international cooperation regarding border security, export controls, intelligence sharing, and interdiction; and a variety of covert operations.

Ending Nuclear Ambiguity

Israel is widely thought by foreign observers to be nuclear and any potential perpetrator of nuclear terrorism must take this into account. It is doubtful whether ending nuclear ambiguity would be of significant deterrent value.

Defensive Measures

Israel has an extensive operational homeland security system (Arrow and Iron Dome) and an attacker must consider the probability of interception and massive retaliation. However, if “only” one nuclear warhead got through, this would constitute unacceptable failure for Israel, rendering defensive measures an insufficient option.

Conclusion

To date, no terrorist group has apparently acquired a nuclear weapon or the materials needed to make one. Al-Qaeda has tried repeatedly, but currently the technical challenges are daunting. This good news comes with a crucial caveat; it is true only “as far as we know.” Even if the risk may be low at this time, the potential costs are monstrous and the threat assessment is likely to change significantly in the coming years. Israel must take into account that a nuclear terrorist threat could emerge in the foreseeable future and therefore devote greater attention and resources to it, in order to develop the necessary doctrine and undertake the preparations possible. The time to act is now.

This perspective is based on a more comprehensive study to be published by the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies. BESA Perspectives is published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family.