Archive for May 24, 2013

‘Godfather of Hate’ Inspired Both UK Jihadist Killer and US Radicals

May 24, 2013

Brian Levin, J.D.: ‘Godfather of Hate’ Inspired Both UK Jihadist Killer and US Radicals.

( Believe it or not, this appeared in the Huffington Post.  Brian Levin, usually a mealy-mouthed cultural relativist, bit the hand that feeds him.  Clearly he has a long term deal with Huffpo.  No way they would have let this honest expose of the underpinnings of radical Islam appear otherwise.  RECOMMENDED! – JW )

Convert Killer Had Ties to “Godfather” of Hate

Michael Adebolajo, one of the twisted suspected killers seen on shocking video from Woolwich, U.K. soaked in the blood of 25-year-old British soldier Lee Rigby earlier this week, had ties to one of the most dangerous instigators of radical Muslim extremism, not only in Britain, but here in the United States as well.

While police have made other arrests in the case, it is emerging that a radical exiled cleric apparently planted the seeds of hate into the young mind of the Anglo-Nigerian English-born convert who hacked an innocent military drummer to death near a metropolitan London barracks on Wednesday. Security has been enhanced in Britain since the attack and fighter jets have escorted a passenger jet over England today following an incident on board.

Omar Bakri Mohammed, 54, who has harnessed a dangerous sliver of American and British youth to religious terror and extremism is a notorious English-speaking hate cleric who for almost two decades, while on public assistance, fomented radicalism in the United Kingdom. Now in Tripoli, Lebanon, he could be called the “Godfather” not only to many of the most hateful British extremists, but to a tiny yet, dangerous nexus of American East coast radicals, who reached him and his disciples through internet postings, sermons and live web-based conferences. Most recently his hatred directed at the West cited social depravity as well as governmental policies that hurt Muslims.

He told the London daily The Independent about his connection to Adebolajo:

I knew him as Michael when he came to the meetings and then he converted and he became known as Abdullah; I hear he then started calling himself Mujahid. He asked questions about religion, he was curious. He had first started coming when there was a lot of anger about the Iraq war and the war on terror.

Bakri, defended the carnage:

Under Islam this can be justified, he was not targeting civilians, he was taking on a military man in an operation. To people around here [in the Middle East] he is a hero for what he has done.

Mentor Is Fervent Bin Laden Supporter
Bakri has consistently praised Osama bin Laden, even naming his child after him, as well as the “Magnificent 19” 9/11 terrorists, blamed the 2005 London tube bombings on the British government and citizenry and has said Tony Blair and George Bush should be condemned rather than Bin Laden. He has called his adopted home of Britain “Dar ul-Harb [a land of war].” Bakri has also preached: “The jihad is halal [permissible] for the Muslims wherever they are, the whole ummah [Muslim community] wherever they are. OK brothers – wherever you are, do it.” Recently released Wikileaks documents report that London was a preeminent recruitment center for terrorists and at least 35 Guantanamo Bay detainees passed through British mosques and education centers. Chillingly, Bakri, has also counseled his followers to slit the throats of Westerners.

In August 2010, Paul Cruickshank wrote in West Point’s Counter Terrorism Sentinel:

An emerging network of radical preachers, demagogues, bloggers, and activists are attempting to disseminate extremist ideas among Muslim youth in the United States. Largely excluded from the country’s mosques, they spread their message on the streets, outside the mosque, in small gatherings in private residences, on campuses and above all online, taking full advantage of new social media platforms to maximize their reach. They are a loose constellation of individuals, but have a clear center of gravity in two extremist groups that operate freely and openly in New York City.The groups in question–the Islamic Thinkers Society (ITS) and Revolution Muslim (RM), both affiliated with the British extremist organization al-Muhajiroun–are increasingly appearing in counterterrorism investigations.

Bakri’s banned British group al Muhajiron’s tiny American affiliate was a precursor to three small New York extremist groups, the Islamic Thinker’s Society, Revolution Muslim, and its successor Islampolicy. Two members of the original New York affiliate of al Muhajiroun, Syed Hashimi and Mohammed Junaid Babar, whose mother was nearly killed in the 9/11 attacks, were sentenced to federal prison in the United States for their role in traveling overseas to aid al Qaeda. In addition to numerous postings, Bakri has appeared as a main speaker in 2010 and 2011 in at least two major live global extremist Internet web conferences that also included Revolution Muslim and Islampolicy founder Younes Abdullah Mohammad. New Yorker Younes Abdullah Mohammad was arrested in May 2011 in connection with alleged Internet threats directed against the producers of the cartoon series “South Park” and is now serving a lengthy prison term. Followers of these American offshoot groups have been tied to notorious homegrown terrorism cases in the United States. In October 2010, NPR reported, “Of the two-dozen homegrown plots in the United States in the past year, Revolution Muslim was linked to one-third of them.” Similarly, in December 2010 CNN reported, [I]n just the past 18 months, eight of the 27 reported cases of homegrown terrorism saw U.S. terror suspects frequenting, blogging on, or directly linked to Revolution Muslim and the Islamic Thinkers Society — another extremist New York group that another convert and Bakri follower Yousef al-Khattab played a role in.” In addition to Younes Abdullah Muhammad, other dangerous Jihadists linked to either al-Khattab or Revolution Muslim include:

Colleen LaRose, aka “Jihad Jane” 49* Attempted murder of Dutch
cartoonist Lars Vilks. Plead guilty attempted murder

Samir Khan, 25, Linked to Al Qaeda, Internet media editor. Killed in drone strike in Yemen in Sept. 2011

Zachary Chesser, aka Abu Talhah al-Amrikee, 22, Posting threats re: cartoon South Park and attempted membership in Somalia Al-Qaeda affiliate al-Shabaab, 25 year federal prison sentence

Abdel Hameed Shehadeh Posted on Revolution Muslim and on civiljihad.com promoting Osama bin Laden and Anwar al Awalki; lied to federal authorities about travel to Pakistan, Arrested on October 26, 2010

Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, 22, A plot to bomb an Armed Forces recruiting station in Cantonsville, Maryland, Charged in January 2011

Bryant Michael Vinas , aka Bashir al-Ameriki, 29,Truck driver who was connected to Al Qaeda’s plot to bomb Long Island Rail Road with bomb plot, Plead guilty to three charges

Daniel Joseph Maldonado, Trained at al Shabaab sites in Somalia, Charged*ages are at time of arrest.

“Totenham Ayatollah’s” Life of Hate
Born in Syria in 1958 the “Totenham Ayatollah,” was considered Al Qaeda’s most prominent spiritual supporter in the United Kingdom before being banned from the country in 2005 while on a trip to visit his mother in Lebanon, where he has remained ever since. He was sentenced to a life prison term in Lebanon, but that sentence was overturned after two witnesses surprisingly recanted their allegations.

Bakri came to Britain in 1986 after being forced out of Saudi Arabia for his radicalism and started collecting thousands of pounds in government funds in aid. Once in England Bakri was pivotal in the development of two of the most extreme groups there, that later created offshoots and successors both in the United States and the United Kingdom. One group the anti-capitalist, anti-democratic Hizb ut-Tahrir, “Party of Liberation,” founded in 1953, seeks worldwide Muslim rule and has affiliates in over 40 countries, including a small American following in California, New York City, and the Chicago area. The small secretive group, which since Bakri’s departure has condemned acts of terrorism, nonetheless, seeks to transform the United States and other nations into theocratic states in a Muslim Caliphate through non-violent means. The American affiliate is tied to the older UK organization.

After growing the British Hizb ut-Tahrir from a nominal presence to thousands of members over ten years, Bakri was booted from the organization in 1996. He continued to lead the more incendiary al-Muhajiroun, which he founded in Saudi Arabia in March 1983. He transferred that organization to the UK after the Saudis banned it in 1986 and renewed his attentions to it in 1996. Bakri was also directly involved in the International Islamic Front which sent fighters into the former Yugoslavia and Chechnya. Al Muhajiroun, which was disbanded in 2004 following a government pronouncement of its upcoming prohibition, was relaunched by followers and banned under different names, until getting banned again in 2010.

Groomed British Radicals
Bakri was crucial in the empowerment of other notorious British radicals. He financially and rhetorically supported hook handed hate cleric Abu Hamza al Masri, who is also tied to Jamaican hate cleric Abdullah el Faisal. Al Masri, a former Imam at the Finsbury Park Mosque is a vigorous bin Laden supporter who held 9/11 commemorative celebrations and preached that killings of non believers “kafirs” is justifiable. Al Masri faces terrorism related charges in the United States and he has been extradited here. Bakri is also a mentor to his former partner at al Muhajiroun radical ex lawyer Anjem Choudary, 46, who remains in Britain. Choudary has led banned and reconstituted organizations, including most recently Islam4UK, in a cat and mouse match with British authorities. Choudry and Bakri are also allegedly behind a new American group “Sharia 4 America” which calls bin Laden a “martyr,” has wanted posters of Western leaders, and calls for a revolution to replace the United States with a Muslim theocracy.

Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain said Bakri won’t be missed during his absence, “He is someone who for 20 years was given shelter by this country and he has spent almost all that time vilifying this country and its values.” The married father of seven apparently also failed to inspire at least one former follower about the depravity of Western values. His daughter, Yasmin Fostok, a 29 year old dyed bloned, says “I don’t get on with my dad.” She was a London pole dancer who said she would go topless “if the venue is right.”

Kerry calls for “hard decisions” in Israel – while Hizballah-al Qaeda forces build up in Syria

May 24, 2013

Kerry calls for “hard decisions” in Israel – while Hizballah-al Qaeda forces build up in Syria.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis May 24, 2013, 7:51 PM (IDT)
Al Qaeda gunmen march into Syria

Al Qaeda gunmen march into Syria

After spending 48 hours in Jerusalem and Ramallah, trying to talk Israeli and Palestinian leaders into reviving the long-stalled Middle East peace process, US Secretary of State John Kerry’s exit line Friday, May 24, was: “We’re getting toward a time now when hard decisions need to be made.”That was all he had to say about Israel’s comments on US proposals on the subject as unworkable and the Palestinian view that American ideas were still unformed and conditions for reviving talks non-existent.In any case, the Syrian crisis hurtling forward heedless of its disastrous potential for its neighbors is fully exercising their leaders’ attention at this time and confronting them with much more urgent “hard decisions.”

The Secretary himself had just come from a Friends of Syria meeting Thursday in Amman, which was attended by a sparse 11 members compared with the original 80. The meeting ended with a demand that the international conference on Syria, which Kerry is trying to convene in Geneva in the first week of June in partnership with Russia, will not accept Assad regime representatives with blood on their hands.

Moscow took exception to this demand Friday by means of a Russian Foreign Ministry statement that Syria has agreed in principle to participate in the conference, but obstacles to a date were still raised by the Syrian opposition.
It can’t therefore be said that Washington and Moscow see eye to eye on the key issues of Syrian representation at the conference they are jointly sponsoring.

The US still insists that Bashar Assad must go before a political solution can be broached, while Russia continues to champion and arm him.

The most conspicuous feature of Kerry’s current Middle East tour is the strong dichotomy between his public statements and mission and the events taking place in the real world around him.
debkafile analysts assign this gap between the Secretary’s perceptions and reality to US President Barack Obama’s own evasiveness on the “hard decisions” he needs to take for determining the level of US involvement in the acute crises shaking this highly volatile region.

This was evident in the speech he delivered  Thursday, March 23, in which he stressed the effort to pull the United States away from its inclusive “post 9/11 war on terror” and “return to normalcy.”

He said “lethal force [such as drones] will only be used against targets who pose a continuing imminent threat to Americans.”
Obama’s message was totally unrelated to the rising militancy of the two most virulent Islamic terrorist movements of the present day.

As he spoke, Al Qaeda, on the one hand, and the Lebanese Shiite Hizballah, on the other, continued to pour fighting strength into Syria and feed the flames of a calamitous civil war which has claimed more than 80,000 lives in a little more than two years.
Our military sources report that Hizballah brigades are forming up with the Syrian army for their next decisive battle, after their al-Qusayr victory, for the capture of the northern city of Homs; Al Qaeda jihadis are streaming across the border from Iraq to cement rebel control of the Deir a-Zor region of eastern Syria.

The aggressive actions of both Hizballah and al Qaeda in Syria are outside the bounds of the US president’s revised objectives for the US war on terror – hence, the rationale for US non-involvement in any part of the Syrian conflict.
At the same time, both these movements are at war, declared or undeclared, on Israel, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Their destabilizing impact extends to the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah too.

In terms of timing and immediacy, therefore, the ”hard decisions” John Kerry called for are right outside the current Middle East context. Israel’s leaders must decide urgently how to address Syria’s headlong descent into more bloodshed at a time that Iran, Russia, Al Qaeda and Hizballah are in charge of events.The initiative led by the US Secretary of State and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov for an international conference to hammer out a political solution for the Syrian crisis in no way slowed its momentum.
Israel’s leaders would therefore be wise to ignore Kerry’s bid for a return to talks with the Palestinians and devote all their attention to determining how best to handle the perils looming from Syria.

Thank you, Hafez Assad

May 24, 2013

Column One: Thank you, Hafez Assad | JPost | Israel News.

05/23/2013 21:28

In the face of American rank incompetence, Assad has already broken all the red lines he and his father followed for more than 40 years.

Pictures of Bashar, Hafez Assad

Pictures of Bashar, Hafez Assad Photo: Ahmed Jadallah/Reuters
The threats emanating from Syria have become downright frightening. For the past several days, Home Front Defense Minister Gilad Erdan has been warning repeatedly that it is certain that Israeli population centers will be hit by Syrian ballistic missiles and that we have to be prepared for the worst-case scenarios, including Scud missile-launched chemical weapons attacks on Israel’s metropolitan centers.
On Wednesday, air force commander Maj.- Gen. Amir Eshel spelled out Israel’s concerns from a military perspective. The chance of war breaking out at any time is extremely high. Syria has a massive arsenal that includes advanced anti-aircraft missiles, anti-ship missiles and surface- to-surface missiles. Syria also has large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, advanced artillery as well as the other components of a large conventional military force.Eshel warned, “Syria is collapsing before our eyes. If it collapses tomorrow we could find its vast arsenal dispersed and pointing at us.”In that event, Eshel said, the air force will have to operate at 100 percent of its capacity to clear a path for ground forces to operate in Syria and secure the armaments to prevent them from being dispersed, or used against Israel.

IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz warned that Israel could easily find itself fighting a three-front war in the near future. Presumably we would be fighting Syria, Lebanon and Iran – whose nuclear program continues to move to completion undaunted by empty US and European threats.

Syria is a mess because there are no good guys in a position to win. Syrian President Bashar Assad is one of the most dangerous leaders in the world. He is a major supporter of terrorist groups. He enabled al-Qaida and Hezbollah to use Syria as a logistical base in their war against US forces in Iraq. He is a vassal of Iran.

He is allied with Hezbollah. He is a mass murderer.

Since the civil war began two years ago, Assad’s complete dependence on Iran and Hezbollah – as well as on Russia – has been exposed for all to see. There is little doubt that whatever checks the US was able to exert against him before the civil war began no longer exist. And if he survives in power, he will be completely indifferent to US pressure and so will behave far more violently than he did before the war began.

And yet for all Assad’s horrific behavior and the reasonable presumption that his actions will only become more violent and dangerous with each additional day he remains in power, the most telling aspect of the Syrian civil war is that Israel, the US and Europe are incapable of deciding whether he is better or worse than the alternatives.

Because standing opposed to Assad and his Hezbollah and Iranian protectors is al-Qaida.

Last week, we were regaled with news analyses and stories about how the al-Qaida forces fighting Assad are now splintering. According to breathless, detailed reports, the “moderate” al- Qaida group, the Nusra Front, is being overwhelmed by the “extremist” al-Qaida in Iraq faction. The latter has moved into Syria and is taking over operations, much to the consternation of their moderate Syrian al-Qaida brothers.

But on second thought, since both the Nusra guys and the al-Qaida in Iraq guys are loyal to al-Qaida boss Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Zawahiri told the al-Qaida in Iraq fellows to move to Syria, and since al-Qaida in Iraq formed and financed the Nusra Front, it is not at all clear that anyone is splintering off from anyone, or that anyone is upset about anything.

Aside from revealing the pathological stupidity of Western news services, the attempt to make a distinction between good and bad al-Qaida forces fighting Assad points to the futility of trying to choose sides in this horrible war, which has already seen more than 80,000 killed.

At this point, despite Assad’s successful campaign to restore his control over Qusair, a strategically vital city adjacent to the Syrian-Lebanese border, most assessments indicate that the war is not nearly over. The sides may well stay bogged down fighting one another for years.

Then again, as Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said, it is also possible that it will all be over quickly.

In short then, no one knows how the war will play out in Syria. All Israeli political and military leaders know is that whatever happens, the situation in Syria is dangerous and highly flammable.

Moreover, everyone agrees that the conflict can spill out in two ways – ways which are not mutually exclusive.

First, both the government forces and their Shi’ite allies, and well as their al-Qaida opponents, could attack Israel. Both sides have a clear interest in attacking Israel, since the one thing they all agree on is that they wish to see Israel destroyed. So as is the case for the Palestinians from all parties, for both Assad and his Shi’ite allies and his Sunni opponents, attacking Israel is a surefire way to build public support.

This danger has already materialized. Assad’s forces shot at an IDF jeep patrolling the border this week and rushed to get the story – and their exaggerated version of its outcome – to the media. Rebel forces have taken pot shots at Israel, and targeted UN forces along the border, accusing them of siding with Israel.

As Eshel made clear, the second danger is that the weapons in Syria will proliferate far and wide. US officials have already admitted that they have lost track of much of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.

This week, PJ Media reported that a State Department whistle blower is about to come forward to divulge new information about the September 11, 2012, al-Qaida attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US personnel were murdered in the attack. The whistle blower will reportedly reveal that Stevens was sent to Benghazi in a secret State Department effort to buy back anti-aircraft Stinger missiles that al-Qaida received from the State Department during the 2011 US-led NATO campaign to overthrow the regime of longtime Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

Since Gaddafi was defeated, his massive arsenal of terror weapons has spread out across the region, and particularly to Syria and Gaza. If Syrian weapons are similarly dispersed, the Libyan disaster will look like the military equivalent of a skinned knee.

The party most responsible for the barbarous, protracted Syrian civil war that will almost certainly drag Israel into a regional war with is of course the Syrians themselves. But the party second most responsible for this mess is the Obama administration.

Since the outset, the US had only one good option for intervention. It could have operated jointly with Israel to destroy Syria’s missile arsenals and confiscate its weapons of mass destruction.

That is the only sure bet move the US had.

Every other action came with high risks.

Rather than take its sure bet move, at every turn, the Obama administration has opted for the most dangerous action with the smallest possible payoff.

For instance, rather than actively build an opposition army based on Syrian Army defectors, Kurds and other relatively moderate forces, Obama subcontracted the formation of the Syrian opposition to Turkey’s Islamist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. As Israel and others warned, Erdogan used his power as the US contractor to build an opposition dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, whose ideology is largely indistinguishable from al-Qaida. It was the Brotherhood’s domination of the Syrian opposition forces that paved the way for al-Qaida to enter and dominate opposition forces.

After Obama ensured that pro-Western forces would have no chance of taking over a post- Assad Syria, he allowed Russia to make matters worse. Rather than threaten Russian President Vladimir Putin in a credible way to prevent him from supplying S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, Obama sat back and did nothing to block the imminent transfer of the game-changing system to Syria.

And as Eshel warned, Syria’s advanced anti-aircraft batteries, which will threaten Israel’s air superiority, will increase in a profound way the probability that Assad will attack Israel.

In the face of American rank incompetence, Assad has already broken all the red lines he and his father followed for more than 40 years.

He has already used chemical weapons. He has proliferated advanced weaponry to Hezbollah.

And he has already attacked Israel on the Golan Heights. Now that he has already crossed all of these red lines, the only question is how much he will escalate. Equipped with the S-300, the probability that he will escalate drastically has risen precipitously.

For all the danger emanating from Syria, Israel has one ace in the hole. We have a consensus that we must win the coming war with Syria decisively, whatever the cost. And for that consensus, we have just one man to thank: the late Hafez Assad.

During the 1990s, the Israeli Left and the Clinton administration managed to convince the Rabin, Netanyahu and Barak governments to offer to surrender the Golan Heights to Syria.

The only reason that the initiative failed was because Assad Sr. rejected Israel’s repeated offers to surrender the strategic plateau in exchange for a piece of paper with a smiley face on it.

Had Assad accepted Israel’s offers, we would have been facing a situation today that we would be hard pressed to contend with. On the one hand, we would be facing an all but certain war with Syria with al-Qaida or Iran controlling everything from the Jordan Valley to Haifa Bay.

On the other hand we would be facing this threat as a fractured society.

To hide their culpability for rendering Israel all but powerless to defend itself, those who supported surrendering the Golan would be pretending the dangers away. Instead of being free to discuss how to win a war in Syria, we would be bogged down in discussions of whether we have a right to fight in Syria.

In other words, if it hadn’t been for Assad Sr. and his unyielding hatred for Israel, we would be facing the same situation in relation to Syria today that we faced in Lebanon in 2006 and as we have faced in Gaza since we withdrew in 2005. The lack of consensus regarding our strategic imperative to defeat our enemies in Gaza and Lebanon caused the IDF to fail to win its campaigns in both theaters.

So at this bitter juncture, as we face the all but certain prospect of war with Syria while our one ally is behaving like a drunken bull in a China shop, we have one man to thank for our continued ability to face this daunting challenge.

Thank you, Hafez Assad. Your hatred has saved us.

Iran could use a nuclear weapon against Israel and get away with it

May 24, 2013

Iran could use a nuclear weapon against Israel and get away with it | The Daily Caller.

Posted By David Meyers On 11:39 AM 05/23/2013 In Opinion

Wednesday’s IAEA report offered more proof than ever that Iran is racing toward a nuclear weapon. Even President Obama acknowledges this fact. Yet Obama has refused to endorse the tough approach advocated by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. The reason is simple: Israel faces an existential threat of an Iranian nuclear attack, while the United States does not.

With diplomacy and sanctions failing, world leaders still give lip service to the dangers of a nuclear Iran. But they often dismiss the idea that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon against Israel. They believe that Iran is a rational actor, and that Israel’s strong nuclear deterrent is sufficient to safeguard the Jewish state. It is not.

Israel’s deterrent capacity is only effective against conventional nuclear attacks. If Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, or one of its terror proxies, detonated a suitcase bomb inside of Israel, it would be nearly impossible to prove that Iran’s leaders ordered the attack. And without conclusive evidence of Tehran’s direct involvement, an Israeli counterattack would be illegal, unjust, and unwise. Therefore, it is plausible that Iran could use a tactical nuclear weapon against Israel without a serious fear of an Israeli reprisal.

Many in the West dismiss this threat out of hand. They argue that the principle of “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD) protects Israel: If Iran were to fire a nuclear weapon at Israel, Israel would retaliate and destroy Iran.

On the face of it, MAD appears logical. Iran’s leaders are not suicidal (in fact, their main purpose in pursuing a bomb is self-preservation), so Israel’s nuclear arsenal seems like a strong deterrent. But MAD only works if Tehran launches a conventional, traceable, and undisputed nuclear attack on Israel (for example, via a ballistic missile launched from inside Iran).

If, however, Iran were to provide a small nuclear weapon to Hamas or Hezbollah, or use the Revolutionary Guard to detonate a nuclear device in Israel, MAD would no longer apply.

Israel could only launch a counterattack if it had conclusive proof that the nuclear attack was ordered by Iran’s leaders. If Tehran fired a nuclear warhead via a missile silo in Iran, culpability would be fairly easy to prove. It would strain credibility for the mullahs to argue that such a strike occurred without its direction. Further, it is a principle of the laws of war that a country’s leaders are responsible for the actions of their military officers.

But if Iran smuggled a nuclear weapon to a terror proxy, or used the Revolutionary Guard to covertly detonate a device in Israel, proving culpability might be impossible.

Israel would first need to establish that the nuclear device came from Iran, not the former Soviet Union or North Korea. But if the device is successfully detonated, obtaining this proof would be extremely difficult according to scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology.

But even if Israel could trace the device back to Iran, it would still need to prove that Tehran itself ordered the detonation. This could be impossible to prove with certainty.

How, for example, could Israel prove that the Ayatollah gave the bomb to Hezbollah — not that Hezbollah stole the bomb, or that a radical segment of the Revolutionary Guard smuggled it into Israel without permission? Yes, Israel could use human intelligence to cast doubt on such a claim, but would this be enough to justify starting a nuclear war?

Similarly, even if Israel could definitively prove that the bomb was set off by a Revolutionary Guard operative, Iran’s leaders could claim that the operative was working on his own. True, Israel could invoke the principles of international law to hold Tehran accountable, but in a nebulous situation like this, would that principle be enough to justify a possible nuclear war?

Finally, even if Israel traced the transfer of the bomb from Iran to Hezbollah or Hamas, Iran’s leaders could still claim that it was done without their permission. Again, the claim might be dubious, but without definitive proof, Israel might be unwilling to launch a counterattack.

And without definitive proof of Tehran’s involvement, an Israeli counterattack would be illegitimate and foolish. How could Israel legally punish Iran for an act that it can’t prove its leadership was responsible for? And how would an Israeli strike serve as a deterrent to future action, when Israel can’t prove that the first attack came from Iran?

An Israeli counterattack would also give Iran a legitimate excuse to use its nuclear arsenal against Israel. And if Israel couldn’t prove that Iran’s leaders ordered the initial attack, Israel would probably have no international support for a counterattack or the war that would follow.

Critics might argue this premise is implausible: that Iran would never trust a nuclear weapon to its terror proxies or try to carry out such an attack via the Revolutionary Guard. But Iran has shown a willingness to transfer a wide range of lethal weapons and technologies to its terror proxies, and a willingness to attack Israel on foreign soil.

Iran has a long history of arming foreign groups and terror proxies, most recently in Syria. The United States has publicly designated Iran as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. According to the State Department, the Revolutionary Guard has provided arms and funding to the Taliban, Assad’s regime in Syria, as well as Hezbollah and Hamas.

In recent months, Iran has been caught sending weapons to terrorists in Yemen and ammunition to despotic regimes in Africa. Iran was also responsible for the recent slaughter of Israeli tourists in Bulgaria, as well as the targeting of Israeli diplomats in Thailand, Georgia, and India.

And, most notably, Iran has transferred heavy weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah for use against Israel. The head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard publicly boasted about providing long-range rockets to Palestinian terrorists during the November 2012 Gaza conflict, and according to reports, Revolutionary Guard forces went to Gaza to help Hamas launch these rockets.

And Hezbollah, with Iranian assistance, recently flew its first drone surveillance mission into Israel. Hezbollah is also stockpiling an arsenal of 50,000 missiles that are capable of striking Israel, and many of these came from Iran.

Given this track record, and the fact that Iran’s leaders don’t believe Israel has a right to exist, it is at least possible that Iran would launch a nuclear attack if the regime believed it could get away with it.

It’s also possible that if the Ayatollah’s regime collapsed, the mullahs might lose control over their nuclear arsenal or order the Revolutionary Guard to launch a nuclear attack against Israel as a parting blow. This is a real threat that Israel, the U.S., and the international community must consider as the crisis comes to a boiling point.

This is not to suggest that Israel must launch a military strike on Iran’s nuclear program. (In fact, the only sure way to prevent a nuclear Iran may be regime change, and an Israeli strike might have the undesirable effect of rallying the Iranian people around their government.) But the danger that Iran will detonate a nuclear bomb in Israel is something that Israeli policymakers must consider in deciding how to deal with the Iranian nuclear program.

America, unlike Israel, does not face an existential threat from Iran. And if the United States refuses to act, Israel must decide what to do based on its own interests, just as Americans expect President Obama to make his decision based on America’s interests.

David Meyers served in the White House from 2006 to 2009, and later in the United States Senate. He is currently pursuing graduate studies at Columbia University.