Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
Here is a live video of a group of Israelis watching the release of three of the hostages, Romi Gonen, Emily Damari and Doron Steinbrecher, captured during the October 7 massacre. They are all young women, and of course they are alive. We know that some families will be getting their relatives in boxes, which is ineffably sad, but today we can rejoice at this reunion of the living.
The released:
I didn’t think Mossad admitted its involvement in “Beepergate“: the dissemination among Hezbollah of pagers and walkie-talkies that exploded on a signal last September. It was key in demoralizing Hezbollah as well as eroding its power, and was cleverly targeted to avoid collateral damage. Apparently now we know that Mossad did this, since two ex-Mossad agents admitted it, and their story was shown on “60 Minutes” this week. It’s also recounted in the Times of Israel.
Here’s the 60 Minutes episode. What’s new: the walkie-talkies were disseminated ten years ago, but weren’t triggered until a few months ago. Since walkie-talkies are used only in battle, Mossad began to weaponize pagers as well. A series of shell companies in Taiwan and Hungary were set up to sell the devices to Hezbollah (they had exploding batteries) while completely masking Israel’s involvement.Multiple tests were done by Mossad to ensure that only the carrier of the pager (a Hezbollah fighter) would be injured. A big internet campaign was mounted to tout the advantages of the exploding beepers, which were larger and thus more cumbersome than conventional beepers.
To get the pagers only into the hands of Hezbollah, Mossad hired the woman who usually sold pagers to the terrorists. In toto, 30 Lebanese died and 3,000 were injured, almost all of them fighters. Yes, a few civilians were hurt, including children. But the vast majority of those injured were terrorists. All in all, the targeted episode was quite successful. It didn’t single-handedly bring about the cease-fire between Hezbollah and Israel, but Hezbollah and its controlling state, Iran, have been set back on their heels.
The Toi article pretty much replicates what’s in the video, but I’ll emphasize one bit:
the psychological effect the attack had on Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, was a “tipping point of the war,” Gabriel said.
He asserted that the veteran Hezbollah leader saw pagers exploding and injuring people who were right next to him in his bunker. Asked how he knows that, Gabriel said, “It’s a strong rumor.”
Two days after the attack, Nasrallah gave a speech.
People watch the speech of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah as they sit in a cafe in the southern suburbs of Beirut, Thursday, Sept. 19, 2024. (AP Photo/Hassan Ammar)“If you look at his eyes, he was defeated,” Gabriel said. “He already lose the war. And his soldier look at him during that speech. And they saw a broken leader.”
In the days after the attack, Israel’s air force hit targets across Lebanon, killing thousands. Nasrallah was assassinated when Israel dropped bombs on his bunker.
By November, the war between Israel and Hezbollah, a byproduct of the deadly attack by Hamas-led terrorists in southern Israel on October 7, 2023, ended with a ceasefire.
Even given all the precautions, Leslie Stahl has the moxie to ask one of the ex Mossad agents whether this episode might make Israel worry about its “moral reputation.” Some question!
The most recent Oxford Union debate was both odious and raucous, and you can read about it in a piece by Niall Ferguson at The Free Press (archived here). An excerpt:
Something is rotten in the state of Britain. It was epitomized by a recent [Nov. 28] event at the Oxford Union, the 201-year-old debating society that is such a distinctive and admirable part of Oxford life. It was at the Union that, 40 years ago, I spoke as freely (and indeed as irresponsibly) as I ever have, discovering in the process that I was not cut out for politics. It was there that I saw great debaters of the past, present, and future.
But I never saw anything like the events of November 28.
The motion for debate was in itself a provocation: “This House Believes Israel Is an Apartheid State Responsible for Genocide.” But what was truly shocking was the conduct of the president of the Union, an Egyptian student named Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy, who appears to have abused his position by openly siding with those proposing the motion and treating the opposing speakers with contempt.
According to the broadcaster, Jonathan Sacerdoti, who was arguing for Israel’s side, Osman-Mowafy canceled the traditional pre-debate group photographs, but posed alone for private photos with the anti-Israel team. During the debate, the pro-Israel speakers were repeatedly heckled by the crowd. At one point, a young woman stood up and screamed at Sacerdoti: “Liar! Fuck you, the genocidal motherfucker!”
Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a senior Hamas leader who defected to Israel, who was arguing alongside Sacerdoti, was met with jeering derision and cries of “traitor” and “prostitute” (in Arabic). Yousef asked the audience to indicate by a show of hands how many of them would have reported prior knowledge of the October 7, 2023, atrocities to Israel. Not even a quarter of the crowd raised their hands.
For the other side, Miko Peled, an Israeli general’s son turned radical anti-Zionist, described the murders, rapes, and kidnappings of October 7 as “acts of heroism.” The Palestinian poet Mohammed El-Kurd, who has equated Zionism with genocide, began his speech by announcing that there was “no room for debate” and ended it by walking out of the chamber. The motion passed by 278 in favor to 59 against.
I have been looking for videos of this debate online, but the bad news is that so far only one short segment has appeared. The good news, though, is that it features the eloquent, brave, and whip-smart Natasha Hausdorff, lawyer and legal director of the UK Lawyers for Israel.
Reader “Bat” sent me the link, but also his take on the video below, which you should watch. His words:
The future Mrs PCC(E) really gave them what for at that shameful Oxford Union debate last week. Here is a video of her full 21-minute speech during which she shows no intimidation and, with a light wave of the hand in several instances, ignores the catcalls of the heavily anti-Israel audience. Though originally scheduled for 15 minutes, she makes it explicitly clear that she will take an extra five minutes as the anti-Israel speakers did when also ignoring the house rules earlier. She ignores the gavel of the Union debate judge several times and speaks for a full 21 minutes. A lovely performance in very hostile territory.
It is clear that Hausdorff is passionate and terribly angry at the views of her opponents, but her anger is manifested only in her manner of speech, for she keeps decorum throughout. Pity that the same can’t be said of the audience or the judge.
I will add one personal comment, directed at those who on these shores also accuse Israel of “genocide”. If Israel wanted to kill off all the Gazans—and there are two million of them—it would already be a fait accompli. All it would take would be a series of massive airstrikes and heavy-handed urban warfare directly targeting civilians. But that is not happening
Instead, Israel has taken care, as far as possible, to avoid killing noncombatants. It warns civilians of airstrikes in advance, sets up humanitarian zones, sends in thousands of tons of food, and, at risk to IDF soldiers’ own lives, tries to target only members of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Is this the act of people bent on genocide?
Since the terrorists use civilians as human shields (Hamas boasts of this!), a large toll of noncombatants is the sad but inevitable result of the terrorists’ cynical tactics. What about those tunnels under hospitals and schools? Nobody can deny this—except for those who want the state of Israel gone, and its Jews with it.
Those miscreants who accuse Israel of genocide also, and inevitably, fail to mention the explicit genocide of Palestinian terrorists. The first Hamas charter, the teaching of martyrdom and Jew-killing to Palestinian children, and, of course, the endless terrorism enacted against Israeli citizens since 1948—all of these speak of the terrorists’ desire to make the Middle East Judenrein.
No, the real genocide is never mentioned, for it is seen in both the words and actions of Palestinian terrorists and their sympathizers. Instead, the accusation of genocide gets turned against its very victims: the Israelis and now the Jews of other countries (the latest incident was in Australia). I have nothing but contempt for those who ignore these facts.
But I fear I am just repeating what Ms. Hausdorff said above. Listen for yourself.
As I reported on November 22, I was shocked to find that, on a list of 18 U.S. Senators who voted to move forward with Bernie Sanders’s bill to block a $20 billion sale of weapons to Israel, was one of my own Senators, Democrat Dick Durbin. Here’s the whole list:
The measure failed miserably on the Senate floor, with none of its three provisions garnering more than 19 votes. But of course I wrote to Senator Durbin, expressing my dissatisfaction as a constituent, and chastising him for giving succor to Israel’s enemies and impeding the self-defense of Jewish state in its attempt to root out Hamas.
Yesterday I got this weaselly response from Durbin:
December 4, 2024
MY ADDRESS REDACTEDDear Dr. Coyne:
Thank you for contacting me about measures to block weapons shipments to Israel. I appreciate hearing from you.
On September 25, 2024, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont introduced six measures that would block a proposed $20 billion in arms sales to Israel. These sales include joint direct attack munitions and launchers, mortar and tank cartridges, F-15s, and other defense articles. Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195) and the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-329), the president must notify Congress of a pending arms sale. These statutes also give Congress the authority to suspend such a sale by passing a joint resolution of disapproval through both the House of Representatives and the Senate. All six of these measures were referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
On November 20, 2024, the Senate considered whether to discharge three of Senator Sanders’ joint resolutions of disapproval, S.J. Res. 111, S.J. Res. 113, and S.J. Res. 115, from the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. While I voted in favor of discharging these three measures from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, all three of these measures were rejected by the Senate. S.J. Res. 111 was rejected by a vote of 18-79, S.J. Res. 113 was rejected by a vote of 19-78, and S.J. Res. 115 was rejected by a vote of 17-80.
My reason for supporting these measures is straightforward. More than 43,000 Palestinians have died in the conflict in Gaza since October 7, 2023, and 60 percent of them have been women, children, and elderly. The denial of humanitarian aid to Gaza threatens the lives of so many more.
I believe that Israel has not only the right to exist, but the right to defend itself in the face of threats such as from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. I consistently have voted for security assistance to Israel throughout my career to protect it from these threats. But this war must end. I will stand by Israel, but I will not support the devastation of Gaza and the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinians.
For too long, this protracted conflict has inflicted untold suffering on innocent Israelis and Palestinians alike. I hope out of the ashes and pain of this current crisis that there can be a renewed focus on a two-state solution.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
I sent this response to Malgorzata, and when I woke up this morning she had written a response, one that I reproduce here with permission. Durbin is apparently as dumb and uninformed about the Gaza conflict as many Americans.
Malgorzata’s response is indented.
Durbin’s figures are taken directly from Hamas, figures that have been debunked many times.
Hamas doesn’t count combatants and civilians separately. In this fictitious number of dead are the non-existent 500 people allegedly killed in a strike on the hospital Al-Ahli. As was discovered and confirmed by independent authorities (and admitted by the real perpetrator: Palestinian Islamic Jihad), it was a misfired PIJ rocket that fell short, creating the strike. Instead of killing Israeli civilians, the rocket fell on the hospital’s parking lot (NOT THE HOSPITAL). It killed several people, but far less than 100—not to mention 500.
How many other Palestinian civilians killed by rockets from PIJ and Hamas rockets have been counted by Hamas’s Ministry of Health as having been killed by Israel? After previous wars between Gaza and Israel, when there was really time to count the dead and ascertain their identities, it always turned out that Hamas had counted everybody (including combatants killed in war as well as people who died in Gaza of natural causes) in their earlier communicates about people “killed by Israel”.
The percentages of women, children, and elderly given by Durbin (and Hamas) are also false. According to the IDF, up to 19,000 Hamas combatants were killed. Moreover, both Hamas and PIJ use teenagers as fighters. Everybody killed when he/she is under 18 is counted as a child. A 17-year-old fighter killed when shooting a rocket at Israelis is counted as a child. Even if you accept the false numbers given by Hamas, the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths is the lowest ever achieved in urban warfare by any army.
Further, not one person in Gaza would have been killed by the IDF if Hamas and PIJ didn’t invade Israel on October 7, 2023, didn’t kill, rape, torture, and burn 1200 Israeli women, men, children and the elderly, and didn’t take 252 hostages, including women, children and the elderly. There are still 101 hostages somewhere in the dungeons of Hamas, among them baby Kfir (9 months old at the moment of kidnapping) and his older brother Ariel (4 years at the moment of kidnapping).
From Jerry. I would add this. Besides credulously adopting Hamas’s misleading figures that count dead combatants as “innocent Palestinians”, Durbin implicitly calls for a cease-fire and explicitly for a “two-state solution,” something that, if implemented now, would be a disaster for Israel.
We already know that the ratio of civilians killed to combatants killed is far lower than seen in other conflicts in which the U.S. has engaged, including World War II and the more recent battles in the Middle East. Durbin of course ignores that, just as he ignores what happened on October 7 of last year. In his attempt to look evenhanded, Durbin has proven himself a useful asset for Hamas. And I will communicate this to the misguided Senator.
Last spring, during all the protests, sit-ins, and encampments at my University—nearly all of them by students favoring Palestine vis-á-vis the war—the protestors decided to bring their beefs into my department. In fact, some of the protestors, given their actions, were probably members of our department (Ecology and Evolution) or undergraduate students , as putting up posters and flyers put requires a university ID card to get into the building, some of the actions were surely done in the evening, when you have to request special access to the building and have a good reason for it, and, tellingly, one of the flyers used the motif of Honey the Duck—my duck. I am showing here just a small selection of flyers and posters that went up last spring.
It hardly requires mention that this kind of ideological propaganda, spread through the department on bulletin boards, white boards, and walls, created a chilling climate. By being posted in “official” places, it gave the imprimatur of the department to an ideological position. Such material is also banned by the University from being affixed to official boards—like the seminar-announcement board below.
But below is one of the anti-Israel posters that appeared in the spring. This one was affixed to the board above, which is supposed to be reserved for seminar announcements and other official department business. At least the poster itself says who created and disseminated it: Students for Justice in Palestine (who else?). But this kind of political propaganda is not supposed to be put on official department boards.
Our department chair, recognizing the inappropriateness of these postings, sent out an email banning them, and he and the staff removed them. Since the beginning of this academic year the protests (save one poster) have not appeared in our department.
Here’s a whiteboard inside one of the buildings used by our department. This kind of drawing is not, I think, against University regulations, but it’s surely inappropriate. Note that it’s a Palestinian flag. Had I drawn an Israeli flag on the board, it would have lasted about an hour! (I do not, of course, parade my political views on department sites.)
The one below was almost certainly made by a member of our department or an undergraduate (I consider grad students as “department members”), and was affixed illegally because all posters must be on bulletin boards and must show the name of the group posting them. Again, Palestinian flags are used in a display of departmental affinity.
Below is the poster that I consider the most odious one. It was placed on several bulletin boards, including the official seminar board shown in the first photo. Not only is it illegally posted, but, to my shock, it used my own special duck, Honey, as an advertisement for “freeing Palestine.”
Now clearly this is aimed at me. To their credit, the office staff, recognizing this, had removed similar posters from the department, hoping I wouldn’t see them. But I did.
My reaction was one of anger, for I loved that duck, and to use her to promote the “freeing of Palestine” (whatever that means) is a direct attack on me for being pro-Israeli. It was, I thought, like using pictures of someone’s pets to promote terrorism.
I suppose the person who put this up, whoever he or she is, calculated that this would intimidate or provoke me. It did not. It only made me more resolute in my desire to support others who favored Israel (particularly the Jewish students), and I did so until the end of the school year.
But it did have an effect that was probably unintended, and which I suppose the posters are happy about. It made me wonder who would do such a thing, especially in a department, where we’re all supposed to be colleagues. Now I’m sure that none of my faculty colleagues would do this, but my guess is that the perp was a graduate student or undergraduate. That is only a guess, of course. But the result is that this poster, combined with the propaganda above, has made me feel alienated from the department, something that I haven’t felt since 1986 when I began my job here, for this has always been a collegial department. Now, when I am in a departmental group like a party or coffee hour, I wonder if someone there could have produced these hateful displays, and so I’ve largely stopped going to these groups.
As I said, this kind of mishigass has largely stopped. And the perpetrators are of course unknown, since they do this work when nobody is around. I’m sure they realize, since they clearly know my proclivities, that I think their moral compass is skewed 180°. But they’ll never give up their anonymity, for they are cowards, like their confrères who wear masks during public demonstrations.
UPDATE: The verification is almost complete. From the Times of Israel:
Channel 12 publishes what it says is a police document showing that one of the identification tests conducted earlier today regarding the body of a dead terrorist, apparently on the basis of photographic dental comparisons, found a “full match” to Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.
This is amazing, and, given reports that the head of Hamas was scuttling around Gaza’s tunnels surrounded by hostages (and a bunch of explosives to blow them all up if the IDF tried to get Sinwar), it’s doubly striking—as well as heartening. Click to read from the Times of Israel: (it’s also reported in the NYT):
From the ToI:
The Israel Defense Forces said Thursday it was working to confirm that one of three terrorists its forces had killed in Gaza was Hamas terror chief Yahya Sinwar, as a senior Israeli official said it was very likely that a body found at the scene was that of the October 7 mastermind.
The official said that the security establishment assesses that there was a “high likelihood” that the terrorist killed by the IDF was Sinwar.
“At this time, the identity of the terrorists cannot be confirmed,” the IDF said in a statement.
However, since the IDF is very cautious about these things, the “high likelihood” statement carries some weight. There’s a bit more:
Hebrew media reports said the IDF troops were not targeting Sinwar and did not know he might be in the building where they were operating.
The army noted that there were no hostages present in the area where the three terrorists were killed. There have been reports that Sinwar has been hiding among hostages throughout the war, using them as human shields.
“The IDF and Shin Bet forces operating in the area continue to operate under the necessary caution,” the army said.
The terrorists were killed when troops opened fire on a group of combatants on the ground floor of a Gaza building in an incident that began on Wednesday.
A strike was ordered against the building, which partially collapsed the structure. When the soldiers subsequently entered the building, they realized that one of the dead terrorists “looked very much like” Sinwar.
If it was Sinwar, it is serendipity, and the fact that no hostages were present in the area is fantastic. The NYT adds this:
The Israeli military said on Thursday that it was assessing whether Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas and a mastermind of last year’s Oct. 7 terror attack in Israel, had been killed. Eliminating Mr. Sinwar has been a major goal of Israel’s military offensive in Gaza, and his death would be a watershed in almost 13 months of fighting that have reshaped the Middle East.
The military released no further details. But four Israeli officials said the military was taking the body of a slain militant to a laboratory in Israel in order to assess whether its DNA matches that of Mr. Sinwar, who is in his early 60s. Three of the officials said the militant had been killed on Wednesday in a firefight with Israeli soldiers.
For months, Mr. Sinwar has escaped Israeli efforts to find and kill him, even as many of his top allies — including much of the leadership of Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia, and Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s former political leader — have been assassinated.
Mr. Sinwar’s death, if confirmed, could raise hopes for an end to the conflict in Gaza, by encouraging Hamas to agree to Israeli demands or by providing Israel with a victory that could push Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to ease its negotiating stance. Hamas and the Israeli government have remained far apart on key issues during months of negotiations over a truce.
Here is a photo from the Polish website balconik.com showing the match of Sinwar’s teeth when he was alive (left) with the teeth of the body (other gruesome bits omitted). It’s a pretty good match. (You can see more photos, some you might find disturbing, here.)
This is the best chance yet for an end to the war–assuming that Hamas will fold given that both its political and military leaders have been killed by the IDF. I would hope that Hamas would surrender unconditionally and release all the hostages, as they have no credible leadership.
As an addendum, remember that Sinwar (now 61) was an Israeli prisoner, doing a life sentence for multiple murder of both Israelis and Palestinians suspected of collaboration. He got a brain tumor, and an Israeli doctor saved his life by removing it. He was then released in a prisoner swap when over a thousand Palestinian terrorists were exchanged for a single Israeli soldier, Gilat Shalit. No matter that an Israeli doctor saved his life, for Sinwar vowed to kill him and his countrymen after release.
This is still a developing story, but I am optimistic that, if true, this portends an end to the war in Gaza and the release of the hostages. Fingers crossed!
Benny Morris is a reputable Israeli historian who has changed his views over time. Once pretty much anti-Israel, he changed his mind and is now sympathetic to his country about the war, though he still dislikes Netanytahu and settlements in the West Bank. Still, his views on the war have been quite sensible, and in this Quillette article he explains why, despite Israel’s promise not to attack Iran’s nuclear programs or oil and gas fields, Iran should not be complacent. Click the headline to read.
During the latest Iranian barrage of missiles, to which Israel hasn’t yet responded. several of them actually landed, defying Israel’s two anti-missile systems. (Fortunately, nobody was killed.) In a generous response, the U.S. agreed—and some kind of deal must have been struck—to provide Israel with some Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor batteries designed to take down incoming ballistic missiles. Along with the batteries came about 100 U.S. soldiers to set up and train the IDF how to use the interceptors. According to Morris, this “gift” may explain why Israel hasn’t yet retaliated against Iran. He also posits that the upcoming American elections explain the delay, and that makes sense, though I still dislike Biden trying to dictate Israel’s foreign policy to help keep Democrats in power:
But the upcoming elections themselves may be the major strategic cause of the delay in the Israeli retaliation. The Biden Administration has been loath to be sucked into another Middle Eastern war, given the bloody nose America received in the last two such wars—the “forever” wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—and Washington suspects that Israel is bent on drawing the United States, against its will, into a campaign to demolish the Iranian nuclear project, which Israel believes ultimately threatens its existence.
So what about Iran’s nukes? The U.S. has always said it won’t allow Iran to have a nuclear program, but not it appears to be protecting it. And yet the existence of Iranian nuclear weapons is a clear existential threat to Israel. Morris posits that this will all shake out after the election, whoever is elected, and then Israel can indeed go after the nukes:
Netanyahu certainly favours a Trump victory on 5 November, partly because Trump and the Republicans can be expected to be less critical of Israel’s war-making in Gaza and Lebanon, which has resulted in many civilian Arab casualties, which the left-wing of the Democratic Party regards—or pretends to regard—as unwarranted and inhumane. But Netanyahu also knows that, whoever wins on 5 November, Biden will remain in power and call the shots in American–Israeli relations until 20 January 2025, when he steps down from the presidency. During the interim, 5 November–20 January, Israel will still need an American veto in the UN Security Council, where the country could potentially veto anti-Israeli sanctions, and Israel will still need, perhaps more than ever, continued American munitions supplies,—principally tank and artillery shells and missiles of various types. (The year-long war in Gaza and along the Israel–Lebanon border has sorely depleted IDF stockpiles. Last week, the Israeli Defence Ministry reportedly instituted measures to curtail shell usage in the ongoing ground campaigns against Hamas and Hezbollah.)
Hence, if Israel launches its retaliatory operation against Iran before the US elections, Israel must take American sensibilities into account. Israel may adopt a two-step strategy: hit some non-oil and non-nuclear Iranian sites in the coming days and, after Iran retaliates as it has promised it would, hit the oil and nuclear sites after 5 November. After that date, the US will have a new president-elect, and the fear that Israel’s actions could hurt Kamala Harris’s chances of being elected will no longer pertain. Indeed, both Israel and Biden might view the two and a half months after 5 November as a golden window of opportunity in which to destroy the Iranian nuclear project at last—something that Israel appears to believe it is incapable of doing without major American assistance.
In other words, it is possible that while Israel has been putting up a show of delaying the retaliation against Iran for immediate, pragmatic reasons, in fact it is simply waiting until after 5 November, at which point it can go after whichever targets it believes are crucial to victory and to saving the country from eventual nuclear destruction by Iran, without fear of arousing Biden’s anger. Iran is said to be only a year or two away from producing nuclear bombs and has already accumulated large amounts of enriched uranium needed for nuclear weaponry. The thinking among some Israelis is that following 5 November, Biden may be more amenable to joining in an Israeli assault on Iran’s critical facilities and nuclear installations or at least might condone such an attack.
In the meantime, Iran has become weaker because of bad decisions, making it more vulnerable to attack and eroding its ability to respond:
. . . . For the past twenty years, Iran has attacked and subverted its enemies through the agile use of catspaws or proxies. It used Hezbollah operatives to strike at Jewish and Israeli targets in Israel and abroad; it used Yemeni Houthi rebels to hit Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates; and it employed Shi’ite militias to subvert Sunni governance and the American presence in Iraq. It probably also had a clandestine hand in arranging for the US defeat in Afghanistan. By using its proxies and by emitting continual bluster about its own prowess, Tehran’s leaders have prevented the victims of its terrorism and subversion from targeting Iran itself. It has always openly declared that its intention and goal is to destroy the Jewish state. But it has avoided supplying Israel with an excuse that would give it international legitimacy in striking at Iran directly. Instead, Iran has continued to defer the ultimate showdown with Israel, waiting for the day when it will have a nuclear arsenal that surpasses or at least equals Israel’s.
Over the years, Iran has subsidised Hezbollah to the tune of many billions of dollars and packed its arsenals with tens of thousands of rockets, some of them accurate and long-range, as a deterrent against a possible Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities—such an Israeli assault would be countered by massive rocketing of Tel Aviv. But since 8 October, and especially during the past month, Hezbollah’s power has been substantially downgraded by Israeli attacks on its leadership and rocket arsenal, and Iran has largely lost this deterrent against Israeli attack. Iran is probably rueing the fact that it—and Hezbollah, probably on its orders—failed to join Hamas’s assault on Israel on 7 October, and regretting having subsequently endorsed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s decision to mount a somewhat symbolic low-level rocketing of northern Israel in a show of solidarity with Hamas. The daily rocketing, together with the threat of a ground assault on Israel’s northern border settlements à la 7 October, certainly siphoned Israeli troops and air power away from Israel’s battle with Hamas. But it also resulted, in the end, in Israel’s savaging of Hezbollah, especially since the end of September.
In other words, Iran was using Hezbollah (as it used Hamas) as a proxy for destroying Israel.
Until last April that is, when it couldn’t help itself, and launched some 400 rockets, cruise missiles, and drones at Israel from Iranian soil in retaliation for the targeted Israeli assassination in Damascus of the IRGC general in charge of operations in Syria and Lebanon. And, on 1 October—perhaps encouraged by Israel’s absurdly weak response to the April attack—Iran did the same thing again, launching some 200 ballistic missiles at IAF and Mossad bases following the Israeli assassinations of yet another IRGC general, and of Hamas’s political head, Ismail Haniyeh, and Nasrallah himself. And now Iran, still bereft of nuclear weapons, and largely bereft of the Hezbollah deterrent, is facing retaliation from Israel and possibly from America.
In this scenario, Israel would indeed be able to bankrupt Iran by destroying its petroleum fields, or make it toothless by destroying its nuclear program.
But there are three problems. First, the U.S. has just told Israel it has to provide more humanitarian aid to northern Gaza (most of which will of course go to Hamas), or face a boycott of weapons from America. Second, Israel won’t be able to destroy Iran’s nuclear program without America’s help: including the use of long-range bombers and huge bunker-buster bombs. Finally, if Harris is elected—and that’s no longer as unlikely as it seemed—I strongly doubt that she’d approve U.S. aid or help for Israel in the two major types of attacks that would damage Iran. Indeed, even Biden may not okay that. So I’m not sure that Morris’s ruminations will become reality. But what do I know—I’m a scientist, not a historian, politician, or diplomat.