Israel’s Pre-emptive Window Re Iran Has (Precipitously) Closed: Professor Louis Rene Beres Expounds. Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

For well over a decade there has been no other contact (in the entire world) whose assessment was more valued, regarding Iran’s WMD program, than Professor Louis Rene Beres. So much so, he is given all due credit and respect at the ‘About’ tab –

As such, his strategic nuclear assessments have been front and center at this blog. They must be given all due deliberation. The following, at Oxford U’s Press, highlighted the legal basis for pre-emption. Take note of its date, November 15, 2012, almost 5 months ago. Meaning, while Jerusalem wasted precious nation-saving time, hitching Israel’s completely lawful, anticipatory self defense to Washington’s dictates, the option of pre-emption has evaporated. This VERY short window, a mere 5 months ago, is no longer open – every week lost is Iran’s gain, as its genocidal regime brings them to the “finish line”.

Catch your breath and read on…back in September 2012 a similar warning was blared from these pages, courtesy of Professor Louis Rene Beres…how many dead horses does one blog have to beat, figuratively-speaking – 

In this regard, Ariel Sharon, Israel’s ex PM, received this report from Project Daniel, and Professor Louis Rene Beres was its Chair. It was dated January 16, 2003. ( Its commentary is linked herein – So when reading the latest op-ed at Israel National News, bear in mind Prof Beres’s 2003 report to PM Sharon. But do take the time to read his updated nuclear strategic assessment re Project Daniel – …heady material! Please place his name in their search engine and his articles will pop up, or use this link

‘Op-Ed: Israel’s Increasingly Complex Nuclear Imperatives, Pt I’ – Israel National News, April 2, 2013

Though the logic of deterrence has always rested upon an assumption of rationality, history reveals the persistent fragility of any such understanding.

Prof. Louis René Beres

Over these many years, beginning at Princeton in the late 1960s, I have examined core bases of Israeli nuclear deterrence. Recently, in consequence of the still-growing threat of Iranian nuclearization, increasing attention has been directed toward pertinent issues of enemy rationality. With such issues in mind, this essay will seek to explain (1) the likely impact of enemy “irrationality” on Israel’s deterrence posture; and (2) the vital differences between prospective Iranian irrationality, and genuine enemy “madness.”

For states in world politics, at least according to the generally unchallenged conventional wisdom, successful strategies of deterrence must correctly assume enemy rationality. In the absence of such rationality – that is, in those relatively rare or residual circumstances where an enemy country might rank order certain values or preferences more highly than “staying alive” as a nation – deterrence could simply not work. Moreover, in those potentially much more serious situations involving nuclear deterrence, the direct consequences of any such failure could be stark, catastrophic, and even unprecedented.

Significantly, at least in world politics, irrationality is never the same as “madness.” To wit, an irrational enemy leadership could still maintain a distinct and identifiable hierarchy of preferences, but one in which national survival would not necessarily rank at the top. In more technical terms, strategic analysts would say here that these irrational state actors still maintain an order of preferences that is both “consistent” and “transitive.”

A “mad” leadership, on the other hand, would have no discernible order of preferences. Its actions, for the most part, would be random and unpredictable. It goes without saying that facing a “mad” adversary in world politics is “worse” than facing a “merely” irrationaladversary. Expressed in somewhat different terms, although it might still be possible and purposeful to try to deter an irrational enemy, there would be little point to seeking deterrence against a plainly “mad” one.

“Do you know what it means to find yourselves face to face with a madman,” asks playwright Luigi Pirandello’s Henry IV. “Madmen, lucky folk, construct without logic, or rather with a logic that flies like a feather.”

Credo quia absurdum. “I believe because it is absurd.” What is true for individuals is sometimes also true for states.

In the often-unpredictable theatre of modern world politics, a drama that so often bristles with apparent meaninglessness, decisions that rest upon ordinary logic may quickly crumble before madness. Here, dangers can reach even the most utterly portentous level. This is the aptly-dreaded point of convergence, when madness and nuclear weapons capability would coincide, fuse, or otherwise come together.

Enter Israel and Iran. Soon, because not a single responsible member of the “international community” has ever demonstrated a determinable willingness to undertake appropriately preemptive action (“anticipatory self-defense,” in the formal language of law), the Jewish State may have to face an expressly genocidal Iranian nuclear adversary. Although improbable, a potentially “suicidal” enemy state in Iran, one animated by graphically precise visions of a Shiite apocalypse, cannot be wished away, or, capriciously, dismissed out of hand.

Iran’s current leadership, and possibly even a successor “reformist” government in Tehran, could, at some point, choose to value Israel’s physical destruction more highly than even its own physical survival. Should this happen, the “play” would almost certainly end badly for all “actors.” In recognizably theatrical terms, the “director’s” command would be both unambiguous and immobilizing.

Exeunt omnes!

Nonetheless, despite U.S. President Barack Obama’s disingenuous hope for “a world free of nuclear weapons,” Israel’s ultimate source of national security must inevitably lie in sustained nuclear deterrence. Although still implicit or ambiguous, and not yet open, or disclosed, this Israeli “bomb in the basement” could readily “crumble before madness.” In certain easily-imaginable instances, circumstances involving enemy “madness,” the results of failed Israeli retaliatory threats could ultimately be existential.

Though the logic of deterrence has always rested upon an assumption of rationality, history reveals the persistent fragility of any such understanding. We already know all too well that nations can sometimes behave in ways that are consciously, or even conspicuously, self-destructive.

Sometimes, mirroring the infrequent but decisively unpredictable behavior of individual human beings, national leaders can choose to assign the very highest value to certain preferences other than collective self-preservation. In operatic metaphor, this could reveal a Gotterdammerung (“Twilight of the Gods”) scenario.

For the moment, no single Arab or Iranian adversary of Israel would appear to be authentically irrational or mad. Harsh enemy rhetoric notwithstanding, no current Israeli adversary appears ready to launch a major first-strike against Israel using weapons of mass destruction, with the expectation that it would thereby elicit a devastating reprisal. Of course, miscalculations and errors in information could still lead a perfectly rational enemy state to strike first, but this decision, by definition, would not be the outcome of irrationality or madness.

In strategic thinking, judgments of rationality and irrationality are always based upon prior intent.

Certain enemy states, most likely Iran, could one day decide that excising the “Jewish cancer” or the “enemies of Allah,” from the Middle East would somehow be worth even the most palpably staggering costs. In principle, at least, this particular genocidal prospect could be avoided by Israel’s adoption of pertinent “hard target” preemptions. Increasingly, however, any such once-reasonable expressions of anticipatory self-defense are now difficult or impossible to imagine. Operationally, in essence, a successful preemption is now almost certainly infeasible.

Now, most or all critical Iranian nuclear assets have likely been deeply hardened, widely dispersed, and substantially multiplied. For Israel, expectedly, there would also be considerable political costs to any preemption. To be sure, a preemptive attack, even one that could become an operational failure, would elicit overwhelming public and diplomatic condemnation.

It is plausible that undertaking certain alternative forms of preemption, including assassination of nuclear scientists, and/or cyber defense/cyber-warfare, could (still) be purposeful, but it is unlikely that any such alternatives could permanently obviate traditionally more expedient resorts to military force. (to be continued).

LOUIS RENÉ BERES is Professor of Political Science and International Law at PurdueUniversity. Educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), he is the author of ten books and several hundred published articles dealing with Israeli security matters, including APOCALYPSE: NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE IN WORLD POLITICS (University of Chicago Press, 1980), and SECURITY OR ARMAGEDDON: ISRAEL’S NUCLEAR STRATEGY(Heath/Lexington Books, 1986). Professor Beres served as Chair of Project Daniel, a private effort (2003) to counsel former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on existential nuclear threats to Israel. In March 2013, Dr. Beres presented another major Working Paper to the annual Herzliya Conference on Israeli strategy. Professor Beres was born inZürichSwitzerland, on August 31, 1945.

Part’s 2 & 3 herein –

Learning from a master should allow one to think more clearly, at least one hopes so. This is why the following was written on December 28, 2012, re PM Netanyahu’s cartoonish “red line” –…with the full understanding that it was vanishing, to the point of no return.

Due to all of the above, by the start of the 2013 it was obvious that PM Netanyahu trampled on his own “red line.” No one is suggesting, least of all this investigative journalist, that this is what he intended. But in matters of grave (quite possibly existential) import, good intentions are as viable as changing minds. Worthless.

Therefore, it is with great sadness, trepidation and complete outrage that Israelis (and others) await the grim news – Jerusalem will “learn” to “contain” Iran! Indeed, Israel’s “bombs in the basement” will have to surface. And this is a direct result of western abdication, as well as Israel’s lack of statesmanship. Cause and effect.

MADNESS….שגעון !!

15 thoughts on “Israel’s Pre-emptive Window Re Iran Has (Precipitously) Closed: Professor Louis Rene Beres Expounds. Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

  1. By the way, the Islamist-in-Chief capitulated in the face of the midget from N Korea, a basket case of all basket cases. So, does anyone believe – least of all Jerusalem – that he is capable of standing up to the madmen in Iran?
    This is why hitching Jerusalem’s policies to Washington’s is madness. Besides, NO leader should ever piggyback to another’s strategies – good, bad or indifferent. Israel’s deficit is not in economic, military or intellectual capital. In fact, for a tiny nation, it is the richest in the world, even when compared to US output. HOWEVER, its dearth of political statesmen is killing our homeland, and this is why Israel’s “Intellectual Warriors” are essential for our survival!

    As such, those who truly care about Israel, and the west’s survival, must stand behind (in whatever way they can) Israel Institute for Strategic Studies –

    In the same manner in which Prof Beres is the master, regarding nuclear doctrine/strategy, so too is Dr. Martin Sherman, re Israel’s strategic policy assessments/initiatives. Absolutely, I stake my life on their advice. That says everything.

  2. Pingback: Boston’s Targeted Jihad & Iran’s WMD Race To The Finish: Where Do They Collide? Commentary By Adina Kutnicki | Adina Kutnicki

  3. Pingback: PM Netanyahu’s ‘Do Or Die Moment’ HAS Arrived: Iran’s Genocidal Program, Too Little Too Late? Commentary By Adina Kutnicki | Adina Kutnicki

  4. Pingback: Israel: The Most Imperiled/Targeted Nation In History. What Are Its Options, Now That Its Leaders Left Zion’s Fate To U.S. Dictates? Commentary By Adina Kutnicki | Adina Kutnicki

  5. Pingback: Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s Volte Face Re An (Imminent) Attack On Syria: The Global Implications. Where Does Blow Back Factor In? Everywhere. Commentary By Adina Kutnicki | Adina Kutnicki

  6. Pingback: WAR (Mid East & Beyond) Prognostications From Foremost Strategic Nuclear Expert: Professor Louis Rene Beres Expounds…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki | Adina Kutnicki

  7. Pingback: Nuclear Iran A Foregone Outcome: A Merging Of The Islamist-in-Chief’s Intentions & Iran’s Hitlerite Regime. The North Korean Model/Template…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki | Adina Kutnicki

  8. Pingback: PM Netanyahu’s SPINELESS Leadership Assists Iran’s WMD (More Than Likely) Victory…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki | Adina Kutnicki

  9. Pingback: IRAN, FOR ALL INTENTS & PURPOSES, A NUCLEAR POWER: Obama’s LONGSTANDING Quest To Arm Iran. The Jig Is Up! What’s Obama’s End Goal? Commentary By Adina Kutnicki | Adina Kutnicki


  11. Pingback: Iranian WMD Program Intersects With ISIS.Booms at Parchin Military Base & More…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki | Adina Kutnicki

Leave a Reply to Leith N. Wood Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s