Obama’s Brotherhood Plans Revealed: “Directive 11” To Overturn Mid East! Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

EVER since this site’s inception, one of its main goals has been to connect the insidious effects of the red/green alliance, as attested to within the last paragraph of the aforementioned “About” link. Concomitantly, it became mandatory to put in place building blocks which would prove that HUSSEIN Obama is working on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood Mafia. By any yardstick, this has not been an easy task, albeit more than necessary. Nevertheless, the ultimate collaboration of the reds and greens must be seen for what it is, despite a total blackout by the so-called mainstream media.

RESULTANT, let’s start with the “spontaneous” eruption of the “Arab Spring”, more aptly, the Arab Nightmare. Without any doubt, it absolutely had to “erupt”, to take root, to usher in the main objective: the installation of Islamist regimes (as opposed to nationalist) which would fully adhere to Shariah Law, and without any exceptions. Know this: busting apart Libya was key. Wait and see.

INDEED, the overarching goal – HUSSEIN Obama’s and the Brotherhood Mafia’s – is to sweep the region with one “successful” overturn after another, thus, giving a tailwind across the globe.  End point: the Islamic Caliphate خَليفة .

THE proofs are manifest:

PROOF ONE:

LET’S hark back to what was prognosticated when HUSSEIN Obama shrieked to Egypt’s Mubarak: GO NOW! Alas, this should have been the general public’s first warning of the “winds of change” to sweep across the region.

SPECIFICALLY, Aug. 2012, it was noted: “Coming Full Circle: The Planned Empowerment of The Muslim Brotherhood Mafia Under Obama’s Guiding Hands.”

PROOF TWO:

SO due to the alarming nature of the region’s (purposeful) shifting, a piggyback commentary was blared two weeks later: “Every Alarm Bell Is Ringing, Tying Obama’s Hands To The Brotherhood Mafia.”

PROOF THREE: 

YET, in between several other postings, the one cited in Nov. 2012 summed up the cataclysm gripping the Mid East: “The Islamist-in-Chief Helped Install Morsi, The Brotherhood’s Point Man For Egypt.”

PROOF FOUR:

STILL, underpinning the above necessitated a core action plan; the blowing up of Libya. Yes, it required certain “delicate” arrangements. In this regard, Samantha Powers was a featured poster girl at this site, but not due to any physical attributes. Rather, it was her cooked up scheme via “R2P” (Responsibility To Protect, an oxymoron, since said “protection” led to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands!) that drew this investigative journalist’s attention: “Benghazigate Leads Straight Back To Obama’s Door.”

PROOF FIVE: 

EFFECTIVELY, the above knowledge base left no doubt as to what led to “Benghazigate’s Stink Bombs Creeping To The Fore”, without which the (“regular”) fiery Mid East would have remained “manageable.” No longer.

IN other words, while others will be oh, so shocked – by the revelation that Obama Inc. fielded a secret Islamist plan to “transform” the Mid East – it was understood, at this end, that this was the case, even in the beginning of 2011.

ONTO “Directive 11”… and its “revelations” from Frontpage Magazine this week … 

Behind the rise of ISIS, the Libyan Civil War, the unrest in Egypt, Yemen and across the region may be a single classified document.

That document is Presidential Study Directive 11.

You can download Presidential Study Directive 10 on “Preventing Mass Atrocities” from the White House website, but as of yet no one has been able to properly pry number 11 out of Obama Inc.

Presidential Study Directive 10, in which Obama asked for non-military options for stopping genocide, proved to be a miserable failure. The Atrocities Prevention Board’s only use was as a fig leaf for a policy that had caused the atrocities. And the cause of those atrocities is buried inside Directive 11.

With Obama’s typical use of technicalities to avoid transparency, Directive 11 was used to guide policy in the Middle East without being officially submitted. It is possible that it will never be submitted. And yet the Directive 11 group was described as “just finishing its work” when the Arab Spring began.

That is certainly one way of looking at it.

Directive 11 brought together activists and operatives at multiple agencies to come up with a “tailored” approach for regime change in each country. The goal was to “manage” the political transitions. It tossed aside American national security interests by insisting that Islamist regimes would be equally committed to fighting terrorism and cooperating with Israel. Its greatest gymnastic feat may have been arguing that the best way to achieve political stability in the region was through regime change.

What little we know about the resulting classified 18-page report is that it used euphemisms to call for aiding Islamist takeovers in parts of the Middle East. Four countries were targeted. Of those four, we only know for certain that Egypt and Yemen were on the list. But we do know for certain the outcome.

Egypt fell to the Muslim Brotherhood, which collaborated with Al Qaeda, Hamas and Iran, before being undone by a counterrevolution. Yemen is currently controlled by Iran’s Houthi terrorists and Al Qaeda.

According to a New York Times story, Obama’s Directive 11 agenda appeared to resemble Che or Castro as he “pressed his advisers to study popular uprisings in Latin America, Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia to determine which ones worked and which did not.”

The story also noted that he “is drawn to Indonesia, where he spent several years as a child, which ousted its longtime leader, Suharto, in 1998.”

The coup against Mubarak with its coordination of liberals, Islamists and the military did strongly resemble what happened in Indonesia. The most ominous similarity may be that the Muslim mobs in Indonesia targeted the Chinese, many of whom are Christians, while the Muslim mobs in Egypt targeted Coptic Christians.

Both were talented groups that were disproportionately successful because they lacked the traditional Islamic hostility to education, integrity and achievement. Islamist demagogues had succeeded in associating them with the regime and promoted attacks on them as part of the anti-regime protests.

Chinese stores were looted and thousands of Chinese women were raped by rampaging Muslims. Just as in Egypt, the protesters and their media allies spread the claim that these atrocities committed by Muslim protesters were the work of the regime’s secret police. That remains the official story today.

Suharto’s fall paved the way for the rise of the Prosperous Justice Party, which was founded a few months after his resignation and has become one of the largest parties in the Indonesian parliament. PJP was set up by the Muslim Brotherhood’s local arm in Indonesia.

His successor, Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie, was more explicitly Islamist than Suharto and his Association of Muslim Intellectuals (ICMI) conducted a campaign against Christians, Hindus and Buddhists. It helped purge non-Muslims from government while Islamizing the government and Indonesia’s key institutions.

Habibie had been the Chairman of ICMI and ICMI’s Islamists played a key role in moving Suharto out and moving him in. It was obvious why Obama would have considered the Islamization of Indonesia and the purge of Christians under the guise of democratic political change to be a fine example for Egypt.

While we don’t know the full contents of Directive 11 and unless a new administration decides to open the vaults of the old regime, we may never know. But we do know a good deal about the results.

In its own way, PSD-10 tells us something about PSD-11.

Obama’s insistence that human rights be made a core national security interest paved the way for political and military interventions on behalf of Islamists. Obama had never been interested in human rights; his record of pandering to the world’s worst genocide plotters and perpetrators from Iran to Turkey to Sudan made that clear. When he said “human rights”, Obama really meant “Islamist power”.

That was why Obama refused to intervene when the Muslim Brotherhood conducted real genocide in Sudan, but did interfere in Libya on behalf of the Brotherhood using a phony claim of genocide.

Positioning Samantha Power in the Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights at the National Security Council was part of the process that made over the NSC from national security to servicing a progressive wish list of Islamist terrorist groups that were to be transformed into national governments.

Power, along with Gayle Smith and Dennis Ross, led the Directive 11 project.

Secret proceedings were used to spawn regime change infrastructure. Some of these tools had official names, such as “The Office of The Special Coordinator For Middle East Transitions” which currently reports directly to former ambassador Anne Patterson who told Coptic Christians not to protest against Morsi. After being driven out of the country by angry mobs over her support for the Muslim Brotherhood tyranny, she was promoted to Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs.

“The Office” is still focused on “outreach to emergent political, economic and social forces in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya” even though counterrevolutions have pushed out Islamists in Egypt and Tunisia, while Libya is in the middle of a bloody civil war in which an alliance of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda controls the nation’s capital.

But even as Morsi’s abuses of power were driving outraged Egyptians into the streets, Gayle Smith, one of the three leaders of Directive 11, reached out to the “International Union of Muslim Scholars”, a Muslim Brotherhood group that supported terrorism against American soldiers in Iraq and which was now looking for American support for its Islamist terrorist brigades in the Syrian Civil War.

The men and women responsible for Directive 11 were making it clear that they had learned nothing.

Directive 11 ended up giving us the Islamic State through its Arab Spring. PSD-11’s twisted claim that regional stability could only be achieved through Islamist regime change tore apart the region and turned it into a playground for terrorists. ISIS is simply the biggest and toughest of the terror groups that were able to thrive in the environment of violent civil wars created by Obama’s Directive 11.

During the Arab Spring protests, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit had told Hillary Clinton that his government could not hand over power to the Muslim Brotherhood. “My daughter gets to go out at night. And, God damn it, I’m not going to turn this country over to people who will turn back the clock on her rights.”

But that was exactly what Hillary Clinton and Obama were after. And they got it. Countless women were raped in Egypt. Beyond Egypt, Hillary and Obama’s policy saw Yazidi women actually sold into slavery.

Directive 11 codified the left’s dirty alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood into our foreign policy. Its support for Islamist takeovers paved the way for riots and civil wars culminating in the violence that birthed ISIS and covered the region in blood.

And it remains secret to this day.

IN no uncertain terms (cited ad infinitum), in order for HUSSEIN Obama’s Libyan “action plan”, the illegal invasion, to take effect in March 2011, the “Arab Spring” had to serve as its catalyst. Consequentially, it “com-busted” in Dec. 2010 in Tunisia, spreading like wildfire across the Mid East and back into North Africa. As is said, the rest is history! The body count is in the many hundreds of thousands, and rising at an exponential rate. Hmm.

CONCLUSIVELY, it takes a solid grounding in geo-politics and Mid East dynamics, coupled with an understanding of the underpinnings of both political Islam and basic Koran dictates, to be able to expose the connecting dots, “the plan.”

THUS, considerable heavy-lifting is done at this site, but it is a labor of love for America and Israel. The fact that the rest of the west is aided in the process is a bonus.

MOST significantly, the findings within have yet to miss their mark. They are at your disposal. Utilize them!

{re-blogged at Islam Exposed}

{re-blogged at Joe For America}

UPDATE: 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

Islamic spinmeisters, most especially Iran’s theocratic terror regime, run circles around the west, and the mullahs and their mouthpieces are its master weavers. Checkmate. HOWEVER, without a receptive audience it would be impossible to keep up with the tapestry’s weaving until all loose threads are neatly threaded together. As is said, it takes ‘two to tango’.

But when a nuclear ‘death dance’ is the end point, it is hardly hyperbole to suggest the obvious: the leader of the heretofore free world is aiding them to the finish line and acts as a shield for their nuclear power status. Now, before we go any further, we must internalize: Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s surrogates have each played a major part, chief among them Iranian born Valerie Jarrett, his right hand woman and alter ego. Simply put, she is capable of upending western civilization. She is THAT dangerous. THAT (ideologically) driven.

Chuck Hagel, the man leading America’s defense – holy smokes – is DEEPLY in bed with Iran’s aspirations, so much so, immediately after Hagel left the U.S. Senate he was hired to shill for Iran’s puppet masters! Hmm. How many are aware of their dangerous liaison?

John Brennan’s proclivities couldn’t be any more transparent, and his absolute Omerta, regarding his determination not to connect Islam + terror, precludes the CIA’s penetration of Islamic jihadists. As a result, protecting the American homeland is a complete illusion. He is a clear and present danger – to America AND Israel.

Moving right along to a very dangerous anti-American, Samantha Powers, as she set the stage for the current firestorms via her R2P bastardization, cloaking the mantra ‘responsibility to protect’ within a jihadist umbrella. Nefarious. Basically, she helped arm Al Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood terrorists through the toppling of Qadaffi. So, in a nutshell, she rounds out the anti-American crew to a dangerous foursome, notwithstanding all the damage accrued under Hillary’s watch, with mobbed up Sisterhood diva Huma Abedin at her sideas they helped empower the Brotherhood Mafia throughout the Mid East, Africa and all the way into Washington’s recesses. Yet, while others (through various Islamic/Iranian ‘think tanks’) are deeply involved, the main players are highlighted herein.

Thus, as the world watches on in horror, as Washington & Eurabia trip over themselves to embrace the newly ‘modified’ Iran – through the ‘election’ of snake charmer Rouhani – some of us know what’s coming down the nuclear pike.

Washington and Europe rush headlong towards accepting a nuclear Iran

DEBKAfile Special Report September 24, 2013
Iranian president Hassan Rouhani lands in New York

Iranian president Hassan Rouhani lands in New York

The Iranian delegation arrived at the UN General Assembly in New York this week to an enthusiastic Western welcome led by the Obama administration, without having rescinded one iota of its aggressive policies or nuclear ambitions.

“We welcome an Iran ready to engage seriously through that (diplomatic) process given that it represents the international community’s commitment to hold Iran accountable, but also being open to a diplomatic resolution.”

This convoluted message was how Ben Rhodes, US Deputy National Security Adviser, referred Monday, Sept. 23, to the US Secretary of State John Kerry’s get-together with Iranian Mohammad Javad Zarif Thursday, along with foreign ministers of the five world powers.

Their acclaimed purpose is to test Tehran’s willingness for progress in nuclear negotiations. But before this test, the Obama administration agreed to the highest-level face-to-face contact between the US and Iran since the 1979 Iranian revolution.
Rhodes did not shut the door on a meeting, even a brief one, between President Barack Obama and President Hassan Rouhani at this week’s annual gathering of world leaders in New York.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague and European Union Foreign Executive Catherine Ashton had already met the new Iranian foreign minister Monday, after which Ashton commented that she had found him resolved to go forward with talks (on Iran’s nuclear program) and “many things flow from that.”

How to account for this burst of eagerness in Washington and Europe for a rapprochement with the Revolutionary Republic of Iran?
Has Tehran agreed to give up its nuclear weapon program? The new president and even supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei say their government will never develop a nuclear bomb. So what if they said so? Have their words caused Iran’s nuclear facilities, open and concealed, to suddenly vanish like a desert mirage?

Has Iran announced itself ready to open up all its nuclear facilities to international watchdog inspections? Will Rouhani make this offer when he addresses the UN Assembly Wednesday?
Has Iran promised to stop developing ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads?
And what about the Islamic Republic’s long sponsorship of state terrorism against Israeli and Jewish targets across the world? Have those death-dealing networks been recalled home?

And has Tehran started pulling its troops out of Syria and terminated its partnership in butchery with Bashar Assad, given up its control of Lebanon or stopped sending rockets to Hizballah?

Has anyone noticed that Iran is building a Red Sea Naval base at Port Sudan facing the coast of Saudi Arabia? Or that a large-scale munitions production and distribution center for supplying Iran’s Middle East allies is going up in Sudan?

And finally, has Iran abandoned its ambition to wipe Israel off the map, or stopped denying the Nazi Holocaust?

The slick new president easily ducked the second question by saying: “I’m not a historian.”
He and members of his regime have suddenly been given free license to fill the op-ed pages of important Western media with smooth propaganda for Western audiences.
But while polishing his civilized aspect towards the West, Rouhani made sure the day before he flew to New York to display Iran’s steel teeth with its largest display ever of missiles with a range of 2,000 kilometers. The 30 weapons on show included 12 Sejil and 18 Ghadr missiles which can reach Israel and US Gulf bases – although Rouhani stated with a straight face that they were “for defensive purposes only.”

The turbaned Iranian president has an obvious motive for gulling the West into accepting the Islamic Republic’s conversion from a regime bent on “exporting the Islamic revolution” to a lover of peace: He was elected to end the sanctions crippling the country, without giving up the regime’s objectives.
It is less clear what moves President Obama to swallow the Iranian bait and go for a historic US rapprochement with the revolutionary republic. On every occasion, he protests that Israel’s security is his overriding concern. Yet he is rushing to accept a nuclear Iran whose avowed ambition is to destroy Israel.

Under their slick new façade, the ayatollahs have not changed their spots. Washington has.
Sources close to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu say he is determined to tear the false veil off Iran’s face – even if he is a lone voice, when he addresses the UN later this month.

Last Thursday, Netanyahu tried throwing water on Rouhani’s claims that Iran’s nuclear program was peaceful, calling them fraudulent. He dismissed Iran’s offer to engage in diplomacy as false “media spin,” which should not fool anyone.
But no one in the West was listening. And at home, people were asking what happened to Netanyahu’s solemn pre-election pledge to stop Iran attaining a nuclear bomb…followed up herein – Obama launches diplomacy with Tehran after quietly accepting Iran’s current nuclear capabilities DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis September 25, 2013.

LEST anyone believes that Jerusalem is taken in by the above sideshow, think again. NEVERTHELESS, said clear eyed thinking, plus the price of a NYC subway token, will amount to less than nothing. Most significantly, PM Netanyahu can stand before the world and offer all the corollaries/proofs of North Korea’s games in juxtaposition to Iran’s, plus use every rhetorical flourish to boot, but it will just be a sideshow. Sach ha’kol, at the end of it all, once again, he can also hold up as many neon ‘red line’ bomb graphs as his two hands can muster, yet, Iran will become a nuclear power.

How do we know this? There is no other guide but history. In this regard, his inconsequential ‘red line’ from last go around has come and gone. In its stead lies MANY more centrifuges, as they spin Iran to bomb making capacity, while they possess a plutonium track as a full throttle fall-back plan. Unfathomably, Israel’s leadership, tasked with protecting the Jewish patrimony, not only failed miserably in its ultimate task, but continues to feign that they have the mettle to do what they must. They don’t. Spineless leaders always revert true to form.

Most significantly, those who promise another Holocaust will now have the ability to execute their ‘final solution’. And history will vilify all those involved, but none more so than PM Netanyahu, as he sold the Jewish nation (half of world Jewry) a bill of electoral goods, swearing that under his watch Iran would never become a nuclear power. Really. Well, truth dare be told, he sold out to a regime in Washington which wants nothing more than to finally ‘solve the problem’, despite their lying rhetoric. Obama Inc. may as well wave cheer leading signs in Iran’s direction, as they cross the finish line.

AGAIN, Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s actions have led in only one direction. PM Netanyahu wasted his entire Premiership on ‘hopes, promises and transparency’. The onus is atop his head. History will condemn him. As it should.

UPDATE: US appeasement of Iran drowns Israel’s military option against nuclear Iran or chemical Syria

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

NOT unlike a slowly metastasizing tumor, or a lethal parasite, the Mid East is always a cauldron of regional menaces. At certain junctures in time the fires are on a slow burn and can simmer slowly, without evincing too much damage. Flash points. But rational folks also realize, if one pours gasoline into an open fire, well, MEGA explosions ensue. Such is the case when it comes to ‘managing’ the delicate storms in the Mid East. A high wire balancing act. A tightrope.  But just as there are maintenance regimens for some late stage diseases – thank G-d for that – so too are most of the region’s firestorms ‘manageable’, at least with proper hyper-muscle and deterrence factors.

That being said, one must possess intellectual awareness and integrity – from the get go – political posturing aside, to assert: sans interference from the Pyromaniac-in-Chief, certain fires would still be on the slow-burn, instead of engulfing the region. How so? Let this blog point the way:

Simply put, the Islamist-in-Chief lit the fuse via his frontal embrace of the Brotherhood Mafia. As such, the overthrow of strong-arm dictator Mubarak (hardly a ‘democrat’, yet, for decades, he kept the Islamists at bay) sent Egypt into a tailspin, with reverberations felt throughout the region and beyond.

In tandem, plans to overthrow Qadaffi were afoot, back in 2010, having nothing to do with protecting civilians, ala ‘R2P’ (a concept cooked up by leftist, pro Islamist, vile anti-semite, UN ensconced, Samantha Powers), but everything to do with weapons running to aid the Syrian ‘rebels’; a hybrid of Brotherhood/Al Qaeda/Al-Nusra terror frontsTrue, a smattering of coalitions, who seek to just live their lives without Islamists giving them the boot, are in the mix. Nevertheless, they are the proverbial needle in the haystack and will be overrun by the jihadists, before they can say – boo. Devoured alive. Literally. Meanwhile, the release of the Blind terror Sheikh was an inherent factor to the Libyan operation, yet the (Islamist) devil is always in the details. It didn’t pan out. Enter: Benghazigate.

It is into this veritable Devil’s cauldron one finds Iran, not only as the patron/sponsor of the Shiite terror axis, but as the beneficiary of all the wildfires – Sunni and Shia alike. Hence, the centrifuges, the plutonium track and every other aspect of Iran’s genocidal program continues – uninterrupted – at warp speed. Catastrophic.

As such, Professor Louis Rene Beres enters into this Mid East tempest (and analyzes both the regional and global fallout), in relation to the gravest menace of all – Iran.

Syria war, US reprisals, Israeli vulnerabilities, and the Iran nuke threat

09/03/2013 17:07   By LOUIS RENÉ BERES

Where are we heading?

The Arak reactor, 190 kilometers southwest of Tehran
Photo by: Reuters

Oddly enough, with events spiraling out of control in Syria, no one is paying much attention to the puppet master: Iran. As a result, Tehran manages to proceed unhindered with its development of nuclear weapons. In a few years, the strategic shortsightedness of both Washington and Jerusalem could become explosively apparent.

What will happen next? Inevitably, the United States and Israel, more or less cooperatively, will seek a dependable regional system of nuclear deterrence. But could such a last ditch security effort succeed?

Before it can work, any system of deterrence must be based on an assumption of rationality. This means that each side must believe the other will value its continued national survival more highly than any other preference, or combination of preferences.

To be sure, it is at least possible that pertinent decision-makers in Tehran would be rational. Still, it is entirely plausible that, at some point, this core assumption would no longer remain valid. Moreover, even a fully rational Iranian adversary could sometime decide to launch against Israel, because of: (1) incorrect information used in its vital decisional calculations; (2) mechanical, electronic, or computer malfunctions; (3) unauthorized decisions to fire, in the national decisional command authority; or (4) coup d’état.

Probably, in the aftermath of an Iranian nuclear attack upon Israel, the Jewish State would not disappear. Should this be taken as “reassuring?” After all, and at a minimum,  tens of thousands of  Israelis, Arabs as well as Jews, would be crushed, torn apart, and severely burned.

Large numbers would fall victim to raging firestorms. Fallout injuries would include whole-body radiation injury, produced by penetrating, hard gamma radiations; superficial radiation burns, produced by soft radiations; and assorted injuries produced by deposits of radioactive substances within the body.

After an Iranian nuclear attack, even a “small” one, those few medical facilities that might still exist in Israel would be taxed beyond capacity. Water supplies would quickly become unusable. Housing and shelter could be unavailable for hundreds of thousands (in principle, at least, perhaps even millions) of survivors. Transportation would break down to rudimentary levels. Food shortages would be crippling, critical, and forseeably, very long-term. All normal mechanisms of economic exchange would be shattered.

Emergency police and fire services would be decimated. Most systems dependent upon electrical power could stop functioning, perhaps for months, or even longer. Severe trauma would produce widespread disorientation and psychiatric disorders, pathologies for which there would be no available therapeutic services.

After an Iranian nuclear attack, many Israeli survivors could expect an increase in serious and degenerative pathologies. They could also expect premature death, impaired vision, and sterility. Following what we know about atomic bomb effects upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an increased incidence of leukemia and cancers of the lung, stomach, breast, ovary and uterine cervix would be indicated.

Extensive fallout would leave its mark upon Israel. Over time, it would upset many delicately balanced relationships in nature. Those Israelis who had survived the nuclear attack would still have to deal with enlarged insect populations. Like the locusts of biblical times, mushrooming insect hordes could spread widely beyond the radiation-damaged areas in which they first arose.

Insects are generally more resistant to radiation than humans. This fact, coupled with the prevalence of unburied corpses, uncontrolled waste, and untreated sewage, would generate tens of trillions of flies and mosquitoes. Breeding in the dead bodies, these insects would make it utterly impossible to control typhus, malaria, dengue fever, and encephalitis.

Throughout Israel, tens or even hundreds of thousands of rotting human corpses would pose the single largest health threat.   Simply to bury the bodies would prove to be a staggering and conceivably impossible task. Then, unceremonious mass cremations could prove to be the only viable “final solution.”

These same catastrophic effects, possibly even more expansive and destructive, could  be wreaked upon Iran by Israel. With near absolute certainty, an immediate Israeli nuclear retaliation for any Iranian nuclear aggression would be initiated. In both Israel and Iran, legions of battered survivors would envy the dead.

None of this strategic scenario would need to be considered if Iran could still be kept distant from nuclear weapons. Barring the very unlikely prospect of an eleventh-hour preemption against Iranian hard targets, however, it will become necessary to implement a broadly stable program for regional nuclear deterrence. Within this historically familiar threat system, Israel might still be able to identify certain remaining deterrence options.

These options would pertain to both rational and irrational decision-makers in Tehran.

By definition, irrational Iranian adversaries would not value their own national survival most highly. Nonetheless, they could still maintain a determinable and potentially manipulable ordering of preferences. Washington and Jerusalem, therefore, should promptly undertake a meticulous effort (1) to adequately anticipate this prospective ordering; and  (2)  to fashion deterrent threats accordingly.

Future Iranian preference-orderings would not be created in a vacuum. Among other things, assorted strategic developments in already-nuclear Pakistan, and (eventually) “Palestine,” could impact such orderings. This impact could manifest itself in the form of certain game-changing “synergies,” or, in more narrowly military parlance, as significant “force multipliers.”

The preference orderings of a nuclearizing Iran will be effected, especially in the short term, by whatever happens to Tehran’s surrogate in Damascus. If an American missile strike is launched against certain hard targets of the Assad regime, US President Barack Obama may, however unintentionally, also be declaring a de facto war against Iran.

In such increasingly likely circumstances, Washington’s jurisprudential motives would not include a wider conflict, but these high-sounding presidential motives could prove irrelevant. Here, Tehran would almost certainly choose to accelerate the pace of its nuclear weapons program. In part, this acceleration would represent the result of  an increased fear of becoming the object of  an American and/or Israeli  preemptive attack itself.

Over time, Iran’s cumulative response to any impending American attacks on Syrian regime targets could trigger a reduced willingness to abide by the logic of deterrence. It follows that any such American attacks, especially if they did not remain expectedly “tailored” or “limited,” could actually hasten the outbreak of a more-or-less region-wide war, ultimately involving nuclear arms. This is not to suggest that a suitably proportionate American military response to Syrian regime crimes against humanity would be inherently law-violating or “wrong,” but only that there might also be various unintended yet grievously substantial nuclear consequences.

LOUIS RENÉ BERES  was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), and is Professor of International Law at Purdue.  Born in Zurich, Switzerland, on August 31, 1945, he is the author of many major books and articles dealing with nuclear strategy and nuclear war. His most recent publication dealing with Syria, Israel, and the law of war, appears in the Harvard National Security Journal, Harvard Law School (August, 2013). Ten years earlier, in Israel, Professor Beres served as Chair of Project Daniel (2003). He is a frequent contributor to The Jerusalem Post.

Now, the ever patient Prof has access to many ears – ever so grateful he lends me his! – both within Israel’s leadership, as well as the U.S. It remains to be seen if his warnings, evinced to top leadership back in 2003, as well as in 2009, are now falling on deaf ears. But this much is for sure: if Iran breaks out into a nuclear power, despite all the clarion calls emitted herein, future generations will hold this generation of leaders wholly responsible. Indictable. History will crucify them, in a manner of speaking!

In comparison, Chamberlain will come off as a capable leader. A reasonably good guy.