When Israel Strikes – by Jamie Glazov

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of the critically acclaimed and best-selling, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror. His new book is High Noon For America. He is the host of Frontpage’s television show, The Glazov Gang, and he can be reached at jamieglazov11@gmail.com. Visit his site at JamieGlazov.com.


israelstrike

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Kenneth Levin, a clinical instructor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, a Princeton-trained historian, and a commentator on Israeli politics. He is the author of The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege.

FP: Kenneth Levin, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Iran has test-fired short-range missiles. What does this mean for Israel and for the world?

Levin: The recent missile firings, including those of the longer-range Shahab-3 and Sajjil, while provocative in their timing given the revelation a few days earlier of a secret Iranian uranium enrichment facility near Qom and given also the start of “five plus one” talks with Iran on October 1, do not in themselves add much to what has been known about Iran’s missile capabilities.

At most, they reinforce the conviction of serious observers that Iran has the missile capacity to deliver a nuclear warhead in a strike against Israel or any other Middle East target. This, coupled with evidence of feverish Iranian efforts and advances in mastering the engineering of a warhead-fitted nuclear trigger and in producing sufficient enriched uranium for a bomb, suggests that there is not much time left for the world to act if it is to prevent Iran from attaining a nuclear arsenal.

FP: Where does this put Israel?

Levin: Israelis across the political spectrum regard Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons as an unacceptable existential threat. Few in Israel believe that the mutually assured destruction that seems to have figured so largely in preventing the use of nuclear weapons during the Cold War would apply vis-à-vis Iran. First, leading figures in theocratic Iran, including so-called moderates such as former president Rafsanjani, have spoken of prevailing in a nuclear exchange with Israel, however much damage Iran and its people might suffer; and the apocalyptic theology espoused by the regime translates, apparently for many in positions of power, into a comfort with doomsday scenarios not shared by the Cold War’s adversaries.

In addition, even if Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons did not lead immediately to an attack on Israel, the damage to Israel would be profound. Many observers have written about Iranian protégé groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and Iran’s ally Syria, all with access to Israel’s borders, being emboldened to accelerate assaults on the Jewish state.

Whether or not this would materialize, Israel would be under imminent threat and this would affect people’s willingness to immigrate to the country or to remain there. Also, one certain consequence would be a race by various other Middle Eastern states – Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to name but two – to acquire nuclear arms, and a multi-polar nuclear armed Middle East, rife with intense political divisions and incessant low-intensity warfare, would almost inevitably result in a nuclear disaster that would likely engulf Israel as well as some of its neighbors.

FP: So where is the international community? Who is ready to stop Iran?

Levin: It is hardly clear that major world players fully share Israel’s concerns or are prepared to act to stop Iran. American-backed negotiations between European powers and Iran have gone on for years, have borne no fruit, and have not led thus far to the Europeans, or the U.S., taking much more dramatic steps against the Iranian regime. On the contrary, Western European states such as Germany have been the major source of much of the technology that has made Iran’s nuclear advances possible.

What trade and other sanctions have been imposed on Iran were won with much resistance by various powers and have obviously been too weak to have stopped Iran’s steady advance toward attaining nuclear arms.

FP: The Obama administration?

Levin: The Obama administration is holding to its intent to engage in direct negotiations with the Iranians, presenting this as a new tack that must be tried. But the Bush administration had, in fact, also pursued direct negotiations with the Iranian regime, including at high levels, but to no avail. Also, President Obama has indicated he will give negotiations until the end of the year before pushing for more aggressive sanctions, a time frame that hardly suggests perceiving any imminent danger in Iran’s nuclear efforts.

Moreover, it is far from clear that the most draconian sanctions, those most likely to have an impact on the Iranian regime, such as an embargo against delivery to Iran of refined petroleum products – sanctions suggested mainly by voices outside the administration – could be effectively imposed. Russia and China have been resistant to serious sanctions, and both could circumvent any Western embargo, even one backed by a naval blockade. Russia, for example, could deliver refined petroleum overland to the Iranians.

Beyond its foot-dragging on even trying serious sanctions, the Obama administration has also at times signaled that it is actually resigned to a nuclear Iran, believes a nuclear-armed Iran can be contained and managed, and does not empathize with Israel’s perception of existential threat.

Certainly there has been no indication from the Obama team that it feels the need to act expeditiously to stop Iran’s nuclear program and that, if all else fails, it is prepared to resort to military force.

This leaves Israel essentially on its own. Israel’s leaders, in previous governments as well as in the present one, have almost unanimously indicated that Israel will have to strike at Iran’s nuclear installations before Iran attains a nuclear weapon. But it obviously faces many daunting challenges to doing so effectively.

FP: How daunting are those challenges?

Levin: Some have suggested that the challenges are so great that Israel is in fact bluffing. According to this view, Israel talks of having no choice but to strike in order to prod world leaders to act to stop the Iranians if for no other reason than to avoid having to deal with the consequences of an Israeli attack. I personally don’t believe the Israelis are bluffing. The conviction that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an intolerable threat is deeply felt and well-grounded, and the dominant perception is that the country indeed has no choice but to strike, whatever the risks.

FP: What are the challenges and risks?

Levin: Repeatedly noted among the challenges facing an Israeli strike are the many sites to which the Iranians have dispersed elements of their nuclear program, no doubt with much duplication of installations; the limited air power Israel can bring to bear, given its limited military resources and the distances involved, and so the limits to its potential targeting; the fact that key Iranian installations are in very hardened sites deep underground and not easy to destroy even with direct hits with heavy ordnance; the very high likelihood that the Iranians have elements of their nuclear program at sites that are unknown to the Israelis and other Western intelligence services; and the fact that Israel will have to traverse hostile terrain to reach Iran.

There have been a number of news stories that Saudi Arabia has given Israel a green light to cross its territory, stories which the Saudis have denied. Even if the reports are true, using Saudi airspace would present obvious risks, including that of the Iranians being informed of the approaching attack.

The general assumption is that Israel’s preferred scenario would be to overfly Iraq. This would be the most direct route, and American cooperation could help secure the element of surprise. But the Bush Administration is reported to have refused to allow Israel the use of Iraqi airspace, and it is hard to imagine the Obama Administration being more cooperative.

To be sure, not everyone around Obama shares Zbigniew Brzezinski’s view that the U.S. ought to shoot down any Israeli aircraft that try to reach Iran via Iraq. But if the prevailing view in the Administration is that the U.S. can live with a nuclear Iran, there will inevitably be very strong sentiment not only to deny assistance, even passive assistance, to an Israeli raid but to apply extremely heavy pressure to dissuade the Israelis from attacking.

An Israeli attack, whether with or without American cooperation, will almost certainly unleash Iranian reprisals both against Israel and America, with American forces in the region being particularly targeted. Of course, they are targeted by Iran now, but Iran could dramatically escalate its attacks. American calculations that perceive a nuclear Iran as manageable are likely to perceive as well no reason to take great risks of any sort to American interests for the sake of stopping the Iranian nuclear program.

Iran can be reached by the Israelis without traversing either Saudi or Iraqi airspace, but the alternatives present their own very substantial difficulties.

FP: Challenges beyond the mechanics of the raids themselves?

Levin: Iran would very likely unleash attacks against Israeli and Jewish targets around the world. It would also very likely seek to have Hezbollah, Hamas and perhaps Syria as well strike at Israel. Hezbollah and Hamas between them have rockets and missiles that can reach most of Israel, while Syria can hit any point in the country, and the civilian population and the nation’s infrastructure – even without Syrian involvement – would be at risk. Israel would, of course, have prepared to aggressively defend itself, but the task of limiting losses would be challenging at best.

There would also be the difficult diplomatic fallout of an Israeli attack. Even those countries relieved by a successful attack would still condemn it. Organs of the UN would, of course, censure Israel. Perhaps they would have Richard Goldstone prepare a report concluding that Israel had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by initiating aggression against Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.

The Obama Administration could well join in the general condemnation. And – perhaps most problematic – even though a large majority of Americans sympathize with Israel, and most would support Israel’s attacking Iran’s nuclear program as a necessary self-defense measure, American losses to Iranian reprisal attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly if played up by the Administration and by anti-Israel voices in this country as the fault of the Israelis, might cut into the American public’s backing for the Jewish state.

This could, however, evolve in a very different direction. A dramatic escalation of Iranian attacks on American forces in the region may convince the Administration that it has no choice, however reluctant, but to attack Iran in an attempt to end the onslaught. Its doing so, and placing the onus on Iran, would have wide public support and likely mitigate criticism of Israel for ostensibly initiating the chain of events.

FP: Conclusions?

Levin: Israel confronts the likelihood of being able to inflict at most only limited damage on Iran’s nuclear program, having to do so in the face of strong opposition from its main ally, almost certainly incurring fierce military and terror reprisals, and likewise having to deal with intense negative diplomatic fallout. Yet, with all the challenges and dangers, Israel does have options for an attack on Iran’s nuclear program and, given the certainty of the existential threat presented by a nuclear Iran, it will almost certainly act to set back the Iranian program whatever the risks and dangers.

Israel would obviously prefer to see determined action by the world’s powers to end the Iranian threat. But if there is no progress, and the coming weeks yield no obvious resolve by the United States and its European allies to take decisive action, then Israel will likely feel compelled to act by early next year if not sooner.

FP: Kenneth Levin, thank you for joining us and offering us your wisdom. It is always a pleasure and privilege to speak with you.

  • xyz

    What would the reaction of the world be to Israel being nuked? If we had a leader with the balls to strike back at Iran, then what? We would be condemned. But, then again, SO WHAT!

    With Obama's Lefty view, who knows maybe he thinks Israel being gone would be a good thing. I find Lefty politics so bizarre that absolutely nothing would surprise me any more.

    I don't think that Obama is in reality at all. I think the man plans on staying a while. We need to get him out of office and we need Palin and someone equally as strong with the same down to earth sense of right and wrong as a running mate. These days everyone on the Right side is trying to please everyone. They run as Republicans and then act like Democrats.

    In some ways our country is become like a third world in that nothing any politician says is believable because of the bias. The way the Obama administration is still trying to cram that “Health Reform Bill” down our throats with every lie and omission is absolutely unconscionable. But, that doesn't bother them because the ends justify the means. They have got the people that are uneducated and illiterate and the radicals, anarchists, communists, the people who are so poor that it isn't going to matter really one way or another to them (although they believe it will) and the racist blacks who will follow Obama merely because he is black. They would follow him right off a cliff. Just looking at the trash heap they leave places after they have demonstrations tells you all you need to know about these people. They even want someone else to pick up their trash. They want everyone to do something for them not because they CAN'T do for themselves, but because they WON'T. I don't think we've ever seen them more clearly for who they really are than we're seeing now. For the Leftys that do pick up their own trash, maybe you'd better rethink which side you are on. Do you really belong with these slobs?

  • xyz

    Oh, yes and I forgot the illegals. That's who likes Obama.

  • Proxywar

    “to attack Iran in an attempt to end the onslaught. Its doing so, and placing the onus on Iran, would have wide public support and likely mitigate criticism of Israel for ostensibly initiating the chain of events.”

    No it wouldn't. Americans would blame Israel for the whole situation. There might be more than few that will side with Israel in America, but the majority will be against her including myself. Our interests are to turn Afghanistan into a Iraq then exist.
    We do not need to spend 30 more years in the far east fighting with Iran. If the jews want to fight with Iran over this wait until we have accomplish our goals. Then have at it, but you will not drag us into your war because you assume Israel might be Nuked. I understand Iran lied about the Nuclear plant in Qom, but you have no idea what their real plans are anymore than I do. Iran might be all talk, we just don't know, but one thing I will asure you of is this America will not fight your war for you. So you better hope the Israelis aren't thinking as Machiavellian as you are.

  • Flowerknife_us

    Create the conditions where the Jews can be scapegoated? Is that what our Foreign Policy is headed to? Or at?

    Does America really want that baggage in it's hands on Judgment day?

  • rodion1973

    Oh America America….. You are so going down hill, unfortunately. Rest assured, Israel will take out the Iranian nukes, most likely fully. They know EXACTLY where everything is, EVERYTHING is reachable. Remember, Israel has the capability to strike ANYWHERE in the world. DO NOT compare Israeli capabilities with US military capabilities. That is your mistake. Israel's military is far more powerfull than what you imagine :)
    Israel will save the day….AGAIN!
    The world will not thank them… AGAIN!

    I am reminded of Churchill durring WW2.
    I am also reminded of a T-shirt I used to wear as a teenager in Israel, with the slogan
    “Don't worry America, Israel is behind you!”

    Nevertheless, I am not worried for Israel…. we will make it thats for sure. Thats our destiny. What I am worried about is if America will make it when BHO is done with you.

    Good luck to all. God Bless America! God Bless Israel!

  • wildjew

    Proxywar in a nutshell: “Hey, I'm safe, cozy and secure here in the US. To hell with the Jews! It never bothered me in the least that the Nazi's systematically murdered six million Jews. What's six million murdered Jews to me? What's a few million incinerated Jews so long as I'm safe, cozy and secure?”

  • Proxywar

    Wildjew in a nutshell. Didn't fight in the Iraq war therefore doesn't understand.
    What is a few more of my brothers lives? Like I said wait for us to leave then go Rambo on them I don't give a fuck.

  • wildjew

    For one who claims to have engaged in house to house gun fights with Jihadists, you appear to have an odd view of history. The point is, Israel may not have the luxury of waiting for “us to leave” the region. As President Obama dallies in worthless negotiations – thereby allowing Iran to buy desperately needed time – the nuclear clock is ticking. Iran is reportedly within months of manufacturing and detonating a nuclear bomb. Once Iran goes nuclear, “anticipatory self-defense” may no longer be an option.

    I would remind you of Winston Churchill's assessment of Chamberlain's similar (similar to Obama's) behavior with Herr Hitler over the fate of tiny Czechoslovakia:

    Churchill wrote: “We seem to be very near the bleak choice of War and Shame. My feeling is that we shall choose Shame, and then have War thrown in a little later on even more adverse terms than present.”

  • cochavi

    Go jump in a cold lade, Proxywar. WildJew's description of you is exactly right. You belong to the whining minority of right-wingers who are isolationists and defacto anti-Semites. You live in Buchanan Country. Problem is, people like Pat Buchanan turn out to have fond connections with E European SA types and Nazi concentration camp guards. Buchanan an 'isolationist' nonetheless spent huge amounts of energies to prevent Dejmanuk being tried in Israel.

    America's decision to go into Iraq was its decision, backed by the UN. Of course most of the 'factual' evidence presented, sadly, by Bush and Powell to the world (and Cheney) proved to be mistaken. The policy of supporting an ultimately incoherent or Shia/Mullah-ist Iraq against allowing a vicious Sunni dictator (Saddam) to remain in power turned out not to have the support of many Americans.

    The US under both Bush and Obama has/is allowing Iran to build a bomb, literally. Gates said it is Israel's problem to live with and that Iran is only reacting to an Israeli bomb. So then we are also responsible for decades of Arab genocidal policies that resulted in Israel's nuclear capacity.

    Wait for you to leave? When will that be? The US no longer wins wars, only loses them slowly. You will be in Iraq for years yet and in Afghanistan too.

    Again, find a cold lake.

  • cochavi

    Your comment that 'America will not fight your war for you' is also absurd. Israel has fought its own wars always, and had its losses cancelled by American 'diplomacy' time after time – '67 and '73, Lebanon, on and on. Now it's true that tougher Israeli leadership might have backed down this hypocritical US pressure, but American citizens by and large sat quiet while all sorts of Presidents applied it.

  • ApolloSpeaks

    NAVAL BLOCKADE OF IRAN

    Mr. Levin is mistaken to believe that draconian sanctions on refined petroleum products backed by a naval blockade would be ineffective in punishing the mullahs because Russia, for example, could deliver refined petroleum overland to the Iran.

    Truth is Iran does not have an effective land route over which goods could travel to escape a blockade.

    Google ApolloSpeaks (one word) and read my piece: The Coming Iranian Civil War and the End of the Mullahs, which deals with the issue of a naval blockade in a novel way.

  • ostap_bulba

    Israel may hit Iranian nuclear installations with Jericho ballistic missiles, bypassing the difficulties attendant with air strikes. In the event of such an attack, a preemptive IDF operation against Hamas and Hezbollah would be a certainty. The real danger of such a development is Iran's mining of the Straight of Hormuz, cutting off 20% of the world's oil supply. This is the outstanding reason why a US action against Iran is far preferable.

  • http://twitter.com/Fed_Republic Federated Republic

    Let us hope and pray that Israel has some “Mission Impossible” type plan to wipe out all the known nuke plants along with Iran's Military Command & Control structure.

  • http://twitter.com/Fed_Republic Federated Republic

    I do so hope you are right! But Israels last outing against Hezbollah did not fair so well or so it seemed. Maybe that was just a strategic smoke screen to lull her enemies into complacency, I am not sure.
    I pray for Israel's success and emergence as the super power in the middle east. Someone has to make the area safe for peace to survive as the Arabs don't seem to care one wit, who blows up who!

  • http://twitter.com/Fed_Republic Federated Republic

    I keep seeing references to what American citizens think or don't think, do or don't do. These type of inferences are inane and asinine in thier implications. Americans up until recently, where and to some extent still are, inculcated by the MGMSM. They only know what they are told by same. Now that the Blogosphere is a thriving reality, they are getting new information from millions of varied sources and they are responding! Slowly but surely the tables are turning on the current propaganda dissemination of the MGMSM.
    Lets wait and see before we start declaring what the “American people” will do or not do, mmmkkkkayyy!
    America Again in 2010!

  • bubba4

    If Israel strikes Iran on its own, it will give another 20 years of life to the radicals in control of IRAN's government. We need to impose Draconian sanctions now with the Russians and Chinese on board so we can avert this disaster.

  • bubba4

    If Israel has such power, it is because we gave it to them. You have any idea how much “foreign aid” we give Israel for just this?

  • LucyQ

    I like your post, rodion.

  • teq

    The plain fact of the matter as I see it is that America and Israel are locked together in the fight against global jihadism whether we like it or not, and it's clear that many in both countries don't. But Fate has brought us to this juncture and we can either face this common threat together or we can start fighting with each other, while the threat keeps growing bigger and bigger.
    It's so much easier to pick on each other than to face the daunting challenge of Iran and its multi nuke sites. But if we don't start focusing on this, it's going to be too big to deal with. The clock is ticking.

  • ps119

    If anyone is to stop Irans nuclear capabilities it is going to take action. Talking with your enemies is fruitless and sanctions have never worked against any country.
    How well have sanctions worked against Cuba?
    Leave Israel alone and let them do what they know they must do and then back them up 100 per cent.
    God Bless Israel

  • LucyQ

    Many of my brothers and sisters fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan have told me they are ashamed of the fact that we will only “fight extremely weak govts like Iraq and Afghanistan while we choose to sit back and hope Israel licks a stronger govt like Iran.”

    You may not like these messages coming from our armed forces but that's too bad. We will most likely see more of them.

  • Proxywar

    Need I remind you of what A. J. P. Taylor said: No war is inevitable until it breaks out. Albert Camus said: The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said: The next war, may well bury Western civilization forever.Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn also said: Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction.

    I think, Tony Cordesman's sudden pressing evaluation of Israel's would-be attack plan is dead-on, as it were: a missile strike against Iran is no cakewalk, no matter how you slice the airspace. Given the geographic spread of hardened targets, the Israelis would need to mount hundreds of strike sorties stretched out over several days, all the while enduring whatever Tehran throws back at them. And after all that, all Israel would earn is a two-to-three-year delay, which is just long enough to see its prime political obstacle, Obama, possibly voted out of office. Is it no wonder why Iran was talking tough and testing missiles en route to Geneva?

    Need I also remind you of history post-1945…

    Our history here is stunningly clear: Get a nuke and you'll never suffer attack from a (by definition) fellow great power, not even a superpower. Yes, you attract dangerous attention while on this journey, but once you reach your destination, you're in the club. Israel realizes its decades-long regional monopoly on WMD is coming to an end, and Israelis are naturally uncertain about where this new reality will take their country. But again, if history is any guide, both the United States and Israel are looking at the first real chance for a durable regional security architecture to emerge.
    Yes, the hotheads on all sides seem desperate to freak out over this prospect, but, again, read your history: With the exceptions of our allies in Britain and France, the U.S. has looked down upon every rising power to ever get the bomb as constituting a loose canon capable of all manner of nefarious acts and strategic stupidity.
    Yet they got it and the world did not end.

    Don't get me wrong, I find nothing good in Iran getting its hands on a functional nuclear warhead, any more than North Korea. But now is not the time to get all wobbly, nor to place unrealistic faith in the eternal impotence of sanctions. Now is the time to remember that we've been down this path several times before, with enemies far more frightening and impressive than blustering Iran, and that we know how to manage this threat effectively.

  • Proxywar

    Chamberlain did not trust hitler ethier that is why he was building up arm supplies back home. If it wasn't for Chamberlain England would of never been able to fend off Germany's air attacks let alone stop a possible invasion.
    Thanks to Chamberlain's build-up hitler couldn't invade England.
    He did all this while protesting “Peace in our time”.

  • Proxywar

    Buchanan is a anti-semite hitler lover. I have never read a thing he has said unless it envolved Buchanan praising hitler. Only reason I read it was because I couldn't believe someone could be so ignorant.
    How am I a isolationists? Isolationists don't fight wars for you.

    I agree with Iraq and still do, but I know America can't handle a fight with Iran. You said it yourself: “The US no longer wins wars, only loses them slowly.” We will be out of Iraq by 2011. Whether that war is a victory or not will depend on the Iraqi government once we leave. I hope it was worth my brothers blood.

  • Proxywar

    Bubba sanctions of any kind won't work ethier.

    For example, Iran is vulnerable because it imports one-third of its gasoline, but ravenous Chinese oil companies are already filling the kinds of voids that sanctions could create, meaning that Europe's temporary market loss will be China's permanent strategic gain. Further more, Beijing wants nothing to do with destabilizing Iran, much less triggering conflicts in which most of the world's known reserves are put at risk. Getting the Saudis to promise to replace any lost Iranian imports won't prove decisive, because the Chinese need as much energy as possible from everywhere for the foreseeable future. If Beijing could stomach a nuclear ally in Pakistan all these years, not to mention deal with the nut job that is Kim Jong-Il, then “irrational” Iran won't come as any great excuse for entrusting China's economic security to the Pentagon.

    An Russia wins no matter how badly these sanctions play out, so expect Moscow to continue working against our interests even if it professes otherwise (though Russia's foreign minister is already hedging). So long as Iran remains in the doghouse, Moscow can charge Tehran premium prices for its military hardware and nuclear technology, two sectors normally ruled by the West. Any U.S. or Israeli military strikes would provide additional windfall, with Iran rearming quickly and redoubling its nuclear efforts. Moscow's nightmare? An Iran so economically crippled by sanctions that it deals on nukes to sell Europe natural gas, threatening Gazprom's dominant market share.

  • Proxywar

    Men do sick things in the name of God.

    What israel does affects America and the west that is the problem.
    You want to bomb the shit out of Iran once we have left? Feel free to
    do so. Until then remember who is in charge. You don't want America
    as an enemy especially when the left doesn't care if America destories you all.

  • wildjew

    Did any of these men you quote – Solzhenitsyn, Taylor, Camus – lead a great nation or an empire?

    A preemptive attack on Iran is no cakewalk. Who said otherwise?

    You wrote: “Our history here is stunningly clear: Get a nuke and you'll never suffer attack from a (by definition) fellow great power, not even a superpower….”

    Then you make a comparison between North Korea (a non-Muslim state) and Iran, an apocalyptic, genocidal, Islamic state run by fanatics. England has nukes. France has nukes. These are rational states. Iran is the world's preeminent state sponsor of terrorism. Iran's mullahs – those who will have their finger on the button – have an apocalyptic world view. Where have you been? What do you read?

    I am in the middle of reading one of Churchill's biographers, William Manchester, “The Last Lion.” Manchester goes into some detail comparing England's readiness for war compared to Germany. Churchill got detailed information from “spies” in the FO. Chamberlain's re-armament, for whatever it was worth, was wholly insufficient. He left England, relative to Germany, in a miserable state of affairs.

  • madeleine7

    rodion1973, Your words are heart-lifting. I know you are right….. May G-D always Bless and protect Israel and USA.

  • drew

    Pity the Europeans have no 'spherical attributes' regarding their current appeasements and 'dhimmi' approaches at home and abroad. The time may come to show Iran just who is boss. Iran flexing its weedy biceps and rolling its pin-sized head at the West, is another hallmark of the delf delusion and inverted thinking that makes the proverbial Mid-East despots of reknown, who came to their demise eventually. “Eventually' doesn't cut it with the current psychopaths running Iran..