Berl Falbaum
President Biden, in response to questions from reporters recently, opposed Israel targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, adding that Israel needs to retaliate to Iran’s attacks “proportionately.”
I waited for anyone to ask him what he meant by “proportionately,” to define “proportionately” but, regrettably, no one did.
So, we’ll ask: Mr. President, but what in the hell does that mean? I, for one, have no idea.
On its face, it means that Israel should not attempt to destroy Iran’s facilities that are being built to produce nuclear bombs to be used in the destruction of Israel.
On its face, it means that Israel should wait until Iran has, let’s say, several bombs to be “proportionate” to Israel’s nuclear arsenal which is estimated to total between 90 to 400 nuclear warheads.
On its face, it means that since Iran failed to do any significant damage in firing some 400 missiles in two volleys at Israel, perhaps the Jewish state should ignore the attacks or launch missiles that would do limited damage.
Biden implies with his comment that the butchery and savagery of October 7, 2023 and the following year of warfare were not sufficient to warrant an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Biden implies, perhaps inadvertently, that powerful responses from Israel might be acceptable if only it had suffered more losses.
Obviously, we can continue in this vein but I think it should be clear that the philosophy of “proportionately” is not only naïve and simplistic — to be kind — but has never been practiced in the history of warfare by any country that has been continually attacked, suffered horrendous casualties and whose very existence has been in jeopardy since its birth a little more than seven decades ago.
Some history. When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt pushed to develop the A-bomb, neither he nor anyone in his administration, argued it would be “disproportionate” to create the bomb since neither Germany nor Japan had one.
Indeed, FDR wanted to be “disproportionate” because he feared that Japan and, particularly, Germany might produce one first.
Similarly, when President Truman approved dropping the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while there was considerable debate among his aides about humanitarian implications, no one opposed their use because it would be “disproportionate” to do so.
More history: In 1981, Israel Prime Minister Menachem Begin approved a mission, code named “Operation Opera,” that destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq.
Not doing so, according to Begin, would have led to a fatal inability to act in response to a deadline threat. Such a policy became known as the “Begin Doctrine.” The attack set back Iraq’s nuclear efforts by 10 years, experts said at the time.
As Begin expected, Israel was castigated throughout the world, including criticism from then President Ronald Reagan.
Reagan reportedly wrote in his private journal, “I swear I believe Armageddon is here. He [Begin] should have told us…we could have done something to remove the threat.”
The United Nations condemned Israel in several resolutions, some of which were supported by the U.S. The U.S. media joined with denunciations.
But years later, leaders like former President Bill Clinton and then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney commended Begin for his foresight.
In an interview in 2005, Clinton said: “Everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osirak, in 1981, which, I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it kept Saddam [Hussein] from developing nuclear power.”
Back to Biden. Not only was he not asked to define “proportionately,” but he was also not questioned whether destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities was in the best interests of the U.S. and the world.
After all, it has been a major universal objective to keep Iran (and North Korea) from creating “the bomb.” Given that goal, one would believe that Biden would support such a military mission.
His opposition to it also implies he may not consider a nuclear-armed Iran a serious threat to Israel and Arab nations who fear a nuclear Iran as much as Israel.
The bottom line? Disproportionality is not to be shunned. It is a goal of any party in war that has been continually attacked. Soldiers in fox holes want the best equipment to defend themselves from incoming firing. If they possess better — think “disproportionate” — weapons, it is to be celebrated not berated. That same principle applies to all aspects of warfare.
And let us not forget, disproportionality also acts as a deterrent. An enemy knowing its opposition has more sophisticated weapons might very well think twice about engaging in a conflict.
What’s more, Biden’s position runs counter to U.S. policy, which for years has tried to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Now, he could support a military effort to achieve the goal and he does the opposite.
Finally, the least he could have done is not give Iran assurance that he would oppose attacks on its nuclear facilities. Inexplicably, he went further, stating Iran’s oil fields should not be targeted either.
Why in the world would he make public strategic and tactical objectives and alert an enemy of military operations he would approve or oppose?
Even if he objected to attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and oil fields, all he had to say was “all options are on the table” and discuss his objections with Israel privately.
Having to worry about a threat to its valuable assets might even help push Iran to the negotiating table. With his public stance, Biden has given Iran a degree of confidence.
None of this is to suggest that Israel should not take all reasonable measures to keep the war with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran from spreading. A wider war is not in Israel’s interests nor the rest of the world.
But Biden’s comments did little to contain the conflict. They were, sadly, ill-advised and disproportionately simplistic.
I waited for anyone to ask him what he meant by “proportionately,” to define “proportionately” but, regrettably, no one did.
So, we’ll ask: Mr. President, but what in the hell does that mean? I, for one, have no idea.
On its face, it means that Israel should not attempt to destroy Iran’s facilities that are being built to produce nuclear bombs to be used in the destruction of Israel.
On its face, it means that Israel should wait until Iran has, let’s say, several bombs to be “proportionate” to Israel’s nuclear arsenal which is estimated to total between 90 to 400 nuclear warheads.
On its face, it means that since Iran failed to do any significant damage in firing some 400 missiles in two volleys at Israel, perhaps the Jewish state should ignore the attacks or launch missiles that would do limited damage.
Biden implies with his comment that the butchery and savagery of October 7, 2023 and the following year of warfare were not sufficient to warrant an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Biden implies, perhaps inadvertently, that powerful responses from Israel might be acceptable if only it had suffered more losses.
Obviously, we can continue in this vein but I think it should be clear that the philosophy of “proportionately” is not only naïve and simplistic — to be kind — but has never been practiced in the history of warfare by any country that has been continually attacked, suffered horrendous casualties and whose very existence has been in jeopardy since its birth a little more than seven decades ago.
Some history. When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt pushed to develop the A-bomb, neither he nor anyone in his administration, argued it would be “disproportionate” to create the bomb since neither Germany nor Japan had one.
Indeed, FDR wanted to be “disproportionate” because he feared that Japan and, particularly, Germany might produce one first.
Similarly, when President Truman approved dropping the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while there was considerable debate among his aides about humanitarian implications, no one opposed their use because it would be “disproportionate” to do so.
More history: In 1981, Israel Prime Minister Menachem Begin approved a mission, code named “Operation Opera,” that destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq.
Not doing so, according to Begin, would have led to a fatal inability to act in response to a deadline threat. Such a policy became known as the “Begin Doctrine.” The attack set back Iraq’s nuclear efforts by 10 years, experts said at the time.
As Begin expected, Israel was castigated throughout the world, including criticism from then President Ronald Reagan.
Reagan reportedly wrote in his private journal, “I swear I believe Armageddon is here. He [Begin] should have told us…we could have done something to remove the threat.”
The United Nations condemned Israel in several resolutions, some of which were supported by the U.S. The U.S. media joined with denunciations.
But years later, leaders like former President Bill Clinton and then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney commended Begin for his foresight.
In an interview in 2005, Clinton said: “Everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osirak, in 1981, which, I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it kept Saddam [Hussein] from developing nuclear power.”
Back to Biden. Not only was he not asked to define “proportionately,” but he was also not questioned whether destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities was in the best interests of the U.S. and the world.
After all, it has been a major universal objective to keep Iran (and North Korea) from creating “the bomb.” Given that goal, one would believe that Biden would support such a military mission.
His opposition to it also implies he may not consider a nuclear-armed Iran a serious threat to Israel and Arab nations who fear a nuclear Iran as much as Israel.
The bottom line? Disproportionality is not to be shunned. It is a goal of any party in war that has been continually attacked. Soldiers in fox holes want the best equipment to defend themselves from incoming firing. If they possess better — think “disproportionate” — weapons, it is to be celebrated not berated. That same principle applies to all aspects of warfare.
And let us not forget, disproportionality also acts as a deterrent. An enemy knowing its opposition has more sophisticated weapons might very well think twice about engaging in a conflict.
What’s more, Biden’s position runs counter to U.S. policy, which for years has tried to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Now, he could support a military effort to achieve the goal and he does the opposite.
Finally, the least he could have done is not give Iran assurance that he would oppose attacks on its nuclear facilities. Inexplicably, he went further, stating Iran’s oil fields should not be targeted either.
Why in the world would he make public strategic and tactical objectives and alert an enemy of military operations he would approve or oppose?
Even if he objected to attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and oil fields, all he had to say was “all options are on the table” and discuss his objections with Israel privately.
Having to worry about a threat to its valuable assets might even help push Iran to the negotiating table. With his public stance, Biden has given Iran a degree of confidence.
None of this is to suggest that Israel should not take all reasonable measures to keep the war with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran from spreading. A wider war is not in Israel’s interests nor the rest of the world.
But Biden’s comments did little to contain the conflict. They were, sadly, ill-advised and disproportionately simplistic.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
