Confirmation For Ritter's View, Plus ...

This morning I presented Scott Ritter’s substack in which he expressed his views on what the leaking of the Israel - Iran docs is really about:

Apocalypse In The Air

Ritter, in common with two other ex-military guys I listened to today (Macgregor and Wilkerson), is pessimistic about the possibility of avoiding regional and even nuclear war in the Middle East. In the post from this morning, I presented his view that the leaked docs point toward Israeli actions that would lead to that outcome, sooner rather than later.

This afternoon Zerohedge summarized an article from the London Times that tends to confirm a key aspect of Ritter’s view, namely, it supports Ritter’s view that the docs really do give away what the LT terms “strategies and components” and of the Israeli plans based on “patterns of weapons movements”—excerpts:

Israel Delayed Iran Strike After US Intel Leak Of Attack Preparations

A new report in Britain’s The Times newspaper claims that the potential retaliatory attack was delayed further when US intelligence on Israel's preparations were leaked and made public.

"Israel is concerned the leak could help Iran predict certain patterns of attack," The Times writes. "It has been forced to develop an alternative plan, one that requires detailed war gaming before any order is given, The Times understands."

"The leak of the American documents delayed the attack due to the need to change certain strategies and components," an intelligence source described as having knowledge of Israeli deliberations said.

...

One of the documents tracked the movements of heavy Israeli munitions from US spy satellites. "It made reference to Golden Horizon and Rocks, two Israeli air-launched ballistic missiles," The Times notes - hence the concern over Iranians possibly being able to recognize 'patterns' on weapons movements based on the leak.

Also today, in a comments exchange, I referred to “a certain mentality.” Coincidentally, yesterday I listened to a discussion among Glenn Diesen, John Mearsheimer, and Alexander Mercouris. I’ve prepared a summary of the last segment, starting around the one hour mark. What emerges is—my words, not theirs, but strongly implied—that Israel is not a normal country and, in fact, acts on a delusional basis. It follows that its supporters—and this also emerges in the discussion—that Israel’s supporters are not normal people. It’s necessary to recognize what we’re dealing with here.

Ukraine and Israel headed for defeat

Ukraine and Israel headed for defeat

John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Mearsheimer: Clausewitz said that war is an extension of politics--ultimately, a political solution is what is sought. But Israel has no interest at all in political solutions. They believe only in "the big stick" as the solution to all Israel's difficulties. That's delusional, and especially today, because they've lost their military advantage. The days of tank on tank battles. Israel can't deal with the new era of missile warfare. Israel can't defend against missiles on its own.

Mercouris: The era of short wars is also over. Israel keeps getting into wars of attrition that it can't afford, instead of seeking political solutions. The Israeli instinct seems to be to constantly expand warfare. It's utterly irrational.

Mearsheimer: The US has now pushed all its opponents together on a near global basis, and since Israel is an extension of America that means Israel is now going up against the rest of the world.

Diesen: Israel used to have the luxury of avoiding any political deals. It shortsightedly--or delusionally--refused to do so.

Mearsheimer: Now Israel is heavily dependent on America and other western countries, because Israel can't defend against Iran themselves. Israel's strategic position now looks quite bleak, and will get worse.

Mercouris: The present course is toward strategic and moral bankruptcy, and the US is being drawn in. The US should be reining Israel in, but instead is helping Israel down this disastrous path--which will be disastrous for the US, also.

Mearsheimer: All US presidents have understood all the above, but have been thwarted by the Israel Lobby. The Israel Lobby views itself as Israel's best friend, but the opposite is true. The Israel Lobby insists that the US must support Netanyahu, but Netanyahu is pursuing destructive and foolish policies. Where do these people think this will lead? I don't see a happy ending for Israel--any more than Ukraine's supporters will see a happy ending for Ukraine.

Mercouris: In both conflicts we're heading for disaster, but in the West there's a refusal to even recognize that there are alternatives to disaster.

Mearsheimer: We have a ruling class with an entrenched ideology. It's virtually impossible to get through to them.

So, I think you can see what I meant by a “certain mentality.” And, since we are talking here about anything from a possibility to a likelihood of nuclear war, I’ll quote some key passages from the Wikipedia article on The Samson Option. For those not familiar with the Samson Option, a JPost writer described it as

“the strategy of using Israel's nuclear weapons for ‘taking out Israel's enemies with it, possibly causing irreparable damage to the entire world’."^[38]

Again, a “certain mentality.” So:

Although nuclear weapons were viewed as the ultimate guarantor of Israeli security as early as the 1960s, the country avoided building its military around them, instead pursuing absolute conventional superiority so as to forestall a last resort nuclear engagement.^[16] The original conception of the Samson Option was only as deterrence. According to American journalist Seymour Hersh and Israeli historian Avner Cohen, Israeli leaders like David Ben-Gurion, Shimon Peres, Levi Eshkol and Moshe Dayan coined the phrase in the mid-1960s. They named it after the biblical figure Samson, who pushed apart the pillars of a Philistine temple, bringing down the roof and killing himself and thousands of Philistines who had captured him, mutilated him, and gathered to see him further humiliated in chains as retribution for his massacres of their people.^[17][18][19] They contrasted it with ancient siege of Masada where 936 Jewish Sicarii committed mass suicide rather than be defeated and enslaved by the Romans.^[20][21]

In an article titled "Last Secret of the Six-Day War" the New York Times reported that in the days before the 1967 Six-Day War Israel planned to insert a team of paratroopers by helicopter into the Sinai. Their mission was to set up and remote detonate a nuclear bomb on a mountaintop as a warning to belligerent surrounding states. While outnumbered, Israel effectively eliminated the Egyptian Air Force and occupied the Sinai, winning the war before the test could even be set up. Retired Israeli brigadier general Itzhak Yaakov referred to this operation as the Israeli Samson Option.^[22]

In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Arab forces were overwhelming Israeli forces and Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered 13 atomic bombs be readied for use by missiles and aircraft. The Israeli Ambassador informed President Nixon that "very serious conclusions" may occur if the United States did not airlift supplies. Nixon complied. This is seen by some commentators on the subject as the first threat of the use of the Samson Option.^{[23][24][25][26][27]}

Seymour Hersh writes that the "surprising victory of Menachem Begin's Likud Party in the May 1977 national elections ... brought to power a government that was even more committed than Labor to the Samson Option and the necessity of an Israeli nuclear arsenal."^[28]