Facebook Feed

1 day ago

Yoram Ettinger
2023 Jewish demographic momentum in Israel: bit.ly/40qV0aV ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

3 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
Purim Guide for the Perplexed 2023: bit.ly/3ZdlxHY ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

3 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
אתגר מרכזי לביטחון לאומי: bit.ly/3xkSwh1 ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

Beware of stage 1 thinking policy makers

National security and foreign policy makers should study a critical lesson of the medical profession: The failure to think beyond the stage 1 effect of painkillers may solve short-term problems, but will trigger long-term health risks: addiction, organ damage, nausea, headaches, dizziness, memory impairment and decreased cognitive performance.

National security and foreign policy makers should, also, heed the following observation by Thomas Sowell: “when most voters do not think beyond stage 1, many elected officials have no incentive to weigh what the consequences will be in later stages…. These reactions would lead to consequences much less desirable than those at stage one…. Most thinking stops at stage 1….” Sowell argues that “basic economics is generally misapplied because politicians think only in stage 1 – the immediate result of an action, without determining what happens next. Many politicians cannot see beyond stage one because they do not think beyond the next election.”

However, the track record of Western national security and foreign policy makers documents such shortsightedness: a tendency to sacrifice long term considerations, complexity, principles and interests on the altar of short term, stage 1 convenience and oversimplification. They ignore the glaring writing on the wall and lessons of the recent past.

The late Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Democratic Senator Daniel Inouye, detected the shortsightedness and self-destructive conduct of Israeli and US policy-makers regarding the Palestinian issue.  He lamented his own participation – at the request of President Clinton – in the September, 1993 signing ceremony of the Oslo Accord: “While most participants rejoice the Rabin-Arafat handshake of the moment, I fear that in the long run it could lead to a funeral procession of the Jewish State.”

Contrary to Senator Inouye, Israeli and US policy-makers did not weigh the long term consequences. Israel’s eagerness to conclude the Oslo Accord with Mahmoud Abbas and Arafat was a stage 1, short-lived pain reliever.  As expected by Inouye, the snappy stage 1 was succeeded by a second stage and long term national security predicaments: “organ damage” (unprecedented Palestinian non-compliance, hate-education and terrorism), “headaches” (intensified international pressure), “dizziness” (eroded posture of deterrence), “memory impairment, nausea and decreased cognitive performance” (addiction to further sweeping concessions, to the PLO and Syria, by Prime Ministers Rabin, Peres, Barak, Sharon, Olmert and Netanyahu, as well as US Presidents Clinton and Obama), recklessly ignoring the thundering Palestinian mission statement, featured prominently in Mahmoud Abbas’ school text books, mosques and media: It’s the existence – not the size – of Israel!

“Peace in our time” – and not “thinking beyond stage 1“ – has shaped the US zeal to make a deal with the Ayatollahs.

US policy makers assume that a nuclear Iran would act rationally and could be contained.  They suppose that a constructive agreement could be achieved at stage 1 without a dramatic, long term transformation of the nature of the Ayatollahs. They underestimate the deep roots of the overtly anti-US, apocalyptic, terroristic, subversive, expansionist, supremacist, megalomaniacal, repressive, deceitful and non-compliant nature of the Ayatollah regime.  

Therefore, they assume that, just like the USSR, a nuclear Iran would be deterred by MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). However, unlike the USSR the Ayatollahs are driven by martyrdom and apocalypse.  They are enticed – not deterred – by MAD.  A conventional Iran is controllable, but a threshold Iran would be chaotically uncontrollable.

US policy makers focus on a stage 1 agreement with the Ayatollahs, and not on the staggering second stage cost to vital interests of the US, which is the prime target for the Ayatollahs.  The cost to the US is enunciated by the size 40 font, bold letters of the heinous anti-US writing on the Ayatollah Wall, which was erected in 1979. It is reflected by the Ayatollahs’ track record, domestically, regionally and globally, including the annual November 4 “Death to America Day,” featuring the burning of US flags and photographs of US presidents.

Stage 1 thinking policy making could produce an uplifting ceremony in Lausanne.  However, the succeeding stages would transform the Ayatollahs to a threshold nuclear power, compounding the existing lethal threats to global sanity, paving the road to the first ever nuclear war.  


The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb

The Abraham Accords – the US, Arab interests and Israel

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan believe that the expansion of the Abraham Accords, the enhancement of Israel-Saudi defense and commercial cooperation and the conclusion of an Israel-Saudi Arabia peace accord are preconditioned upon major Israeli concessions to the Palestinian Authority.

Is such a belief consistent with Middle East reality?

Arab interests

*The signing of the Abraham Accords, and the role played by Saudi Arabia as a critical engine of the accords, were driven by the national security, economic and diplomatic interests of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan.

*The Arab interest in peace accords with Israel was not triggered by the realization that the Jewish State was genuinely seeking peaceful-coexistence, nor by a departure from the fundamental tenets of Islam. It was motivated by the assessment that critical concerns of the respective Arab countries would be effectively-served by Israel’s advanced military (Qualitative Military Edge), technological and diplomatic capabilities in the face of mutual and lethal enemies, such as Iran’s Ayatollahs and Muslim Brotherhood terrorism.

*Saudi Arabia and the six Arab peace partners of Israel (including Egypt and Jordan) are aware that the Middle East resembles a volcano, which occasionally releases explosive lava – domestically and/or regionally – in an unpredictable manner, as evidenced by the 1,400-year-old stormy intra-Arab/Muslim relations, and recently demonstrated by the Arab Tsunami, which erupted in 2011 and still rages.

They wish to minimize the impact of rogue regimes, and therefore are apprehensive about the nature of the proposed Palestinian state, in view of the rogue Palestinian inter-Arab track record, which has transformed Palestinians into an intra-Arab role model of subversion, terrorism, treachery and ingratitude.

*They are anxious about the erosion of the US posture of deterrence, which is their most critical component of national security, and alarmed about the 43-year-old US diplomatic option toward Iran’s Ayatollahs, which has bolstered the Ayatollahs’ terroristic, drug trafficking and ballistic capabilities. They are also concerned about the US’ embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the largest Sunni terrorist entity with religious, educational, welfare and political branches. And, they are aware of the ineffectiveness of NATO (No Action Talk Only?), the European vacillation, and the vulnerability of all other Arab countries.

Israel’s role

*Saudi Arabia and the Arab partners to peace accords with Israel feel the machetes of the Ayatollahs and the Moslem Brotherhood at their throats. They consider Israel as the most reliable “life insurance agent” in the region.  They view Israel as the most effective US force-multiplier in the Middle East, and appreciate Israel’s proven posture of deterrence; flexing its military muscles against Iran’s Ayatollahs in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran itself and against Palestinian and Hezbollah terrorism. They respect Israel’s unique counter-terrorism intelligence and training capabilities, and its game-changing military and counter-terrorism battle tactics and technologies.

*The Arab view of Israel as a reliable partner on “a rainy day” has been bolstered by Israel’s willingness to defy US pressure, when it comes to Israel’s most critical national security and historic credos (e.g., Iran, Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria).  In addition, Saudi Arabia and Israel’s peace-partners aim to leverage Israel’s good-standing among most Americans – and therefore among most Senators and House Representatives – as a venue to enhance their military, commercial and diplomatic ties with the US.

*Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain are preoccupied with the challenge of economic diversification, realizing that they are overly-reliant on oil and natural gas, which are exposed to price-volatility, depletion and could be replaced by emerging cleaner and more cost-effective energy.

Thus, they consider Israel’s ground-breaking technologies as a most effective vehicle to diversify their economy, create more jobs in non-energy sectors, and establish a base for alternative sources of national income, while bolstering homeland and national security.

*The Abraham Accords – as well as Israel’s peace accords with Egypt and Jordan – and the unprecedented expansion of defense and commercial cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel, demonstrate that critical Arab national security interests may supersede fundamental tenets of Islam, such as the 1,400-year-old rejection of any “infidel” sovereignty in “the abode of Islam.”  Moreover, critical national security interests may lead to a dramatic moderation of the (Arab) education system, which is the most authentic reflection of one’s vision and policies.

Thus, contrary to the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates has uprooted hate-education curriculum, replacing it with pro-Israel/Jewish curriculum.

Abraham Accords’ durability

*The success of the Abraham Accords was a result of avoiding the systematic mistakes committed by the US State Department. The latter has produced a litany of failed peace proposals, centered on the Palestinian issue, while the Abraham accords bypassed the Palestinian issue, avoiding a Palestinian veto, and focusing on Arab interests. Therefore, the durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the interests of the respective Arab countries, and not on the Palestinian issue, which is not a top priority for any Arab country.

*The durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the stability of the individual Arab countries and the Middle East at-large.

*The Abraham Accord have yielded initial and unprecedented signs of moderation, modernity and peaceful coexistence, which requires the US to support the respective pro-US Arab regimes, rather than pressuring them (e.g., Saudi Arabia and the UAE).

*However, one should not ignore the grave threats to the durability of the accords, posed by the volcanic nature of the unstable, highly-fragmented, unpredictable, violently intolerant, non-democratic and tenuous Middle East (as related to intra-Arab relations!).  These inherent threats would be dramatically alleviated by a resolute US support.

*A major threat to the Abraham Accord is the tenuous nature of most Arab regimes in the Middle East, which yields tenuous policies and tenuous accords. For example, in addition to the Arab Tsunami of 2010 (which is still raging on the Arab Street), non-ballot regime-change occurred (with a dramatic change of policy) in Egypt (2013, 2012, 1952), Iran (1979, 1953), Iraq (2003, 1968, 1963-twice, 1958), Libya (2011, 1969), Yemen (a civil war since the ’90s, 1990, 1962), etc.

*Regional stability, the Abraham Accords and US interests would be undermined by the proposed Palestinian state west of the Jordan River (bearing in mind the intra-Arab Palestinian track record). It would topple the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River; transforming Jordan into another platform of regional and global Islamic terrorism, similar to Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen; triggering a domino scenario, which would threaten every pro-US Arab oil-producing country in the Arabian Peninsula; yielding a robust tailwind to Iran’s Ayatollahs, Russia and China and a major headwind to the US.

*While Middle East reality defines policies and accords as variable components of national security, the topography and geography of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the Golan Heights are fixed components of Israel’s minimal security requirements in the reality of the non-Western Middle East. Israel’s fixed components of national security have secured its survival, and have dramatically enhanced its posture of deterrence. They transformed the Jewish State into a unique force and dollar multiplier for the US.

*The more durable the Abraham Accords and the more robust Israel’s posture of deterrence, the more stable the pro-US Arab regimes and the Middle East at-large; the more deterred are anti-US rogue regimes; the less potent are Middle Eastern epicenters of anti-US terrorism and drug trafficking; the more bolstered is the US global posture and the weaker is the posture of the US’ enemies and adversaries.

*Would the Arab regimes of the Abraham Accords precondition their critical ties with Israel upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, which they view as a rogue element? Would they sacrifice their national security and economic interests on the altar of the Palestinian issue? Would they cut off their nose to spite their face?

The fact that these Arab regimes concluded the Abraham Accords without preconditioning it upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, and that they limit their support of the Palestinians to talk, rather than walk, provides an answer to these three questions.

Support Appreciated






The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb