Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
September 18, 2023

The September 20, 2023 meeting

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023, President Biden will meet Prime Minister Netanyahu in order to intensify the pressure on Israel to refrain from an independent military action against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Biden will, also, pressure Netanyahu to make significant concessions to the Palestinian Authority, which would facilitate the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Should/could Prime Minister Netanyahu repel President Biden’s pressure?
Does President Biden’s pressure advance regional stability and US interests?

US pressure has been an integral part of US-Israel relations since 1948. In hindsight, it resembles bumps in the road of staggering, mutually-beneficial US-Israel cooperation, militarily and commercially, which has yielded substantial benefits to the US economy and defense. 

In most cases, the pressure has been defied by Israel, triggering short term friction, but long term strengthened US strategic appreciation of Israel.

For instance, at the end of a 1991 meeting between Prime Minister Shamir and Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, Senators George Mitchell and Bob Dole, which was replete with disagreements, the latter said: “Mr. Prime Minister, do you know why the Majority Leader and I absolutely disagree with you, but immensely respect you? Because you’re tough!”

On a rainy day, the US prefers a strong backboned, principle-driven ally, who does not succumb to pressure, refusing to sacrifice long term historic and national security assets on the altar of short term diplomatic, economic and strategic convenience.

Israel’s defiance of pressure benefits the US

In fact, Israeli defiance of US pressure – which has been mostly instigated by the State Department’s misreading of the Middle East – has spared the US major setbacks.  For example:

*If Israel had surrendered to US pressure in 1981 and 2007, it would not have destroyed nuclear reactors in Iraq and Syria, which spared the US, Saudi Arabia and other pro-US oil-producing Arab countries a traumatic 1990-91 confrontation with a nuclear Saddam Hussein. It, also, eliminated the horrific option of a nuclear civil war in Syria, a nuclear ISIS or a nuclear Assad.

*If Israel had succumbed to pressure in 1948-49, to withdraw to the suicidal lines of the “1947 Partition Plan,” Israel would not have evolved into the most effective force-multiplier for the US.  This spared the US the necessity of deploying more aircraft carriers and ground troops in the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean, saving an annual cost of mega billions of dollars.

*If Israel had submitted to US pressure in 1967, it would not have pre-empted and crushed the Soviet-backed Egypt-Syria-Jordan military offensive, expunging the Egyptian-Soviet drive to topple all pro-US Arab oil-producing regimes. This would have devastated the US economy and national security, at a time when the US was heavily dependent on Persian Gulf oil.

*If Israel had not fended off severe US pressure and refrained from the application of Israeli law to the Golan Heights, and eventually retreating from the Golan Heights, it would not have been able to constrain Russian, Iranian and Syrian maneuverability in Syria and Lebanon, while bolstering the defense of the pro-US Hashemite regime in Jordan, which has enhanced US interests.

*If Israel had not stood up to US pressure, allowing the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, it would have led to the toppling of the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the Jordan River, transforming Jordan into an uncontrollable platform of anti-US Islamic terrorism, posing a lethal threat to all pro-US oil-producing Arab regimes. This would have upgraded the stature of Iran, Russia and China at the expense of the US economy, national security and homeland security.

The bottom line

Principle-driven defiance of US pressure is critical to Israel’s posture of deterrence, which is a major component of the US posture in the Middle East, generating stability and deterring anti-US rogue entities.

Moreover, Israeli failure to fend off pressure yields more pressure, which would erode Israel’s posture of deterrence, intensifying terror and war and destabilizing the Middle East at the expense of Israel, the pro-US Arab regimes and the US economy and defense. 

Support Appreciated

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
September 15, 2023, https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/377022

*The platform of an Israel-Saudi accord is the volcanic, violent and unpredictably tenuous Middle East, not Western Europe or No. America;

*Saudi Arabia is driven by Saudi – not Palestinian – interests;

*Unlike the State Department, Saudi Arabia accords much weight to the rogue Palestinian track record in the intra-Arab arena, and therefore limits its support of the proposed Palestinian state to (mostly) talk, not to walk; *An accord with Saudi Arabia – in the shifty, tenuous Middle East – is not a major component of Israel’s national security. On the other hand, Israel’s control of the mountain ridges of Judea & Samaria is a prerequisite for Israel’s survival in the inherently turbulent, intolerantly violent Middle East, which features tenuous regimes, and therefore tenuous policies and accords.

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
September 6, 2023

Oslo Accord’s writing on the wall

In January 1979, President Carter facilitated the Ayatollahs’ rise to power in Iran, assuming that they would be “preoccupied with tractors, not with tanks.” In September 1993, Prime Minister Rabin embraced the Oslo Accord, assuming that Arafat would be “preoccupied with domestic issues of the newly-established Palestinian Authority, not with terrorism.”

The architects of the 1993 Oslo Accord subordinated the 1,400-year-old violent and shifty Middle East reality to their eagerness to achieve “peace now.”  They refused to read the following 72-size-font writing on the wall:

*The September 1993 Oslo Accord salvaged the PLO from the abyss – at a time when it was abandoned by the Arabs – paving the road to an unprecedent wave of terrorism.

*The Accord transferred PLO terrorist headquarters from Tunisia, Yemen and Sudan to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza, which are contiguous to the key target of Palestinian terrorism: Israeli population centers.

*The relocation of the PLO headquarters (currently, the Palestinian Authority) was openly defined by PLO leadership as a “Trojan Horse.”  It expanded the potential of PLO terrorism, by facilitating direct control over the Arab population of Gaza, Judea and Samaria, significantly radicalizing the neighboring Israeli Arabs.

*The Oslo Accord provided a tailwind to the 1974 PLO’s “Phased Plan,” which determined that – irrespective of diplomatic agreements – every land ceded by the “Zionist entity” would become a springboard for ending the “1948 occupation” (pre-1967 Israel). This view of the Oslo Accord was articulated by Arafat in a September 13, 1993 statement made on Jordanian television, while the Accord was signed on the White House lawn…

*As expected, the Oslo Accord yielded a corrupt, ruthless, terrorist Palestinian Authority, and a wave of unprecedent terrorism – including thousands of missiles launched at Israeli civilians – fueled by hate education, mosque incitement, idolization of arch terrorists and generous monthly allowances to families of terrorists. The stated goal has been to traumatize Israel’s Jewish population into emigration.

Tom Friedman ignored the writing on the wall

In September 1993, Tom Friedman described the Oslo Accord as “a triumph of hope over history,” describing Arafat as a reformed-terrorist transformed into a peace-pursuing statesman. This was consistent with his reference to Arafat as a “teflon guerrilla”, “gipper” and a rock star, while serving in Lebanon as the New York Times Bureau Chief (1984-1988).  

In July 2000, he posed the question: “Who is Arafat? Is he Nelson Mandela or Willie Nelson?” In fact, based on Arafat’s track record, T.F. should have asked: Who is Arafat? Is he Jack the Ripper or the Boston Strangler?

Contrary to T.F. and the architects of the Oslo Accord, Arab leaders are aware of the Palestinian inter-Arab track record of subversion, terrorism, ingratitude and treachery. Therefore, they limit their support of the proposed Palestinian state to talk, not walk. 

Shimon Peres dismissed the writing on the wall

The late Shimon Peres, the chief architect of the Oslo Accord, published a book – The New Middle East – which highlights the underlying assumptions of the Oslo Accord.  It is a blueprint for ignoring the crystal-clear writing on the wall.  It underscores the triumph of a virtual and convenient Middle East over the frustrating and inconvenient Middle East reality, which has not experienced inter-Muslim peaceful coexistence since the 7^th century. 

For example:

“The international political setting is no longer conducive to war (p. 80) …

“We must focus on this new Middle East reality, with its new dimensions and different nature of security, and not wander among memories of victories in long-gone wars – wars that will never be fought again (p. 85) …

“The Trojan horse of war is obsolete (p. 51) … All things considered, any war entered into now will be an unnecessary one (p. 52) … We continue to learn war, but we no longer do so in order to declare war.  We do so to keep the peace and thwart aggression (p. 69) …

“After hundreds of years of brutal hostilities, the Middle East must be fully aware of the significance of peace… We must awaken to this revolutionary significance of peace (p. 77) …  

“Strategic depth may no longer have the same meaning when peaceful relations and reciprocal control systems are in effect… We must revise our general concept of war as a tool of international relations (p. 78) …

“At the threshold of the twenty-first century… soft borders means that armies do not have to be stationed right next to the border (p. 174) …

“We must strive for fewer weapons and more faith.  Soft, open political boundaries will make it easier to reach an agreement, and will help it withstand stormy times (p. 173) …”

The Oslo Accord acumen

*The Oslo Accord assessed the Palestinian issue via Western lenses, sacrificing Middle East reality on the altar of wishful thinking, which dooms the pursuit of peace and fuels terrorism.

*The assumption that Israel’s control of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) would doom Israel demographically, ignores demographic reality, which features a dramatic Westernization of Arab demography and the unprecedented Jewish (especially secular) demographic momentum.

*The Oslo state of mind is doomed by its obsession with a theoretical encouraging future Palestinian track record, taking lightly the well-documented rogue Palestinian inter-Arab track record. It ignores the fact that rogue entities bite the hand that feeds them.

*The Oslo state of mind underestimates deeply rooted Palestinian aspiration and vision to uproot the “infidel” Jewish sovereignty from “the abode of Islam,” deluding itself that dramatic gestures would induce the Palestinians into peaceful coexistence with Israel. Palestinian ideology – as documented in Palestinian hate education, the PLO and Fatah charters and the “Phased Plan” – has transcended generous financial and diplomatic benefits.

*In 2023, notwithstanding the glaring writing on the wall, the State Department still embraces the Oslo Accord, ignoring the impact of the proposed Palestinian state on US interests: toppling the pro-US Hashemite regime; transforming Jordan into a platform of Islamic terrorism; violent ripple effects into the pro-US oil-producing Arab states; rewarding Sunni terrorists, Iran, China and Russia with a strategic bonanza, while dealing a blow to the US economy, homeland and national security.

*The late Senator Daniel Inouye, who was the Chairman of the full Appropriations Committee and the Intelligence Committee, and the most supportive legislator (by far!) of enhanced US-Israel relations, read the writing on the wall.  He was concerned that the Oslo Process could evolve into a funeral procession of the Jewish State.

*Senator Inouye knew that a precondition to the realization of the Palestinian aspiration is the annihilation of the Jewish State, unlike all Arab states which can realize their aspirations simultaneously with the existence of Israel.

Support Appreciated

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
August 23, 2023 (more information in these two videos)

Israel’s use of the F-35 benefits the US

A recent mega-billion-dollar increase in the export of Lockheed-Martin’s F-35 combat aircraft is due to overcoming a series of pivotal glitches. This was achieved by Lockheed-Martin, as well as by Israel’s air force and aerospace industries (especially the innovative Israel Aerospace Industries – IAI), known as the cost-effective and battle-tested laboratory of the US defense and aerospace industries and armed forces.

In June 2016, Israel became the first country to use the highly-computerized F-35 operationally. Israel soon became successful in solving initial glitches, that caused concern among prospective buyers.  

The battle-tested Israeli laboratory – which communicates 24/7 with Lockheed-Martin (as it does with a litany of US defense contractors) – solved most of the operational and maintenance glitches by marshalling its intrinsic features, which have been the derivatives of the uniquely challenging and threatening Middle East environment: optimism, patriotism, defiance of odds, out-of-the-box thinking, risk-taking, do-or-die state of mind, can-do and frontier-pioneering mentality.  

The scores of Israeli solutions to the F-35 glitches – in the area of data gathering and processing, electronic warfare and firing control accuracy – have been shared with the US manufacturer and the US Air Force, sustaining the F-35 superiority over its global competition; sparing Lockheed-Martin mega-billions of dollars in research and development; enhancing the manufacturer’s competitive edge; increasing exports by a few additional billions; and expanding the employment base of Lockheed-Martin and its multitude of subcontractors.

The critical upgrades in the current F-35 – achieved by the manufacturer and its Israeli battle-tested laboratory – have produced a combat aircraft, which is substantially superior to the original generation.

In fact, the enhanced performance of the F-35 demonstrates Israel’s role as an important source of US’ weaponry modernization, reduction of the unit cost, and expanding job creation in the US.

Similar mega-billion-dollar benefits to the US economy and defense have been generated by the hundreds of Israeli solutions and add-on, which have upgraded the performance of the technologically less-challenging F-16 (Lockheed-Martin) and F-15 (Boeing).  In fact, all US manufacturers of military systems employed by Israel have benefited in a similar manner.

Moreover, some 250 commercial US high-tech giants (e.g., John Deere, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Texas Instruments, Intel, Nvidia, General Motors, Microsoft, AT&T, IBM, Dell, Google, Facebook, Intuit, etc.) have established research and development centers in Israel, leveraging Israel’s brain power and innovative spirit, in order to sustain their global lead, yielding a consequential increase in global sales.

Similarly, the US defense and aerospace industries established their own Israeli research and development centers through the hundreds of US military systems, which are employed – and systematically improved – by the Israel Defense Forces, yielding to the US consequential benefits to its economy and defense.

US-Israel mutually-beneficial two-way-street

*In 2023, the world features an ineffective NATO (No Action Talk Only?), vacillating Europe, turbulent Arab Street, intensifying anti-US Sunni and Shite Islamic terrorism, an imperialistic Iran with a solid strategic foothold in Central and South America, and a US attempt to minimize its military presence in the Middle East. 

However, the Middle East is a major junction of world trade and energy resources – between the Mediterranean, Red Sea, Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf – the epicenter of anti-US Islamic terrorism, global drug trafficking and proliferation of ballistic and nuclear technologies, which constitutes a clear and present threat to the US national and homeland security.  

Under such circumstances, Israel is the most reliable, battle-tested and cost-effective ally, and a potential beachhead of the US in the face of mutual threats (Iran’s Shite Ayatollahs and Sunni Islamic terrorism) and in the pursuit of mutual challenges (developing game-changing commercial and defense technologies).

*As stated by the late Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, who was Chief of US Naval Operations, and General Alexander Haig, who was a Supreme Commander of NATO and a US Secretary of State, Israel is the largest US aircraft carrier, which does not require a single US military personnel on board, cannot be sunk, deployed in a most critical area of the world, and sparing the US the need to manufacture, deploy and maintain a few more real aircraft carriers along with a few ground divisions, which would have cost the US $15bn-$20bn annually.

*Israel shares with the US more intelligence than shared with the US by all NATO countries combined (e.g., counter-terrorism, rival and enemy advanced weapon systems). According to General George Keagan, who was Head of US Air Force intelligence, the scope of Israeli intelligence gained by the US is equal to the output of five CIAs (the annual budget of one CIA is almost $15bn).

*Israel’s battle experience has been shared with the US, saving American lives by serving as a basis for the formulation of US air force and ground force battle tactics, enhancing military medicine, as well as training US soldiers in urban warfare and facing car bombs, suicide bombers and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

*In view of the aforementioned data, the annual $3.8bn extended to Israel (to purchase only US military systems) does not constitute “foreign aid.” It is an annual US investment in an immensely-grateful Israel, yielding to the US an annual Return-on-Investment (R-o-I) of a few hundred percent. It is the most productive and secure US investment, underlying the mutually-beneficial US-Israel two-way-street.

Support Appreciated

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
August 15, 2023

A conclusion of an Israeli-Saudi (peace or normalization) accord requires the US State Department to demonstrate realism, by recognizing:

The inherent constraints of the inter-Arab arena;
The predominance of the Saudi – over Palestinian – interest;
The intra-Arab Palestinian track record;
The critical role of Israel’s posture of deterrence.

*Any accord will have to acknowledge the endemic features of the inter-Arab arena, which has demonstrated – since the 7^th century – violence, intolerance, endemic fragmentation (tribal, geographic, religious, cultural and ideological), local over national identity/loyalty, no peaceful-coexistence, no democracy, but despotic rulers, who ascend to – and lose – power through “the bullet” rather than the ballot. Hence, the tenuous and unpredictable nature of rulers, their policies and accords.

The tenuous nature of rulers has been attested to by “the Arab Tsunami” (gullibly named “the Arab Spring”), which has traumatized the Arab Street since 2010, as well as by the litany of violent regime-changes in Egypt (2013, 2012, 1952), Iran (1979, 1953), Iraq (2003, 1968, twice in 1963, 1958), Libya (2011, 1969), Yemen (a civil war since the 1990s, 1990, 1962), Lebanon (a multitude of civil wars and violent regime changes), etc.

The Saudi Crown Prince, Muhammed bin Salman (MBS), played a key role in orchestrating the Abraham Accords and has displayed exceptional courage and tenacity in modernizing Saudi Arabia, religiously, culturally, economically and educationally.  However, he operates in the unpredictable, tenuous inter-Arab environment, as evidenced by domestic and external threats surrounding Saudi Arabia, including a power struggle within the royal family, and the intensified tension between MBS and the puritan Wahabbi establishment in central and southwestern Saudi Arabia, which was accepted until recently as the leading authority on Islam and an essential ally of the House of Saud since 1744. 

*Saudi – not Palestinian – interests have guided MBS’ policy toward Israel, which he views as a vital ally, militarily, technologically and diplomatically, in the pursuit of his ambitious “Vision 2030.”  This vision aims at leveraging the Saudi geography and wealth, transforming the kingdom into a regional and global financial, military and diplomatic power. MBS has no illusions about the volcanic nature of the Middle East, including his assessment of the lethal threat posed by Iran’s Ayatollahs, irrespective of the resumption of diplomatic ties. He considers Israel as the most reliable ally in the face of mutual threats (e.g., Iran’s Ayatollahs and Muslim Brotherhood terrorists), especially against the backdrop of the eroded US’ posture of deterrence.

Israel’s technological capabilities are sought by MBS, in order to diversify the energy-reliant Saudi economy and expand sources of national income.

MBS is aware of Israel’s positive stature on Capitol Hill (despite the antagonistic radical wing of the Democratic Party), which possesses the power of the purse, and is co-equal and co-determining to the Executive Branch in finalizing the sale of advanced military system and the ratification of defense pacts, which are aspired by Saudi Arabia.

*The Palestinian inter-Arab track record – especially subversion and terrorism against Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait – has become a role model of inter-Arab rogue conduct, treachery and ingratitude. It has determined MBS’ attitude toward the Palestinian issue. The Crown Prince is also aware of the Palestinian intimate relationship with terror organizations in the Middle East (especially the Moslem Brotherhood), Europe, Africa and Latin America, as well as with Iran’s Ayatollahs, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and the Soviet Bloc.  

MBS realizes that a Palestinian state would add fuel to the Middle East fire, and therefore, limits his support of the Palestinians (mostly) to talk, refraining from significant walk.  He does not sacrifice Saudi interests on the Palestinian altar, and will not tolerate a Palestinian veto power over Saudi relations with Israel, which he perceives as an essential ally in the pursuit of “Vision 2030.”

*Israel’s posture of deterrence has induced MBS to seek closer ties with the Jewish State. He appreciates Israel flexing its military muscle against Iran in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and even on Iranian soil, and Israel’s war on Palestinian and Islamic terrorism.

Israel’s posture of deterrence is upgraded by its determination to fend off US pressure, when it comes to critical national security matters, such as the bombing of Iraq’s and Syria’s nuclear reactors, which spared Saudi Arabia the wrath of a nuclear Saddam Hussein and a nuclearized civil war in Syria.

On a rainy day, MBS prefers a deterring – rather than a deterred – Israel.

Israel’s posture of deterrence has been substantially upgraded since 1967, upon regaining control of the mountain ridges of the Golan Heights, Samaria and Judea (the West Bank), which constitute the cradle of Jewish history, religion and culture, as well as the minimal security requirements in the volcanic and shifty Middle East.

A retreat from the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria – which are a fixed asset of national security – in return for an accord with Saudi Arabia – which is a variable asset of national security in the violently tenuous Middle East – would transform Israel from a war and terror-deterring country and a force-multiplier for the US, to a war and terror-inducing country and a burden upon the US. It will exacerbate Middle East instability, intensify the lethal threat to the pro-US Arab regime, threaten the exportation of Middle East oil, enhance the fortunes of Iran’s Ayatollahs, anti-US Sunni terror organizations, Russia and China, while dealing a blow to vital US interests.

In fact, major waves of Palestinian terrorism erupted following dramatic Israeli gestures/concessions, such as 1993 Oslo, the 2000 withdrawal/flight from Lebanon and the 2005 “disengagement” from Gaza, not following determined Israeli action, such as the reunification of Jerusalem, the application of Israeli law to the Golan Heights, the construction of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and the destruction of Iraq’s and Syria’s nuclear reactors.

The bottom line

*Is the US State Department aware that Saudi Arabia’s policy is driven by Middle East reality and its own interests, not by Western conventional wisdom and Palestinian interests?

*Is the State Department cognizant of the fact that while Saudi Arabia would rather avoid a “Zionist infidel” sovereignty in the “abode of Islam,” it respects Israel’s history and security-driven posture of deterrence, and its willingness to defy US and global pressure?

*Is the State Department mindful of the fact that the Saudi Crown Prince is preoccupied with “Vision 2030,” aware of Israel’s potential contribution to this mega-vision, and therefore encouraged the Abraham Accords, while concluding unprecedented commercial and defense agreements with Israel?

*Is the State Department aware that Saudi frustration with the US diplomatic option toward Iran is pushing the Saudis closer to China and Russia?

Support Appreciated

(more information available here by)

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
July 26, 2023

The British “Cambridge Middle East and North Africa Forum” reported that “On January 11, 2023, Iran’s naval commander announced that before the end of 2023, Iran would station warships in the Panama Canal [which facilitates 5% of the global maritime trade].”  

According to the December 1823 Monroe Doctrine, any intervention by a foreign power in the political affairs of the American continent could be viewed as a potentially hostile act against the US. However, in November 2013, then Secretary of State John Kerry told the Organization of the American States that “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over.”

Is Iran’s dramatic and rogue re-entrenchment in Latin America underscoring the relevance/irrelevance of the Monroe Doctrine? Does it vindicate John Kerry’s assessment?

Latin America and the Ayatollahs’ anti-US strategy

*Since the February 1979 eruption of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Ayatollahs have leveraged the US diplomatic option (toward Iran’s Ayatollahs) and the accompanying mega-billion dollar benefit (to Iran’s Ayatollahs) as a major engine, bolstering their anti-US rogue policy, regionally and globally.

*The threat posed to the US by Iran’s Ayatollahs is not limited to the survival of the pro-US Arab regimes in the Middle East and the stability of Central Asia, Europe and North and West Africa. The threat extends to Latin America up to the US-Mexico border. The Ayatollahs poke the US in the eye in a most vulnerable geo-strategic area, which directly impacts the US homeland.    

*Iran’s penetration of Latin America – the backyard of the US and its soft belly – has been a top national security priority of the Ayatollahs since assuming power in February 1979. The Ayatollahs’ re-entrenchment in Latin America has been assisted by their Hezbollah proxy, driven by their 1,400-year-old mega imperialistic goal (toppling all “apostate” Sunni regimes and bringing the “infidel” West to submission), which requires overcoming the mega hurdle (“the Great American Satan”), the development of mega military capabilities (conventional, ballistic and nuclear) and the adoption of an apocalyptic state of mind.

*Iran’s penetration of Latin America has been based on the anti-U.S. agenda of most Latin American governments, which has transcended the striking ideological and religious differences between the anti-US, socialist, secular Latin American governments and the fanatic Shiite Ayatollahs. The overriding joint aim has been to erode the strategic stature of the US in its own backyard, and subsequently (as far as the Ayatollahs are concerned) in the US homeland, through a network of sleeper cells.

*Iran’s penetration of Latin America has been a hydra-like multi-faceted structure, focusing on the lawless tri-border-areas of Argentina-Paraguay-Brazil and Chile-Peru-Bolivia, as well as Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua and all other anti-US governments. It involves a growing collaboration with all regional terror organizations, the leading drug cartels of Mexico, Columbia, Brazil and Bolivia, global money launderers and every anti-US government in Latin America. Moreover, the Ayatollahs have established terror-training camps in Latin America, as well as sophisticated media facilities and cultural/proselytizing centers. They have exported to the region ballistic technologies, predator unmanned aerial vehicles and tunnel construction equipment.     

Latin America and the Ayatollahs’ anti-US tactics

*According to the Cambridge MENAF (ibid), the Brazilian navy reported that two Iranian warships have been granted permission to dock in Brazil. Experts speculate that the vessels could reach the Panama Canal as early as mid-February 2024. The presence of Iranian warships in the Panama Canal threatens not only Western security, but the safety and reliability of one of the world’s key trade routes.  

“The gradual permeation of Iranian influence across Latin America over the past 40 years is a significant phenomenon, which has paved the way for this recent strategic move by Teheran. Attention is concentrated toward Iran’s criminal and terrorist network [in Latin America] via Hezbollah operations….”

*Wikileaks cables claim that Secret US diplomatic reports alleged that Iranian engineers have visited Venezuela searching for uranium deposits…. in exchange for assistance in their own nuclear programs. The Chile-based bnAmericas reported that “Iranian experts with knowledge of the most uranium-rich areas in Venezuela are allegedly extracting the mineral under the guise of mining and tractor assembly companies…. Planes are prohibited from flying over the location of the plant…. The Iranian state-owned Impasco, which has a gold mining concession in Venezuela, is linked to Iran’s nuclear program. Its Venezuela mine is located in one of the most uranium-rich areas, which has no-fly restrictions….”     

*According to the June 2022 Iran-Venezuela 20-year-agreement (military, oil, economy), Iran received the title over one million hectares of Venezuelan land, which could be employed for the testing of advanced Iranian ballistic systems. Similar agreements were signed by Iran with Cuba, Nicaragua and Bolivia.  

*Venezuela has issued fraudulent passports, national IDs and birth certificates to Iranian officials and terrorists, avoiding international sanctions and blunting counter-terrorism measures. The Iran-Venezuela air traffic has grown significantly, although tourism activity has been marginal….

*Since the early 1980s, Iran’s Ayatollahs have leveraged the networking of Hezbollah terrorists in the very large and successful Lebanese communities in Latin America (and West Africa). Hezbollah’s narcotrafficking, money laundering, crime and terror infrastructure have yielded billions of dollars to both Hezbollah and Iran. The US Department of Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) estimates that Hezbollah earns about $2bn annually through illegal drug trafficking and weapon proliferation in the Tri Border Area of Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil, expanding ties with the most violent drug cartels in Latin America, including Mexico’s Los Zetas, Colombia’s FARC and Brazil’s PCC, impacting drug trafficking, crime and terror in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Iran has intensified its Hezbollah-assisted intelligence missions against US and Israeli targets in Latin America and beyond. Hezbollah has leveraged its stronghold, the Bekaa Valley, in Lebanon, which is one of the largest opium and hashish producing areas in the world.  

The bottom line

The track record of the Ayatollahs, including the surge of their rogue presence in Latin America, documents the self-destructive nature of the diplomatic option toward Iran – which has served as a most effective tailwind of the Ayatollahs’ anti US agenda – and the self-defeating assumptions that the Ayatollahs are amenable to good-faith negotiation, peaceful-coexistence with their Sunni Arab neighbors and the abandonment of their 1,400-year-old fanatical imperialistic vision.

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
July 19, 2023

State Department policy

*The June 2023 banning of all Israeli research and scientific entities in East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the Golan Heights from the mutually-beneficial US-Israel binational commercial research and development projects, such as BIRD, BARD and BSF, reflects the return of the State Department to the center stage of foreign policy making.

*This ban is consistent with the State Department’s systematically erroneous and counterproductive policy on critical Middle East issues, as documented by this video and this article.

For example:

*The State Department provided an essential tailwind to the Ayatollahs’ rise to power in Iran and the toppling of the Shah, who was “America’s policeman in the Gulf.” Foggy Bottom contended that the Ayatollahs would be moderate, anti-Soviet, pro-US, preoccupied with tractors and not with tanks, and refrain from the global exportation of the Islamic Revolution….

*The State Department considered Saddam Hussein as a potential ally (until the day of his 1990 invasion of Kuwait), worthy of an intelligence-sharing agreement, financial assistance, and the supply of advanced dual-use systems. It communicated to the ruthless despot that a military invasion of Kuwait would be treated as an intra-Arab matter.

*Foggy Bottom welcomed the 2010 turbulence on the Arab Street – which is still raging – as a “Facebook and youth revolution” and the “Arab Spring,” failing to realize that it has been an Arab Tsunami. 

*The State Department establishment has opposed the Abraham Accords because they bypassed the Palestinian issue, centering on Arab interests,. However, all of the State Department’s own peace initiatives have crashed on the rocks of Middle East reality, because they dwelt on the superficial assumption that the Palestinian issue was the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict, a crown jewel of Arab policy making and a core cause of regional turbulence.

*Since January 2021, the State Department has resumed its role as the chief foreign policy maker, as evidenced by the shift from unilateral policy making – based on an independent US national security action – to multilateral policy making, seeking a common denominator with the anti-US UN and international organizations, as well as with Europe, which has lost its will to flex a muscle against Iran’s Ayatollahs and Sunni Islamic terrorism.

*In July 2023, reflecting its multilateral policy, the US rejoined UNESCO, following the 2011 congressional suspension of the annual US contribution to the organization, and the 2018 US withdrawal from UNESCO for falsely disclaiming the 4,000-year-old Jewish roots in the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria – the cradle of Jewish history, religion, culture and language, as documented by a litany of archeological findings throughout the area.

In fact, the rejoining of UNESCO commits the US to transfer to UNESCO all its arrears, which amount to some $600mn.

Legal status of Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria

The State Department claims that banning Israeli research and scientific entities in Judea and Samaria from the mutually beneficial US-Israel binational commercial research and development projects is consistent with international law. The State Department claims that international law considers Judea and Samaria an “illegal occupied” area, and that the UN Security Council Resolution 242 mandates an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria.

Is it true?

*According to Prof. Eugene Rostow, a former Dean of Yale University Law School and Undersecretary of State, who co-authored the November 22, 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242: “[Under international law], Jews have the same right to settle in the West Bank as they have in Haifa…. [According to Resolution 242], Israel is required to withdraw ‘from territories,’ not from ‘the territories,’ nor from ‘all the territories,’ but from some of the territories, which included the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Desert and the Golan Heights…. Proposed resolutions calling for withdrawal from ‘all the territories’ were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly…. Israel was not to be forced back to the fragile and vulnerable 8-15-mile-wide lines… but to ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties…. In making peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai… [which amounts to] more than 90% of the territories….”

*Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, a former President of the International Court of Justice, Deputy Legal Advisor at the State Department and Prof. of International Law at Johns Hopkins University stated: “[The 1967] Israeli conquest of territory was defensive rather than aggressive… as indicated by Egypt’s prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, the blockade of the port of Eilat and the amassing of troops in Sinai… [and] Jordan-initiated hostilities against Israel…. Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank and the Old City of Jerusalem in the 1950 were unlawful…. Modification of the 1949 armistice lines [by Israel] were lawful….”

*The legal status of Judea and Samaria is embedded in the following binding internationally ratified documents:

<The November 2, 1917 Balfour Declaration, which called for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people [on both sides of the Jordan River]…. Nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine….;”

<The April 24, 1920 San Remo Peace Conference of the Allied Powers Supreme Council, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration, and carved the boundaries of over 20 countries in the Middle East;

<The July 24, 1922 Mandate for Palestine, ratified by the Council of the League of Nations, and dedicated exclusively to Jewish national rights;

<The October 24, 1945 Article 80 of the UN Charter incorporated the Mandate for Palestine, which means that Jewish rights in Palestine are legal and may not be transferred;

<The November 29, 1947 General Assembly Partition Resolution was non-binding and superseded by the Mandate for Palestine.

The bottom line

*The State Department’s determination that Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria constitutes “illegal occupation” has been based on mistaken and misleading interpretation of international law. This determination has yielded false expectations among rogue elements in the Middle East (e.g., Palestinian and Hezbollah terrorists and Iran’s rogue Ayatollahs), which has undermined the attempts to minimize regional instability and advance the cause of peaceful coexistence.

*The decision to punish Israel, by blackballing research institutions in Judea and Samaria – while courting the rogue Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood and the hate-education Palestinian Authority – is interpreted as an erosion of US’ regional stature by pro-US Arab regimes, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt. These regimes have expanded their defense and commercial cooperation with Israel irrespective of the Palestinian issue. In additon, they have also been subjected to US pressure; they oppose the US diplomatic option toward Iran’s Ayatollahs, and they are concerned about the lack of a determined US response to Iran’s aggression (which has pushed them closer to China and Russia).

Support Appreciate

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
July 13, 2023

US pressure

*The extended delay of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s invitation to the White House, the threat to reassess US-Israel relations and the ostensible White House’s concern for the future of Israeli democracy, constitute means to intensify pressure on Israel to refrain from any independent military action against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, to freeze Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and East Jerusalm (while inducing Arab construction there), to redivide Jerusalem, to retreat to the pre-1967 lines (which were defined as “Auschwitz Lines” by the late very dovish Israeli Foreign Minister, Abba Eban) and to facilitate the establishment of a Palestinian state.  

*Intensifying pressure on Israel also aims to deter Israel from sharing with the co-equal, co-determining Congress its concerns about the adverse impact of the Administration’s policy toward Iran’s Ayatollahs and the Palestinian issue on vital US interests.

*The methodical presidential pressure on Israel, which is mostly generated by the State Department, reflects Foggy Bottom’s worldview and policy, which has been systematically wrong on the Middle East. For example, it brutally opposed the establishment of the Jewish State (contending that Israel would join the Soviet Bloc….). It embraced Arafat and the PLO, Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. And, it has played a dominant role in anxiously courting the anti-US Iran’s Ayatollahs, while pressuring pro-US Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.

Israeli response to US pressure

*Israel’s Prime Minister is advised to follow in the footsteps of Israel’s Founding Fathers – from Prime Minister David Ben Gurion through Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir – who realized that defiance of US pressure is critical to Israel’s national security policy. While it triggered short term confrontations with the White House, it yielded long term US strategic respect for Israel.  In addition, these Prime Ministers recognized that the US prefers allies driven by vision and historic and national security principles, who do not sacrifice their cradle of history, religion and culture (the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria) on the altar of diplomatic and economic convenience, even when it entails defiance of US pressure.  

*In 1948/49, the US, Britain and the UN threatened Israel with severe economic and diplomatic sanctions, to coerce the newly born Jewish State to end “occupation” of areas in the Galilee, coastal plain, the Negev and West Jerusalem; and to absorb Arab refugees, who joined in the failed Arab military attempt to annihilate the newly born Jewish State. Prime Minister Ben Gurion fended off that overwhelming pressure even though Israel only had a population of 650,000 Jews with hardly any military and economic infrastructure.

*Ben Gurion’s steadfastness earned him and Israel long term strategic respect, as evidenced by James McDonald, the first US Ambassador to Israel, who wrote in his book, My Mission in Israel, 1948-1951, page 241: “The more I studied and observed the manner in which he [Ben Gurion] met the burdens placed upon him, the more convinced I became that he was one of the few great statesmen of our day…. The comparison [to Winston Churchill] did not exaggerate the Israeli Prime Minister’s natural qualities of leadership…. Small in stature [5 feet], he was big in spirit…. He had unfaltering faith in the future of Israel…. The Prime Minister had no fear….”

*Notwithstanding the systematic US pressure in 1948-2017 and 2021-2023, US-Israel strategic cooperation was enhanced dramatically during that period, due to the volcanic Middle East and its threats, which are mutual to the US and Israel (e.g., Shiite and Sunni Islamic terrorism), as well as the principle-driven pro-US conduct of Israel’s Prime Ministers and Israel’s unique technological and military capabilities. US strategic cooperation with Israel has also been a derivative of Israel’s growing contribution to the US economy and national security, which exceeds – in dollar terms – the US “foreign aid” to Israel.

*Most Israeli Prime Ministers demonstrated that historic and national security concerns superseded diplomatic convenience.  They realized the difference between short-term popularity and long-term strategic respect. The latter requires defiance of the odds and pressure.

*They recognized the fact that repelling US pressure was an integral part of US-Israel relations, which attested to Israel’s effectiveness and reliability as a strategic partner.

*They knew that there are no free lunches; that a failure to fend off the State Department’s pressure would yield more pressure, coupled with eroded strategic respect and reduced posture of deterrence, which would embolden enemies. 

*These Israeli Prime Ministers were aware that simultaneously with pressure by the Executive, Israel has enjoyed – since 1948 – the support of most of the US constituency, and therefore most of the co-equal and co-determining US Legislature. They concluded that succumbing to pressure would injure Israel’s stature among its allies on Capitol Hill and the US population.

Milestones of US pressure

*During 1948-1955, Ben Gurion declared independence in defiance of brutal pressure by the State Department, the Pentagon, the CIA, the New York Times and the Washington Post, and rebuffed US and global pressure to withdraw to the suicidal 1947 lines of the “Partition Plan.”

*During 1967-1974, the Labor Prime Ministers Levi Eshkol and Golda Meir repulsed US pressure to desist from construction of Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, the Jordan Valley, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem.

*In 1981, Begin ordered the bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor and applied Israeli law to the Golan Heights in defiance of ferocious US pressure, followed by a suspension of delivery of critical military systems and joint defense agreements.

*In 1982, Begin forthrightly rejected the “Reagan Plan,” which stipulated Israel’s withdrawal to the pre-1967 ceasefire lines.

*During 1983-1992, irrespective of the outrageous smear campaign conducted by the State Department, Shamir expanded the construction of Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria in defiance of the State Department and the White House.

Shamir was not liked, but he was highly respected by most of his US critics.

The bottom line

*The aforementioned documented facts illustrate that defiance of pressure has enhanced Israel’s posture of deterrence, and has therefore minimized regional instability, reducing the prospects of war, advancing US interests and bolstering US strategic appreciation of Israel.

*Regardless of the systematic State Department pressure, the US is well-aware that on a rainy day it can rely on the performance of Israel – its principle-driven, backboned ally, which refuses to sacrifice long-term historic and national security assets on the altar of short-term diplomatic and economic convenience.

Support Appreciate

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
July 5, 2023

According to the late Prof. John Galbraith, the enemy of conventional wisdom is not ideas but the march of facts, which may expose conventional wisdom as useless or dangerous.  Prof. Galbraith also suggests that conventional wisdom does not accommodate itself to the real world, but to a certain view of the world.

Indeed, the march of Middle East facts has exposed the alarming flaws of the Palestinian-oriented Western conventional wisdom, which has attempted to reshape Middle East reality in accordance with its own worldview.

For example:

*Since 1948, contrary to Western conventional wisdom, Arab countries have never flexed their military (and barely their financial and diplomatic) muscle on behalf of the Palestinian cause, as evidenced by the July 2023 war/battle between Israel and Palestinian terrorism, the previous 2021, 2014, 2012 and 2008 wars against Gaza Palestinian terrorism, as well as the 2^nd (2000-2005) and 1^st (1987-93) Intifada and the (1982) war against the PLO in Lebanon.

*Since 1948, Middle East reality has demonstrated that in contradiction of Western conventional wisdom, Arab national interests transcend – and often conflict with – the Palestinian issue. Therefore, no Arab-Israel war (1948/49, 1956, 1967 and 1973) erupted due to – or on behalf of – the Palestinian issue. Moreover, the six Israel-Arab peace accords with Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan were concluded because they bypassed the Palestinian issue, eliminating the Palestinian veto power, which has been enshrined by Western conventional wisdom, torpedoing all Western peace proposals.

*Moreover, no Israel-Arab peace treaty has been suspended due to Israel’s wars/battles against Palestinian terrorism. Arabs concluded peace with Israel, in order to advance their own interests, and do not sacrifice these interests on the altar of Palestinian interests.

*In contrast to Western conventional wisdom, Saudi Arabia and the six Arab partners to peace treaties with Israel are aware that the Palestinian issue is neither the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict, nor a crown-jewel of Arab policy making, nor a core cause of Middle East turbulence. 

*Similarly, the central role played by Saudi Arabia in the conclusion of Israel’s peace treaties with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, along with the substantial expansion of Israel-Saudi Arabia defense and commercial cooperation has proceeded irrespective of fierce Palestinian opposition.  

*In fact, the relatively-moderate pro-US Arab regimes do not subscribe to the philo-Palestinian Western conventional wisdom. They have demonstrated indifference and/or opposition to the idea of a Palestinian state.

*While Western conventional wisdom is based heavily on the pro-Palestinian Arab talk, Middle East reality is shaped by the Arab walk, which has been forged in response to the intra-Arab Palestinian rogue track record.  Hence, the critical/hostile Arab policy toward the Palestinians. Arabs are aware of the Middle East rule: one does not pay custom on words.

*Unlike the Western conventional wisdom, the Arabs – and especially Saudi Arabia and the other Arab Gulf states – base their Palestinian policy on the Palestinian intra-Arab track record, which has transformed Palestinians into a role model of intra-Arab subversion, terrorism, ingratitude and treachery (e.g., the collaboration with Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, which was their most generous Arab host; the 1970-1982 plunder of Lebanon; the 1970 civil war in Jordan; the 1960s and 1950s terrorism in Syria and Egypt). They have experienced the Palestinian tendency to brutally bite the hand that feeds them.  They are also aware of the Palestinian strategic ties with Islamic, Latin American, African, Asian and European terror/rogue entities, including the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran’s Ayatollahs, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba, as well as the Palestinian collaboration with Nazi Germany (Mein Kampf is a popular book in the Palestinian Authority) and the Soviet Bloc.

*Contrasting Western conventional wisdom, the relatively-moderate pro-US Arab regimes are convinced that the proposed Palestinian state cannot be different than the Palestinian rogue track record,adding fuel to the 1,400-year-old Middle East fire and yielding a tailwind to rogue elements.  

*The US economy, national and homeland security would be severely undermined by a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, which would induce the toppling of the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River, transforming Jordan into a chaotic state like Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, serving as another epicenter of anti-US regional and global Islamic terrorism. Such an uncontrollable entity would be leveraged by Iran’s Ayatollahs and Muslim Brotherhood terrorists, triggering a ripple effect into the Arabian Peninsula. It would threaten every pro-US, oil-producing Arab regime, jeopardizing the supply of Persian Gulf oil (48% of the proven world reserves) and the state of global trade, increasing the price at the pump in the US, advancing the stature of Iran’s Ayatollahs, China and Russia, and causing a major setback to the US economy, national and homeland security.  

*While Western conventional wisdom professes that Palestinian terrorism is driven by despair, reality attests that it is driven by the hope to uproot the “infidel” Jewish State. This is documented by the Palestinian hate-education, which is the most authentic reflection of the Palestinian vision, and the most effective production line of terrorists, bolstered by the idolization of terrorists via public monuments and buildings, and extending monthly allowances to families of terrorists. The Palestinian vision is codified by the 1964 charter of the PLO, which supersedes the Palestinian Authority, as well as the PLO’s June 1974 Phased Plan.  These pivotal documents reveal that the Palestinians are not preoccupied with the size – but with the demise – of Israel.  

*The terroristic nature of the Palestinian leadership is also gleaned through its attitude toward Christians. Since its 1993 establishment, Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority has induced – through repression and discrimination – a Christian exodus from Bethlehem, demoting Christians to the status of Dhimmi, a tolerated second-class people. The city of Bethlehem was transformed from a Christian majority to a tiny 12% Christian minority.

In conclusion

*Will US policy makers adhere to the advice by Dr. Albert Ellis – who was one the world’s leading psychologists: “The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior”?!

*Do US policy makers – who extend a red-carpet reception to Palestinian leaders – realize the reason for the shabby doormat awaiting Palestinian leaders in most Arab capitals?!

*The proposed Palestinian state, on the one hand, and US values and national security and peaceful coexistence, on the other hand, constitutes a classic oxymoron.

Support Appreciated