postR176

Make Common Sense Great Again: On Moving Away from Nuance

by with No Comment Featured HighlightsRisk ManagementWorld

Make Common Sense Great Again: On Moving Away from Nuance

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 23rd of July 2024 via The Angry Demagogue.

Has there been a total breakdown of readiness in the West? When we look at seemingly unrelated events we see that people in responsible positions in governments around the Western world have missed signs that are obvious – and not only after the fact. The attempted Trump assassination just got me thinking how no one seems to react to the obvious anymore. It seems that both the local police and the Secret Service knew that this young man was on a roof with a rifle and no one took the most elementary actions of delaying Trump’s appearance or trying to stop the shooter or even ascertain his motives all of which was obvious to everyone else. We are not talking about someone missing a shot at him or even forgetting to check a specific place, but an active decision was made – to do nothing.

postR176

On October 6 and 7 the IDF Chief of Staff and his senior advisors on the General Staff heard of possible Hamas plans to attack, knew of previous intelligence that detailed the exact attack that happened and even refused a request of the head of the Southern Command to move 4 helicopters closer to Gaza. Instead of doing even the minimum, they just did nothing. They ignored the obvious and ruled purposely against common sense and in favor of their own preconceived notions.

As Russia was massing troops on the border and as Putin’s talk was becoming more and more belligerent the US administration did nothing that might have at least hinted to Putin that this could only lead to disaster. Putting US troops on a higher alert, inviting the Ukrainian ambassador to the White House as a show of support – anything really, might have given Putin food for thought. As Iran moves closer and closer to attaining a nuclear weapon and taking control of the middle east, the West just does nothing. Destroying Houthi assets (as the Israelis have just done), sending B52’s into the sky for training missions to destroy Islamic Republic assets – all that might have made the Iranian rulers wonder what was in store for them and limiting the war to Gaza. But again, against common sense, nothing was done because …. Wishful thinking.

If those responsible were acting like boys in the school playground (are boys still allowed to play in the playground?) they would have done more than they did in all these cases. 

Since the end of the Cold War we have seen the abandonment of common sense in favor of sophisticated analyses where nuance trumps simplicity and bias dominates the analysis of data and where cliches overtake serious policy. In classical Jewish biblical exegesis, there is one rule which nearly all (non-mystical) commentators hold and that is that the exegesis cannot contradict the simple meaning of the words of the Bible.  True enough, that is stretched to points of wonder sometimes – but they still cling to the rule. 

Common sense is underrated in policy analysis and often in business, but those who ignore it now will be challenged later. Common sense means the acceptance of what people say and looking at data without bias. Common sense means that you have to understand the person you are talking to and don’t assume they think like you. 

Back in my university days I read a lot of Hannah Arendt, who, in spite of the banality of her banality of evil theory had a lot to say. In her book “The Human Condition” she speaks of common sense – or as she often puts it “the sense of the common”.

I would like to quote her here, even though I tend to think she would not have thought that it was the rulers, the policy makers and the writers who are ignoring common sense:

“The only character of the world by which to gauge its reality is its being common to us all, and common sense occupies such a high rank in the hierarchy of political qualities because it is the one sense that fits into reality as a whole our five strictly individual senses and the strictly particular data they perceive.  It is by virtue of common sense that the other sense perceptions are known to disclose reality …. A noticeable decrease in common sense in any given community and a noticeable increase in superstition and gullibility are therefore almost infallible signs of alienation from the world.”

Arendt of course assumed that the lower or working classes were susceptible to superstition and gullibility but in these times it is the ruling classes that have abandoned common sense in favor of superstition and gullibility. It is they who are alienated from the world. Preconceived notions that contradict the plain meaning of the world is today’s superstition – and it is no less dangerous and irrational than the superstitions of times past.

Let’s take a brief look at these policy decisions by nearly all western countries, regardless of their geographical location or economic outlooks, their demographic trends or the overall culture of their people and their neighbors resulting directly or indirectly of the perilous situation the free world is now in.

Defense Spending and Force Size

The post-cold war “peace dividend” became an idol of western policy makers.  Massive cuts in defense spending even in things that were very necessary to the maintenance of said “peace dividend” – like naval power – was the preferred way of dealing with the end of the Soviet Union. The “End of History” was read simplistically instead of realizing that other ideologies and other powers might very soon challenge the victorious west. Some thinkers, I think of a professor of mine (Elie Krakowski) who back in 1979-80, before the collapse of the Soviet Union, spoke of Islam as the third force which will challenge the West and the East. I studied in a small university and if we were discussing it back then how are policy makers in Washington, London, Tel Aviv and Paris not speaking of it today?

While Edward Said’s “Orientalism” was the talk of the town, Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami were, despite their posts at Princeton and Johns Hopkins, not taken seriously enough. If they were, the US Navy would not have gone from 594 ships in 1987 to 275 in 2016. The British Navy  went from about 170 ships in 1970 to well under 50 in 2017. The rest of Western Europe we all know about. But at least countries like Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark don’t face hostile neighbors and were never meant to have forces that would do more than assist in minor operations.

Israel on the other hand has always faced neighbors who have desired to destroy it.  Even the countries with which it signed peace treaters, Jordan and Egypt, have never been able to translate these treaties into popular support and are always a coup away from belligerence. The history of dictatorships in general and of the Middle East in particular ought to have given the Israeli high command at least a hint as to what they might be facing. With the advent of Iran as a major regional power with the means and desire to spread its theo-revolutionary ideology, Israel ought to have realized that the era of wars was not over. Yet, since 2000 Israel has cut 6 divisions and decommissioned 2,000 tanks from its forces. It has cut military service for men from 36 to 32 months, even as it has not increased the mandatory service for woman from 24 months even though it has increased the amount of women in combat and combat support roles. The ultra-orthodox still don’t serve (they are about 16% of the draft class) zero even after October 7 and the number of youth who have received exemptions due to “psychological” reasons has skyrocketed to nearly 13% of the draft class. I don’t mean to belittle those with true psychological issues but rather the high numbers signify that many if not most are of a class that allows them to afford to pay psychologists for convenient diagnoses.

In other words – the IDF, the Finance Ministry and the political class all found it convenient to reduce the size of the army – both manpower and equipment – and used the excuse that there will be no more ground wars to justify the move.

The Ukraine conflict revealed to the world that US arms production of even the most basic arms is not enough for the US itself to maintain minimal levels during wartime.   The current Middle East conflict has magnified this disaster.

Common sense readiness has been ignored throughout the Western world due to sophisticated thinking more wishful than realistic. This is nothing less than a messianic and superstitious belief in the end of wars.

Immigration and Assimilation

If there is one issue that common sense has missed it is immigration. The reactions of average citizens to unlimited immigration in Western democratic countries has been uniform – NO! In some countries the yelling is louder but in all western countries there is significant opposition, on common sense grounds often, to the establishment immigration policies.

I am an immigrant to Israel and my grandparents were immigrants to the United States. Immigration, the movement of peoples from place to place has been going on since people left Africa – and before. But there is no separating immigration from assimilation unless your immigration is due to imperialism and conquest.  The Romans, Greeks, Chinese and Persians of ancient times, the Arabs of late antiquity were all imperialists. There was of course the age of imperialism that ended in WWI. But 21st century immigration is not of national conquest but of individual movement of people and families. One by definition must adapt to the local cultures – in the widest sense of the word. If a cotton farmer from Arizona wants to move to Iowa, he better adapt to the climate and figure out how to grow wheat or soybeans instead of cotton. If an aristocrat from England decides to move to the United States, he needs to know that his family heritage and titles won’t get him much. If a Spanish or Chinese speaker moves to Germany, the expectation is that he will learn to speak German.

An immigrant who does not respect the local culture in all its manifestations needs to get permission in order to stay in the new country. That is the way of the nation-state that has protected freedom in the western world so well (if not always so well). We can’t compare the 21st century to the pre-WWI world where borders were porous and people that survived the trip across a continent or an ocean could settle in that new land. Some more successfully than others. 

Common sense dictates that an immigrant that does not respect the laws of his new home has no right to live there. Yet, time and again, immigration policy has been separated from the law and being law abiding has no bearing on future citizenship.  Therefore, there is no demand from the immigrant and no opportunity for the immigrant to assimilate and be part of the social fabric of his new country. That being said, the mass Islamic immigration into Europe could be said to be imperialistic as the leaders of these communities have discouraged any type of rapprochement with Western values and law. That, along with the demographic collapse of indigenous Europe has put Europe on the brink of either a civil war or a peaceful surrender to Islamic imperial forces.  

Free Trade and Social Peace

There is no doubting that free trade brings prosperity and that economic growth better than any other global trading system. Free trade  is also the best way to lift the global poor out of poverty. The U.S constitution understood the importance of free trade, as states were prohibited from starting trade wars with each other.   This has also been the “good” in the E.U and has produced much prosperity in that Union.

Yet, free trade with allies needs to be differentiated between free trade with enemies  – meaning those that oppose our system. Free trade that allows your enemies to defeat you militarily is not free trade but suicide. So too, trade policies need to have social issues taken into consideration. This is not a call for tariffs or against free trade pacts, especially with neighbors, but rather they need to be adjusted with common sense solutions to employment and other problems that will arise from any economic change. 

Social peace is the second half of this section because, besides immigration, the erosion, not to say destruction of physically intensive jobs can and often does lead to social violence for reasons obvious to those with common sense.

Energy and Food Supply

For the most part, you would think that after national defense, it is a government’s first responsibility to its citizens to guarantee the food and energy supply of its citizens. Before we get to luxury and access to travel, the ready supply of food and energy seems to be the minimum that a government ought to do. And yet, when we speak of issues related to climate change (and lets not get into the “is it or isn’t it real” argument) the solutions first mandated to the problem have to do with limiting both of these items without which we cannot live. In California, farmer’s access to water is limited even after the drought due to concerns about some fish and climate, and in the Netherlands they want to pay farmers to stop producing food so that the Earth will not suffer. 

What is the plan here? Regarding energy supply, one would think that shoring up access to alternative energy would take priority over banning current ways of producing energy. In California, they have been having rolling blackouts in the summer for years and they are looking to ban gas stoves and ovens and gasoline powered cars. Private jets and yachts though are off limits for obvious reasons. What is the plan there? Is there any real preparation?

As for food supply, is the  plan to reduce population or to reduce calory intake? To what levels? Is there an expectation that people will starve themselves to “save the planet”? Again – I am not arguing for or against human causes of climate change but rather, for the common sense understanding that securing the world’s food supply takes priority over closing farms or turning them into organic utopias.

A perfect example is Sri Lanka where those in power bought into the organic farming ideology of Western aristocrats and they ended all non-organic farming causing a famine and a depression. People who worked hard their whole lives lost all their savings as they were unwilling participants in a cruel experiment to see if organic farming can feed a small island nation.  

In sum – a bit less nuance and a bit more common sense – a bit more sensing what is “common to us all” would be welcome in political and policy matters. Maybe if we pursued more common sense policies and a lot less superstition and bias there would be less yelling and screaming in the public square. 

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/ 

postN96

Is Israel a Fragile Country? Can it Move Towards Anti-Fragility?

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentBooksFeatured Highlights

Is Israel a Fragile Country? Can it Move Towards Anti-Fragility?

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author.

One of the great books of the last decade is Nassim Taleb’s “Anti-Fragile”. 

I read it years ago and bought one for each of my (grown) children and suggested they read it and think about it when making decisions. I said at the time that this should be required reading for all IDF officers. In a nutshell, Taleb differentiates between fragile, non-fragile and anti-fragile. Glass is the classic fragile substance and concrete the classic non-fragile. Both can be destroyed with correct instruments and non-fragile items will slowly decay when things like water infect them.  

postN96

Anti-fragile items on the other hand, gain strength from chaos. The more an anti-fragile substance gets hit, the stronger it gets. Nature for Taleb is the classic anti-fragile system. Nature “knows” how to respond to any disturbance, and it “learns” how to adapt and survive. This adaption and survival might hurt parts of the natural world – but nature as a system will survive and be stronger – think of natural immunity from a virus. 

Another of the ideas in Taleb’s book is “optionality” – decisions in life are often like buying options. When buying an option, you want a high upside and a low downside.   A simple non-financial example is crossing a street. If you see a car 50 yards away and are pretty sure you can make it across the street without getting hit – you can take that “pretty sure” chance and save yourself the 10 seconds it takes for the car to pass, or you can wait the 10 seconds. The upside here is saving 10 seconds. The downside is getting hit by the car. The decision is pretty obvious for those who think of optionality.

In short – Taleb is a serious man and a serious thinker. Born in Lebanon in 1960 he is a polymath, making his name in trading and finance, and his previous book “The Black Swan”.

In any event, in a recent interview with the French newspaper L’Orient Le-Jour he called Israel a fragile country due to its dependence on the United States and said that top-down peace agreements, like that between Israel and Egypt, or the Abraham accords are doomed to fail (I don’t read French and read a summary of the interview in the Hebrew language Globes financial newspaper – the original is here – if you read French and I got it wrong, please let me know).

Is Israel a fragile country? And if so, is it more fragile than other small free countries? And finally, how can it move on the road to anti-fragility? And are fragile peace agreements worthless?

Taleb’s claim that Israel is fragile due to its dependence on the US is true in an of itself. Changes in U.S foreign policy either via elections or changes in US interests have in the past put Israel in difficult situations. When Prime Minister Yitzchak Shamir requested U.S loan guarantees from then President Bush (1) in order to fund the absorption of masses of emigrants from the falling Soviet Union he was turned down until Israel halted settlement activity in the West Bank and attended the (failed) Madrid peace conference. Today, it is very clear that if the US would decide to halt arms shipments to Israel or to stop supporting it in the Security Council, the country would be put in a situation many believe would be existential.

A big issue in Israel at the moment has to do not only with Israel’s dependence on the US for military hardware but in the relationship of its top generals with the Pentagon. There is a claim that much of the “globalized” attitudes of Israeli generals comes from the influence of the politically correct elite in the US Defense Department. It reached a point where, just a few weeks before the current war broke out, the general in charge of military intelligence stated that he fears that global warming is a greater threat to Israel than Hamas. Whatever one’s views on global warming or climate change it does seem odd that the one Israeli in charge of making life and death intelligence assessments has the time to worry about those issues to such an extent that he feels it is his job – as intelligence chief – to warn Israel about it. Further, the October 7 attack itself showed the fragility of the defense strategy of Israel’s top generals and politicians. It had a conception of Hamas and other enemies and had no allowance for its being wrong. 

However, the initial response of Israel’s soldiers and officers, without the centralized support of the General Staff, show how many of Israel’s combat soldiers are “anti-fragile”. Israel’s people can also be said to be anti-fragile in Taleb’s definition of it where chaos or tragedy make one stronger. Over the 48 hours after October 7 Israel already had 350,000 reservists mobilized who were all motivated to fight for their country. That is no mean feat – for the most part these reservists went to their units before being called up or called their commanders demanding to be called up. Many thousands returned from abroad at their own expense in order to join their units and fight. In contrast – Ukraine had to forbid all men under 50 from leaving the country.   In Israel, a divided, shocked and demoralized people became a strong fighting force with the home-front in total support, within hours.

Military tactics are another area where Israel is anti-fragile. Due to the utter failure of military intelligence and the lack of central control over the first hours of the war that Saturday morning, the junior and mid-level officers and soldiers took command and figured out on their own how to face down the thousands of terrorists who took over towns and villages as well as military bases. Instead of waiting for orders and making sure everything was organized for attack, a delay which would have cost many more civilian lives, Israel’s soldiers improvised with what they had and took back the territory under very difficult circumstances. Many soldiers lost their lives through many acts of bravery but the decisions they made on the spot made them, the army and the country stronger.

The same can be said in the fighting now in Gaza. Israeli intelligence understood that there were tunnels, but it seems that they didn’t know the extent of the network and therefore had no good tactics to defeat it. It was the need to penetrate them without causing casualties to soldiers as well as the potential of hostages in the tunnels, that caused them to developed tactics to deal with it. We won’t know for sure how well it has or will work, since this is now classified information, but this could be an area of anti-fragility.

But this does not disprove Taleb’s point since Israel is clearly has a “single point of failure” and that is the U.S Government. However, nearly all free countries in the world have that single point of failure and have had it since the start of the atomic age.   One of Konrad Adenauer’s great fears in developing West Germany’s defense policy was that, when push came to shove, there would be no US nuclear umbrella. He was not convinced that the US would risk its own cities in defense of Europe in general and West Germany in particular. That is why he supported France’s independent nuclear deterrent and why he and De Gaulle were so close. The U.K too, when deciding on its Trident nuclear submarines had the same doubts. 

Today, we can say the same about the Baltic countries. They are part of NATO now, but, like the rest of NATO are totally dependent upon the United States military to keep the Russians at bay. The rest of Europe is dependent upon the U.S but they are no longer front line states so it is less important. Newly NATO-ized Finland is probably closer to Israel in its combination of fragility and anti-fragility.

Taiwan too, is fragile in this sense and so are the weaker Indo-Pacific nations like Philippines and Singapore. It would be difficult to find a non-Axis free or semi-free country that is not dependent upon the U.S to defend its freedom – either with sailors and soldiers or with arms, money and diplomacy.  

But the question Taleb poses, or the claim he makes, deals with Israel. Israel is clearly partly fragile – but is it too fragile currently that it can’t survive without the US? Or can Israel do anything to make it, if not more anti-fragile, at least more non-fragile? We have to separate out Israel’s fragility due to its dependence on the U.S and the free world’s fragility due to the same dependence. The Pax Americana that free (and non-free) countries have enjoyed since the end of WWII has probably contributed more to freedom, economic growth and a reduction of poverty in the world than any other force in human history. The question for all free countries then is how to make them less dependent upon the U.S if they want to remain strong and free -and less fragile.  

That is as true for Israel as it is for Latvia, Finland, Australia and Japan. 

But we will only look at solutions for Israel and leave the general question for a later time.

Israel receives from the US $3.8 billion in military aide, all of which must be spent in the United States. The annual aide started in 1999 and was $2.67 billion. Israel’s GDP in 1999 was $120.92 billion – meaning the aide constituted 4.5% of Israel’s GDP.  In 2022 Israel’s GDP stood at $525 billion so its $3.8 billion in aide was just 0.7% of GDP. Israel’s 2022 defense budget was $23.4 billion – 4.45% of GDP.

Giving up the entire U.S aide is certainly do-able from an economic perspective and there have been economists in Israel who claim that the aide actually hurts the Israeli economy since all the money must be spent in the U.S. One result of this has been the demise of Israel’s textile industry since the IDF no longer purchases uniforms from Israeli companies (one has to wonder that, since clothes bought in the U.S are rarely made in the U.S, if Israel is buying uniforms made in Bangladesh but sold via U.S middlemen). Giving up the aide would be one step towards a less fragile existence for a number of reasons.

The first would be, in my opinion, to cement the U.S public’s support for Israel. Giving up U.S taxpayer aide during a time of fiscal uncertainty would certainly be looked upon positively, in spite of the fact that all the aide gets recycled into the U.S economy (there has been some money that Israel has been allowed to spend on R&D in Israel). Israel is not the same country it was in 1999 and its economy is robust and probably more anti-fragile than most other western economies.

A second positive would be in allowing Israel to spread out its arms purchases. It could buy small arms from India, artillery from South Korea, etc. It could also rejuvenate local Israeli arms manufacturing. There is no doubt that all the large ticket items like fighter jets and smart bombs will still be purchased in the U.S and there is no doubt the U.S arms industry will continue its good relations with Israel – and in fact might be made more competitive since the IDF will be free to chose from amongst many providers for various weapons systems. 

Another move that Israel can make that would decrease its fragility would be to make sure it always has a 12 month supply of weapons and spare parts in order to fight a three front land war and a 5 front air war. It would have to beef up its navy and ground forces without hurting its crown jewel – the Air Force. This would make it less dependent upon the importation of arms in case of war.

An area where it will be difficult to be less fragile is the diplomatic arena as woke-ness takes over the western narrative about the world and many of the less and non free countries can’t manage to fight off Arab money and propaganda. India could be a country that could help diplomatically as they are large and powerful enough to ignore much of the pressure from the Arab and western-woke world. The problem is that the Security Council still holds sway in the world and India is not a permanent member with a veto. Of course they should replace the U.K and probably France but that won’t happen as long as India doesn’t have a reliable, permanent left-wing majority – which it won’t have for some time.

The only other major country that could help diplomatically would be Japan – but they have historically not been friendly to Israel and only in the current war have they backed it fully. They are certainly sympathetic to Israel’s plight as they figure out how to face a hegemonic China.

But under the current global situation, Israel relies on the U.S for diplomatic cover making it fragile, diplomatically. That won’t change for some time.

Economically, Israel is probably more anti-fragile than most other countries in the world. This is true for two reasons. First, Israel has a strong domestic market including a very productive real estate market. It has an agricultural center that produces enough for export and of course world class hi-tech and bio-tech industries. Most important – it has children. It is the only western country that has a high birthrate and that is something that has been underestimated in the west. Israel’s fertility rate – births per woman – stands at 2.9. The next highest western country is France at 1.8.  Replacement rate is 2.1.  Search out Nicholas Eberstadt for all the details.

Regarding the top-down peace agreements, Taleb himself understands for sure that the non-democratic top-down nature of most Arab countries makes this less important than in western-free countries. However, he does have a point here. Regarding Egypt, from the beginning the people – or more accurately, the professional and intellectual classes, have been opposed to Sadat’s peace. However, in spite of that, the peace has held for 45 years, which is quite a long time. I remember as a child reading the Biblical Book of Judges where the Israelites would sin, to be saved by a Judge who would rule and keep the country “quiet” for 40 years. At the time I thought – what is the big deal of 40 years of peace? As I grew (much) older I realized that 40 years of peace would be an incredible feat. So, 45 years of non-war between Israel and Egypt is quite a success. Will this continue for another 45 years? I think that if Israel remains strong, it will. 

Regarding the Abraham accords, the jury is still out. We will have to see where it all progresses. This war has certainly shown that even mass violence has not caused violent reactions from the Abraham accord countries. The one peace agreement most fragile and more worrisome though is the one with Jordan. The Hashemites are first and foremost survivors and if survival means breaking the agreement, they will do it in a second.

http://angrymetatraders.com

In summary, Israel’s dependence on the US is crucial for its survival and that in itself makes it fragile. However, there are things Israel can do to make it less fragile and the will and determination of its people make it, in many senses anti-fragile in Taleb’s description (invention?) of that term. Compared to other small, free countries though, all of whom depend on the US for at least part of its defense, it is difficult to say that Israel is worse off – except that, besides the Baltic countries, its neighbors are worse and more dangerous.

In the coming days we will examine a more radical solution to the “fragility” problem of Israel and other free countries.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/

postN19

Preventing WWIII: Part 2 – Reviving Western Deterrence

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentFeatured HighlightsRisk Analysis

Preventing WWIII: Part 2 - Reviving Western Deterrence

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author.

Aggressive Western Action Can over-extend China and Revive Needed Deterrence.

Some cliches are just correct, in spite of their being cliches – “if you want peace, prepare for war” is one. But really it should be “if you want to avoid war, deter war”.

Therefore, it is not clear to me why there is opposition by some in the Republican party to fighting Russian aggression in Ukraine. For some, I guess it is a knee jerk reaction against Biden administration policy while for others it seems to be a general loathing of American involvement in the world. 

postN19

Each is understandable on its own but does not take into effect the appeasement of Russia will have on Western deterrence around the world – including in the Western hemisphere and the Indo-Pacific. While most Americans understand that Russian control of Ukraine threatens the main Western European countries, the key to Russian imperialism really is in the south. Historically, Russia has always tried to find a warm water port to call its own. For nearly four centuries Czarist Russia fought Ottoman Turkey so that Russia could expand its territory southward and have a warm water presence in the Mediterranean. Currently, a Ukrainian presence in the Black Sea denies Russia even the opportunity to pressure modern Turkey to abide its wishes.

A Russian victory in Ukraine would mean dominance of the Black Sea by the Russian Navy and directly challenge Turkey to appease Russian power by giving them free passage through the Dardanelles to the Mediterranean. That in itself would not be worth much to the Russians without a port in the Mediterranean, which they currently have. That they have one goes back to the disastrous decision by the Obama administration to invite Russia back into the Mideast in order to take care of Syrian chemical weapons. This came, we all remember, when the Syrians laughed at Obama and crossed his “red line” about using chemical weapons against its own people. We might also remember when then Secretary of State John Kerry (the one who was never right on a single foreign policy issue ever) who, first demanded that Syria turn over all chemical weapons in a week, then reassured them that even if we attack it will be “unbelievably small”.

In 1973-4, Henry Kissinger brilliantly took advantage of the Israeli-Arab War’s outcome with Israel’s surrounding the Egyptian 3rd Army in the south and controlling the road to Damascus in the north, by brokering a cease fire on both fronts. This led directly to the expulsion of Russia/Soviet Union from the Middle East. While Russia continued friendly ties with the murderous Assad family – first Hafez and then his son, Bashar, they did not have a military, air or naval presence there. Due to this longstanding relationship with Assad’s Syria, Obama and Kerry thought it a brilliant idea to have them come in and do the dirty work that they didn’t want to do – prevent Assad from gassing his own people. 

As Russia came in and established air and sea bases in Syria and introduced the infamous Wagner group to carry out its brutal ground operations, Russia slowly started to strengthen its position in the region. While slyly allowing Israel to attack Iranian arms shipments meant for Hezbollah while pretending to be its ally, Russia formed a close  relationship with Iran. Wagner, which fought hand in hand with Hezbollah in order to prop up the Assad regime (and attack American forces fighting ISIS) is now rumored to be training Hezbollah in the use of Russian anti-aircraft systems. 

In addition, reports last week that an Iranian Ilyushin 76 cargo jet has now landed in one of the Russian air-bases they established after Obama’s kind invitation to return to the Mideast. This plane, filled with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah has been unable to land in regular Syrian airports or bases because Israel continuously puts them out of service. Knowing that Israel would never attack a Russian base – this is a safe haven that Russia gladly supplies. 

When free countries unite in warfare there is usually one joint goal  – that they are all united to defend freedom – that is why they fight together.  While autocratic and totalitarian regimes fight together it is usually a combination of a negative goal – disturbing or destroying the current world or regional order – as well as the goal for each power in itself. Currently, the joint goal in the Mideast (of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) is to hurt the main ally of the US in the region – Israel, in order to weaken and embarrass the US. For Iranians, they also want Israel destroyed. For Russia, they want Israel weakened so they can replace the US as the power broker in the Mideast. For China, it is to dismantle America’s control of the flow of oil and, eventually, the replacement of the USD in the global economy with the Yuan.

Ukraine is important in this calculus because, as we said above it gives Russia complete control of the Black Sea and will pressure Turkey – whose NATO membership is uses only to its own advantage – to break permanently with the West. While the Chinese theory is that the two fronts the US is supplying arms to, Ukraine and the Mideast, are tying it down and expending its resources it would otherwise use in the Pacific, in truth, an aggressive strategy on both fronts would be to over-extend Russian and Chinese resources in order to keep China from moving on Tiawan. A credible threat of destruction or even marginalization of the Axis allies in the Mideast – including (besides the soon to be gone Hamas) Hezbollah, Shiite-Iranian proxies in Iraq and Syria, as well as Iran itself combined with a major offensive in Ukraine will tie down Axis resources and possibly prevent a Chinese blockade or attack on Taiwan.   If its two main allies need full supply and full readiness to be able to respond to credible and massive attacks by Ukraine, Israel and the US, China itself might have to expend resources to prop up its own allies. 

Add to that a major show of naval force in the Indo-Pacific by Japan, India, Australia and South Korea combined with US forces will give China the choice of destroying their own wavering economy by attacking or blockading Taiwan or in maintaining peaceful Pacific trade routes while trying to prevent the collapse of its Axis allies. 

An immediate and radical change in policy can restore Western deterrence quickly.   Re-arming Ukraine and leaving Israel to do its job without pressure to stop in Gaza and to respond forcefully in Lebanon will send a strong message. Biden brought two carrier groups to the Mideast and told Hezbollah, “don’t”. But they did.  

In spite  of that  US Secretary of Defense Austin told Israel that its response to Hezbollah aggression in the north is “provoking” them.  

And the US hesitates even against Iranian proxies. Just now, the NY Times has reported that Biden-Blinken have turned down a Pentagon plan to be more aggressive in response to Iranian attacks against US forces in Syria and Iraq for fear of “provoking Iran” (this seems to tell us that the Austin complaint from Austin to Israel is really from Blinken).  

Iran never seems to fear provoking the US.   

Israel fooled itself by thinking Hamas was deterred by its destruction of an arms factory or two (as the US is doing now in Iraq/Syria) when proper deterrence would have meant them knowing we can and will go into Gaza and destroy their underground city as Israel is doing now. Instead, media fear mongers, backed by Israeli ex-Generals on the payroll of the US progressive left (via cushy think-thank jobs) combined with policy directives by successive governments have told us and Hamas time and time again that Israel cannot destroy Hamas as the cost is too high. I don’t want to speak too early, but that seems to have been as wrong as their assurance that Hamas is deterred since they want to drink white wine in the evening overlooking the Mediterranean while watching their children play innocent video games.

It is time to stop calling for cease fires and repeating UN hypocrisy and to start being aggressive and provocative in the defense of freedom. 

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/