Western Leaders 20260814

Standing on the Precipice: Western Leaders Continue to Fiddle

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsIra SlomowitzUncategorizedWorld

Will The West Stay Awake and Become Alert?

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 14th of August via The Angry Demagogue.

In February 2022 the Russian member of the Axis invaded Ukraine. In October 2023, less than two years later, the Iranian proxy Hamas invaded Israel and their proxy Hezbollah joined the fight the next day. North Korea and China the other members of the axis did not, probably, coordinate either attack, but nor did they discourage it or help to end it. In the period of less than two years, the free countries of the world were given a wake-up call to what historians may end up writing was the start of a new world war.

Sweden and Finland were spooked enough to take a bold move and join NATO and the existing European members of NATO seem to realize that they need to start worrying about their own defense – at least against Russia, if not the rest of the Axis. In Ukraine, they put together a bold defense and created a drone force that is, if not winning, at least is not losing the war of attrition that the conflict has “settled” into. Ukraine may have convinced itself that it can win this war on the battlefield and Russia is counting on its Axis allies to help it overcome their own military incompetence. North Korean troops are dying in Ukraine and there are rumors that 50,000 more North Korean troops are on the way. Iran and China are supplying weapons. The Axis is not only keeping the war going for Russia, it is arguably, along with its nuclear weapons, a path to victory.

Western Leaders 20260814

Standing on the Precipice: Western Leaders Continue to Fiddle

Europe and parts of the United States did not take the hint that in October 2023 that the Putin’s Russia is not the only country threatening their security. The Iranian piece of the Axis also aims to dismantle Western freedoms and religion via direct military threats, terrorism and unchecked immigration.

Has the Middle East changed after the Ukraine invasion and more specifically, October 7? Asking different people will get you different answers. For Israeli PM Netanyahu it has been a strategic victory for Israel as both Hezbollah and Hamas are on their heals and Iran’s nuclear and missile forces have been severely damaged. For Israel’s opposition, the last three years have brought no positive change for Israel in the Middle East since Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic of Iran still exist.

For Iranian Islamists it has changed by showing that they can stand up to their own people and to the United States so that any attempt to topple them will end in failure. For the Islamic Republic, a non-total-defeat shows the world that they can continue their quest for regional and global control despite the hiccups caused by Israel and the United States. The same holds for Hamas and Hezbollah who believe that Israel has been isolated in the world and that the UN, the Hague and the EU – along with America’s DSA – will make being Jewish and Israeli so illegitimate that they will soon be able to chose their apartments in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

According to Erdogan’s Turkey, the Middle East is their playground as they have managed to maintain positive relations with both Hamas and the United States. They have troops in Qatar, a new alignment with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and have so many forces in northern and sub-Saharan Africa that an expanded Ottoman Empire lies in the not too distant future. Greece will be overcome and where Iran failed to destroy Israel, they will succeed.

President Trump believes, or states, that the United States has scored a decisive victory over Iran, is bringing peace to Lebanon and Gaza via Israeli concessions and the disarmament of Hamas and Hezbollah and the future in the middle east goes through Washington. The President also states that the Abraham Accords will be expanded and that Israel, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia are all strong and reliable allies of the United States and that all these countries are moving towards a more peaceful and economically vibrant Middle East.

Back in the 1960’s and 1970’s when there were two regional Moslem states that were friendly to Israel, Turkey and Iran. During that cold war period, the only Gulf state that counted was Saudi Arabia. Syria and Egypt were Israel’s existential enemies and the Hashemites of Jordan were more concerned with survival than fighting (at least after 1967). Lebanon was a non-threat to Israel (as a matter of fact Israel supplied arms to the Shiite villagers in the south during the civil war of the late 1970’s at the request of the Shah of Iran).

Currently Iran is Israel’s main enemy, although Turkey is pushing to move ahead of them as the main existential threat to Israel. Israel faces a “Sunni Vise” that includes Turkey and Syria in the north and Egypt in the South. We can add to that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan although that alliance (which now includes Turkey) seems to be more a showpiece than a defense treaty. Or, in the words of Hussein Aboubakr Mansour, “In the Middle East, the vocabulary of collective defense is often detached from the activity of defending. The announcement is the whole of the content”.

Regarding the United States presence in the Middle East, only the details have changed. The Cold War is over but the U.S still has the challenge of controlling oil flow out of the region as its new main enemy, China, depends on it. As for the United States and Israel, that relationship has moved from dependent to almost partner on defense and technology but Israel is still the same steady, reliable, democratic presence it has been for the past few decades. The U.S is certainly closer to the other Gulf states, notably Qatar, but their money has simply replaced (or actually supplemented) Saudi money, although they are much more cynical and effective with it.

The Arab world has barely changed even though the UAE and others have jointed the Abaraham Accords and have a relatively strong relationship with Israel. However, the real issue in the middle east has never been Israel-Palestine but has been and still is the intra-Arab and intra-Moslem rivalry and mistrust. Even when ostensibly on the same side, like the Saudis and UAE are in Yemen, there are separate armies fighting and last month the Saudis bombed the UAE forces – even though both were fighting the Houthis.

Egypt and Turkey, the two largest Sunni states in the region by population and military force are at opposite ends of the Moslem Brotherhood fight. Egypt is more suspicious of Turkey’s support for the Brotherhood, arch enemies of the Al-Sisi government, than they are of Israel’s moves in Gaza. Syria too, while pretending to act as a unified country is at war with the Kurd citizens in the north, Druze in the south and Alawites in the northwest. Their inclusion of ISIS and al-Qaeda fighters in their army – even foreign fighters – means that even within the Sunni majority, there is distrust and fighting.

And Libya is a proxy war if there ever was one with Turkey, Egypt, Iran and Russia involved.

So where do we stand in Europe and the Middle East today?

On the one hand, everyone is correct – Israel is in a better spot strategically, yet has not finished the job. The United States has, with Israel, set back Iran’s plans for regional domination but that gain is one “agreement” away from being overturned. Turkey is extending its influence but does not have the wherewithal to create a new Ottoman Empire as not only Israel stands in the way but so too does Egypt and the rest of the Sunni-Arab world as they do not have fond memories of Ottoman control of Arab lands. The Arab countries, large and small, are fighting the same tribal wars they have fought for the past decades and even centuries. Israel has strong internal unity and morale while its leaders re-arrange their parliamentary chairs.

In Europe, Ukraine has stopped an army three times its size while Russia, against most predictions is able to absorb massive casualties and economic sanctions due to the help of its allies .

Before the invasions of Ukraine and Israel by members of the Axis in 2022 and 2023 the geopolitical situation consisted of four revisionist powers united only in their opposition to the international status quo and the free countries united in their wish to maintain the status quo and to concentrate on comfort to the neglect of all else -including freedom. The Western European powers had no real military power to speak of (with the possible exception of France) as even the UK’s glorious navy was reduced to the minimum number of ships necessary to still call it an ocean going Navy. Ukraine ignored Russian threats and Israel was convinced it could outsmart, deter and bribe its sworn enemies to give up all for a life of comfort.

In the United States, the military was organized as a Walmart or Target warehouse with “just in time inventory”, no long term armaments contracts and with nothing much done to create what won WWII and the Cold War – a strong economic and industrial base. Looking for cheap labor and products and piling debt upon debt, the America;s industrial and fiscal situations mirrored its military un-readiness into a game of catch up – which it is doing neither fiscally nor militarily. Although the current administration is pushing to increase its manufacturing might, the fact that the American shipbuilding industry is able to produce only 3 military ships a year means, one, two or three administrations won’t be enough to complete the task. It requires a seriousness of purpose lacking in a Democratic party fearful of the DSA and a Republican party not serious enough to create a national consensus that will require some sacrifice from citizens.

Although there is a lot of talk, the current leadership in all free countries are the same leaders that led us down this path where they are not ready to meet and defeat middling powers let alone powerful ones.

Just four years ago the late Henry Kissinger published a book called “Leadership” which focused on six leaders he thought were consequential to their countries and the world. You might disagree with his choice but one thing running through each of these leaders (Germany’s Adenauer, France’s de Gaulle, Sadat of Egypt, UK’s Thatcher, Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew and Richard Nixon) is that they were patriots and they were willing to take risks to push their countries forward. We don’t seem to see Western leaders who are dedicated first and foremost to their country and its citizens and who recognize the ongoing (the never ending!) threat from tyrants.

Putin, Xi, Khamenei (or whomever is in charge) and Kim are tyrants who don’t need to concern themselves with their citizens and that is the one thing our uncreative and cowardly leaders do not seem to understand. The obsession of today’s western leaders with negotiations and deals and false human rights claims just feeds the tyrannical rule of its enemies and pushes their defeat further and further away. Eisenhauer famously refused to shake hands with the Nazi general who surrendered to him in spite of military custom because he realized that this was not a war of one country against another but a war by his country and their allies against evil.

This is not a call for war against all evil or perpetual conflict of power against power but rather a recognition that if one is not ready to face what tyrants want – your destruction – eventually they will defeat you. America was not prepared to fight WWII but it had an industrial and managerial base that could be transformed into a wartime asset no one has ever had. It also had the luxury of two oceans protecting their manufacturing plants from enemy attack. Finally, it had, admittedly only after Pearl Harbor, the understanding that the moral imperative was defeating the evil that was Nazism as well as Japanese militaristic barbarism and not in coming to some rapprochement with it.

The geopolitical situation has not changed even if there are small tactical advantages that one side has over the other in localized theatres. We are still in the same position where the Axis of revisionist states is using all its force and all the weaknesses of the western world to its advantage and a western world that is continuing to ignore that reality. The internal and external threats in free countries are now at crisis levels.

When it comes down to it, as much as we like to blame our leaders (and we certainly do), it is up to the citizens to demand and to choose brave, creative leaders who are not locked into what has brought us to the precipice of defeat. The leadership since the end of the Cold War has been lacking any sense of urgency no matter what happens. The disaster that was Afghanistan should have been a wake up call – instead it was ignored. The invasion of Ukraine should have put free countries on a war footing for the manufacture and supply of military hardware but instead of was treated as if no other wars would be fought until this one was over. October 7 and the subsequent fighting in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Syria, the entire Persian Gulf should have told the west that terrorism and the immigration of real and potential terrorists into its borders will destroy what it loves best.

So far, the Axis leaders have not waited for the west to wake up, re-arm, control its borders and stop shooting itself in the foot and there is no reason to think it will wait before its next adventure.

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.

Follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

Share:
Challenge Part 3 20260729

The Challenge of October 7: Part 3 – Security and Foreign Policy

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsIra SlomowitzUncategorizedWorld

Towards a Definition of Israel's National Interests

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 24th of July via The Angry Demagogue.

Ever since the end of the first Lebanon War, Israeli military strategy has moved from active and aggressive defense of the homeland and its citizens via a policy of taking the fight to enemy territory to passive defense based on the threat of massive force – in other words, deterrence. The object was to create a situation where the enemy feared attacking us and to use our military force as a reason to go to the negotiating table. The assumption was that if we were strong enough, we could make concessions and deal with whatever situation arose. “The IDF is strong enough to deal with it” was the phrase de jour. Israel was at peace with Egypt and Syria’s Hafez Assad had no interest in a frontal attack after his air force was embarrassed in 1982 by losing over 60 aircraft in dogfights with Israel as well as 29 of their 30 SAM anti-aircraft batteries.

The PLO moved to Tunisia after the Lebanon War and other enemies, Iraq and Iran, were too far to be a non-terrorist threat. After Begin destroyed the Iraqi nuclear program, “only” terrorism seemed to be a threat. Terrorism though, to the Israeli leadership did not pose a “existential” threat to Israel, as Yitzchak Rabin was quick to repeat after Oslo, so deterrence seemed like a good military strategy for existential threats.

Challenge Part 3 20260729

The Challenge of October 7: Part 3 – Security and Foreign Policy

On the diplomatic front, the Oslo accords of 1993 brought a thaw to the loneliness of the diplomats, but the diplomatic goals were still the same – get countries to like us by providing assistance where we can and by explaining how we are trying to come to a peace agreement with the Palestinians – and anyway, they are worse than we are. In diplomacy, like in the military realm, deterrence was the tool and the goal was quiet. In both realms of foreign policy reacting to the situation was the main tactic as both the generals and diplomats guiding principle to move the country forward was “quiet and prosperity will eventually lead to peace”. The political class might have disagreed amongst themselves with the details, but both the right and the left were sure that actively seeking out victory in foreign policy was not in the cards.

On the military side, the assumption was that the Israeli Air Force could deter any major attack while “minor” terrorist attacks and occasional localized rocket attacks did not threaten the existence of the country. Diplomatically, there were goals like having the U.S and other countries move their embassy to Jerusalem or moderating the inevitable anti-Israel resolutions in the UN and its agencies, but they did not seem to feel that the country had much to offer to the world around them or that Israel had any diplomatic heft so that was the sum of foreign policy.

The diplomats and politicians were circling the world with the thought that the more we meet people the less they will hate us. The politicians and diplomats forgot Lord Palmerston’s notion that countries “have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” The military leaders lost interest in protecting the people, forgetting that in a democratic country individuals count even if the end of their individual lives are not “existential” to the country.

What has October 7th taught us and how do we move forward in our international and security affairs? We will go back to the main theme again and that is the “Jewish people and Israeli persons (Israeli, because there are non-Jewish citizens who need the protection and care of Israel’s security and foreign policies). The main discussion has been about the defense concept, the “conceptzia” in Anglicized Hebrew, where one could deter one’s enemies with a combination of walls, destruction of buildings and providing them with a “good life”. Protecting the people seemed to be secondary as the entire south spent weeks nearly every year in their safe rooms and shelters. Even in the year after October 7, the northern towns were sitting ducks to Hezbollah fire with no attempt to take the fight to their territory. The idea that in a democratic country the military strategy was to allow one’s citizens to be shot at by a foreign power on a regular basis is a strategy that cares about ideas and concepts of peace and land but not about the lives of one’s citizens.

Even in the north, where most of the pre-October 7 military planning occurred, there was an understanding that Hezbollah would be able to conquer some border communities – but that they would eventually be pushed back. Besides the defeatist attitude of the generals, it amazes that these same military minds could not imagine what would happen to these communities under the occupation of Hezbollah – and the politicians that approved these plans did not understand the psychological harm to its own citizens of allowing the enemy conquer its towns and the euphoria that would occur in Arab and Moslem lands who want to destroy Israel.

But we are not here to go through the failures but rather move forward with the reality that October 7 has presented us. Simcha Goldin, who fought for 12 years for the return of his son from the hands of Hamas, spoke during that time (and still does) about a return to values. This goes to the heart of where we need military doctrine to go. A value-full doctrine starts with the value of the lives of a country’s along with victory over one’s enemies. What a military doctrine post-October 7 cannot say is that we will allow our towns to be occupied and we will allow homes to be damaged by rockets or drones or anti-tank rockets, that we will allow our citizens and soldiers to be shot at so long as the “quiet” can last for a few months or even years.

Pre-October 7 deterrence meant that both sides were deterred, post-October7 deterrence can only mean that Israel deters its enemies by taking the military initiative and not only reacting. The value of the safety and comfort of all citizens needs to be at the center of Israel’s military doctrine. Victory over enemies is the only thing that can ensure that, as we know now (but should have known then).

As for Israel’s vital interests, one must be the fate of Jews around the world. That has military and diplomatic angles. Antisemitism cannot be tolerated in “allied” countries and both the Mossad and the foreign ministry must be activated to fight it. While it might not be acceptable for one to operate a spy network in an “allied” country, once antisemitism becomes rampant and Jews lives and livelihoods are at stake, a military response is warranted. That is not to mean tanks and jets and drones, but Mossad operations that put fear into antisemites need be planned and activated.

Diplomatically, simple protests by the foreign ministry will not suffice. The government must make it known, via whatever non-military power it has, that antisemitism is not acceptable. If that means recalling ambassadors or making certain diplomats persona non-grata or if that means creating a real diplomatic crisis, so be it. Antisemitism of the type formed after October 7 needs to be fought as terrorism is – on multiple fronts.

Regarding foreign policy in general, Israel has never established, even informally, its “vital national interests”. The post-October 7 world is forcing Israel to do what it ignored for the last 80 years.

Here is a modest proposal of key points of Israel’s national interests. Obviously these need to be fleshed out (maybe in a future piece) and certainly these points themselves can be debated. The problem is – Israel has never had this debate. Here is a start:

– Free movement of Israel’s people and goods throughout the world.

– Support and defense of diaspora Jewish communities wherever they are.

– Support and defense of non-Israeli communities of Israel’s minority groups – for example, Druze, Bahai, Circassian.

– Unrelenting and unapologetic defense of the country’s borders, citizens and infrastructure.

– Defense of its Jewish and democratic traditions, freedoms and values.

– Unrelenting fight against terrorism against Israeli citizens, diaspora Jews and allied countries.

– Establishment of alliances that support Israel’s national interests.

– Self-reliance on matters of national importance such as the defense industry, food and energy production.

The above points are just that – broad points. There is no expectation and there should be no expectation that everyone should agree on the details. For example, “defense of borders” might mean different things to different people, but the argument should only be on what those borders are and not on if Israel ought to vigorously defend its borders. So too, with the “Jewish and democratic traditions” and each point above. But disagreement on the details of the main points is different than disagreement on the outline of Israel’s national interests.

As we have stated, Israel’s security and foreign policies have mostly been reactive over the past few decades. We can blame the right or the left and anyone we don’t agree with, but the main problem has been a lack of understanding by the country’s decision makers of Israel’s national interests. Once Israel understands what that is, it can act pro-actively to further its own interests and not only to react against localized or even globalized threats to the country and its well-being.

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.

Follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

Share:
Celtics and the Middle East 20260609

Falling into the Middle Eastern Trap

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentCommoditiesExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsIra SlomowitzRisk ManagementUncategorizedWorld

When Talking Becomes an Obsession

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 9th of June via The Angry Demagogue.

The United States is falling into the Middle Eastern trap that Israel fell into thirty years ago. This trap fits nicely with the post cold-war progressive Western way of diplomacy in that its goal is “talking”. Perpetual talking rather than deal making is the key to understanding the Middle Eastern way of things and Israel has become a practitioner in the “way” that led directly to October 7. The idea of perpetual talking is to reach a situation where you can defeat your opponent without making concessions. In the Middle East, they suck you in to a point where just “talking” becomes an obsession. The United States is heading into the same where results are less important than the act of discussion itself.

Celtics and the Middle East 20260609

Falling into the Middle Eastern Trap – When Talking Becomes an Obsession 9th of June 2026

This obsession, this being sucked into something against your best interests reminds me of a wonderful episode of Cheers, the sitcom that takes place in a Boston bar – a bar in which pints of beer plus inane discussions over anything that leads to nowhere is its reason for being. The episode that I am thinking of has Boston Celtics great Kevin McHale as a guest and the two main instigators of irrelevant and purposeless conversation, Norm and Cliff, (not so) innocently ask McHale how may bolts are in the famous parquet floor at the Boston Garden.

The waitress Carla, Boston working class par excellence, begs the basketball star to ignore them, knowing he will become obsessed and sucked into something that clearly will lead to a disaster for him and her beloved Celtics. Sure enough, the episode ends with McHale driving towards the basket with what ought to be the winning shot only to get distracted by trying to figure out how many bolts are in the floor of the Boston Garden.

That is exactly what is happening now in in the Middle East where President Trump is the basketball star being distracted by Iran and their attempt to suck him into endless discussions that are meant to lead to nothing productive. We don’t know if McHale ever figured out the number of bolts, but besides going back to Cheers with the answer, it is a useless endeavor that can only lead to defeat. So too, with the Trump Administration and the sacred talks with Iran where the end game might be something he can bring back to a press conference in DC or a rally in Pennsylvania but will be worth as much as knowing the number of bolts in the Boston Garden floor.

Israel fell into this trap with the Palestinian Authority of Yasser Arafat and when talks ended, the only goal was to start them up again. Just return to talking. The result didn’t matter. This trap picked up again after October 7 when the goal seemed to be to always be talking with Hamas via Qatar or Egypt even if everyone knew it would lead to nowhere. Ironically, it was President Trump who realized this and was able to do his dealmaking magic to free the hostages – but only after the IDF put Hamas in an untenable situation and Qatar wanted a “great deal” with the Trump administration. Talks never led anywhere.

So here we are, the Trump Administration is hell bent on continuing discussions for the sake of discussions no matter how many times Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Israel, or even the U.S military get shot at by Iran. When the goal is talking – when the obsession becomes talking – you have fallen into the Middle Eastern trap much as Keven McHale fell into the trap of inane bar talk for the sake of inane bar talk.

While the American President is a deal maker par-excellence, the Middle Eastern leaders, this time Iran’s, are the experts at making you think that talking is always the best outcome – because it is, for them. Eventually, their experience tells them, you will make a mistake. The Administration has allowed Iran to attack allies at will in the Gulf and in Israel, as Iran gains concession after concession due to the trap that is “talks at all costs”. The first concession was linking Lebanon to the talks and the next, done just yesterday was in putting Iran and Israel on the same level.

This is the mistake one would expect from the Obama-Biden crowd where they always believed that talks were the purpose – they didn’t have to fall into any trap as they were there already. However, the Trump Administration understood the fallacy of forever talks which is what makes it so painful to see them fall into the same Middle-Eastern and Western, progressive trap. Obsession to make a deal is good because results oriented; but an obsession that is just to “get back to talking” will lead only to results that you never wanted in the first place.

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.

Follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

postR174

The Oldest Hate: Why The Hague Needs to Convict Israel

by with No Comment Featured HighlightsRisk AnalysisWorld

The Oldest Hate: Why The Hague Needs to Convict Israel

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 14th of June via The Angry Demagogue.

The oldest hate is also the most frustrating hate – why is there antisemitism and why does it never end?  All the reasons to hate the Jews have been refuted by Jewish actions. We are filthy capitalists and then communists. We are separatists and then assimilationists. We are stateless and we have a state. The list goes on and on and we can come to the conclusion that there is no answer.

postR174

The late Lutheran Pastor turned Catholic Priest, Richard John Neuhaus said years ago – I paraphrase as I don’t remember the exact quite – if you don’t like Christian America, just wait until you get post-Christian America. No one can doubt that for centuries Christianity was the source of antisemitism in the European continent as Jews were the easy scapegoats to everything from the Plague to economic crashes. But with the dawn of the scientific age, Christian antisemitism lost its cache along with Christianity itself. What we are dealing with now is an antisemitism of the nihilists.

The nihilists are those anti-semites who, like the operettist Wagner and the philosophers Karl Marx and Voltaire started a trend that reached it climax with Nazi and Stalinist totalitarianism and has now made a comeback with a combination of Islamist and progressive ideologies which are all based on the glorification of violence and cruelty that we see in ISIS, Hamas, Fatah, Al-Qaeda and now manifesting itself in America’s great cities and universities. The question still remains – why do all of these seemingly contradictory ideas all converge in anti-semitism?  

The answer, it seems to me lies in exactly that one international body that was created in the wake of the actions of greatest and most horrible of anti-semitic regimes – the Nazi perpetrators of the Holocaust. The Western world – the modern Christian west, led by the United States, felt it needed laws of war and international bodies that would continue the work of the Nuremberg Trials and make sure all those who would perpetrate genocide would, eventually, be brought to justice. That these bodies have failed miserably is proven by the genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia, the mass murders going on in Sudan and other parts of Africa, the genocide, still ongoing of Sunni Muslims in Syria and the Chinese incarceration in concentration camps (and who knows what else?) of the Uyghurs. 

So why Israel? Why is Israel, why are the Jews the main enemies of the new nihilists?

The enemy is the moral code that the Bible brought into the world – a code that protected slaves from cruel behavior, a code that did not allow the rape of women captured in war, a code that limited the number of horses and wives a king could have, a code with laws of war. Maimonides, writing in the middle ages in Spain and then Egypt, has a whole section of his Code on the laws of kings and war.  Jews didn’t always follow the law and the books of Joshua and Judges are filled with difficult passages but the commandments were there, nonetheless.

Hugo Grotius, writing in the 16th and 17th century developed Just War theory based on Christian thinking and that has formed the basis of the international laws of warfare ever since. This certainly would not have happened without the Bible and the codes that followed it and this is what the nihilists hate most of all.  

Israel is at the heart of the progressive Western, radical Islamic, pan-Slavic and Communist revolt against the containment of violence, cruelty and bloodlust under the rubric of a higher moral law. Maybe it is true that man’s natural state is war, as Hobbes believed.  Maybe Heraclitus is right that “war is the father of us all and our king” and maybe as he continued, it “discloses who is godlike and who is but a man” but the Judeo-Christian tradition taught us that we need to overcome this nature and to live with a moral code that can overcome it and change what it means to be “godlike”.   

The “court” in the Hague represents that pagan and nihilistic outlook on life and the desire to return to a time where violence and cruelty is unregulated, where war can be fought without the rules that the Jews foisted onto mankind. Camille Paglia writes in her magnum oppose “Sexual Personae” that society is the “defense against nature’s power”. Without society and the moral and behavioral codes that make it up, Paglia writes, we would be” storm-tossed on the barbarous sea that is nature”.

Convicting Israel of violating the very laws it itself created will finally put an end to the “farce that is morality” according to the nihilists and return us to that “barbarous sea that is nature”. The destruction of Israel will allow the world to finally defeat that 3,000 year old code that we call the Judeo-Christian heritage that prohibits the nihilists from living as they wish. The Hague needs to convict Israel and the woke left along with radical Islam need to finish the job on the battlefield so that they can return to their beloved state of nature.

They hate the Jews now because we have provided them with the framework to be civilized and they hate civilization most of all.  

Israel will be convicted in the Hague because to find it innocent means the nihilists will be shackled to a morality that prevents them from cruelly murdering, raping and destroying as they please. It means that Hollywood will not be able to continue glorifying the dismemberment of children in their “realistic” crime dramas. It means the universities will have to teach of truth and beauty and not perpetuate the bloody ideologies it loves. It means that they will have to subordinate their beloved blood thirsty ideologies to that horrible bourgeois virtue, human kindness.

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/

post197

Iran Front and Center: 60 Tons of Explosives Sent Towards Israel

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentFeatured HighlightsRisk Analysis

Iran Front and Center: 60 Tons of Explosives Sent Towards Israel

The Israel-Iran War is soon to enter its 7th month even though last night was the first face to face confrontation between the two countries.

There was much less panic in the air on the “Israeli street” than one would expect after Iranian threats over the last week. I was clearly wrong in my assessment that Iran would not want to start something big with Israel and risk having a chunk of their strategic power degraded but it is hard predicting what fanatics will do. The question is if the utter failure of the attack will bring Iran shame in the Muslim world or if the fact that they sent missiles and drones will be counted as a “victory” even if no damage was done to Israel. Or it could be that Iran was counting on Biden-Blinken holding back Israel from responding and sure enough, NBC is reporting exactly that:

President Joe Biden has privately expressed concern that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to drag the U.S. more deeply into a broader conflict, according to three people familiar with his comments.

Last night at about 8:15pm IDF Homefront Command announced that all schools and all educational activity would be cancelled until further notice, angering parents everywhere. A few minutes later they announced that 10’s or hundreds of drones were launched from Iran and on their way to Israel. The news reported that it would take 8-10 hours to arrive, sparking this to make its round on the Whatsapp groups in this very interconnected country:
post197
post196

Google maps also cooperated:

Friends and family in Jerusalem and surrounding areas were awakened by alarms and scurried to the bomb shelters, children in their arms. There were alarms also in the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the Northern Negev dessert. Apparently, the main targets were two air force bases. One was hit by one missile and minor damage was done and the other was untouched. One 7 year old Bedouin girl was critically injured from pieces of a rocket that was shot down. The headline ought to read: Shiite Missile Critically Injures 7 year old Sunni Girl. 

The effectiveness of Israel’s air defense system seems to have surprised even the Israeli Air Force and special thanks has to be given to President Ronald Reagan for ignoring the comics and media (but I repeat myself) and many scientists and engineers (the experts!) as they made fun of his Strategic Defense Initiative and called it “Star Wars” – claiming that it was something undo-able and dangerous even to talk about.

Then Senator Joe Biden, using his favorite word, “provoke”, is quoted in this 1985 NY Times article:

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, pressed hard for reassurance about whether the proposed defensive weapons might be fired by mistake, thus provoking the Soviet Union to launch a real attack.
 

The Biden foreign policy theory for the last 40 years or more is based on not “provoking” your enemy, no matter the cost and appeasing your enemy at any cost.

Special thanks to the U.S armed forces who shot down numerous drones as did the U.K’s air force as well as Jordan’s. There might have been other Middle Eastern countries involved as there is an unofficial regional air defense system set up with Abraham Accord countries and others not part of the Accords. 100% of the suicide drones and 100% of the cruise missiles and 92% of the ballistic missiles were shot down by Israel’s layered “star wars” system. 

If the IRG is honest with themselves, they will understand that they have been defeated. A combination of 300 drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles were shot at Israel at once and no drones and no cruise missiles got through. Of the 110 ballistic missiles shot at Israel, 101 were intercepted and only one reached its target. Israeli defense firms closed higher in Tel Aviv Stock Exchange trading today. I imagine Iran’s potential clients are having second thoughts. China too, must be wondering about their own offensive and defensive systems.  

So where does this leave us now?

The War Cabinet assigned to Netanyahu, Gantz and Defense Minister Gallant needs to decide on an Israeli response. I am not sure that Israel has the firepower to destroy Iran’s nuclear sites on its own and there is almost no chance we will see U.S B52’s involved.

So the most obvious target is probably off the table.  It seems that the U.S Administration is pressuring Israel not to respond at all and to leave things as they are. This should not surprise anyone who has been awake for the last six months.

Israel and Iran have been at war for the last 6 months – one could say for the last two decades. This was clear to everyone except Biden-Blinken who could have shortened the war and the suffering by punishing Iran for their attacks on US sailors and soldiers.  Instead, they appeased Iran and released $10 billion to them essentially letting Iran hit Israel with this money.   

 The Scroll is reporting that:

We are now waiting to see how Israel responds. Although an unnamed “senior Israeli official” has been quoted promising a “significant response” to the attacks, Iran appears to have pre-cleared the attacks with the United States via the Oman diplomatic backchannel. And according to Roi Kais of Israel’s Kan News, a U.S. official told Saudi Arabia’s Al-Arabiya on Friday, “the United States will take part in the response to the Iranian response if Tehran escalates the situation inappropriately”—which means that the United States tacitly approved an appropriate level of Iranian escalation, such as, we don’t know, a “symbolic” drone-and-missile attack.

The United States has also, as Barack Ravid reported Friday, demanded to “have a say before decisions are made about any retaliation by Israel.”

If true, that is cynicism taken to the ‘Nth degree’. True enough, the United States needs to watch after its own national interests, but is it possible that the U.S government considers Iran its equal and Israel its vassal? Were Israel faced with a missile attack from China an argument could be made that U.S interests take precedence over Israel’s – but Iran? The Iranian economy is in shambles, the Rial is at record lows, its only economic lifeline comes from China, bankrupt Russia, the $10 billion Biden gave them and illegal activities. As Israel just showed– Iran’s vaunted missile force is worth less than advertised. We have not even spoken about the way it treats women and gays and how it treats opponents to its theocracy, how it spreads terror throughout the Middle East and Africa, how it helps Russia destroy Ukraine, how it is a key player in the global drug trade and money laundering.  

We have also not spoken about its foothold in the Western hemisphere and its attempts to infiltrate the United States itself via the porous southern border. 

Worst of all, if the Scroll story is correct, it shows how Biden-Blinken don’t understand what the office of the Presidency of the United States is. It is not just another head of state or head of government, but rather the President’s warnings ought always to be backed up with actions. Biden’s “Don’t Speech 2.0” was laughed at by Iran in public, for all to see. And the Biden-Blinken response is to tell Israel, “don’t”.

Ignoring Biden-Blinken for the moment, Israel must think deeply about its response. It is clear that any response will be followed by more of the same from Iran. Israel must think a few moves ahead and not just attack for the sake of attacking or it will be in the middle of yet another war of attrition. The end of the multiple rounds of attacks must leave Israel in better strategic shape than it is now and must leave Iran substantially weaker.

Whatever Israel decides to do, it must degrade Iran’s military capability by destroying its weapons and bases and killing as many IRG officers as possible. Israel should not bomb the power stations in Tehran or do other non-military strikes. Air force bases, missile silos and Iran’s navy should be targeted in such a way that degrades capabilities. They could start by sinking the Iranian spy ship that is helping the Houthis in the Red Sea.

Israelis seem to think that by “allowing” Iran to attack them it gives them many diplomatic credits, but we already know that these “credits” do not last long.  Whatever Israel does, it ought not to play the “message” game. Its attacks ought to provide tactical advantages in the coming months and not just “warnings to Iran” and “messages to Hezbollah”.

But let’s not ignore Biden-Blinken for a moment.  What if they decide to threaten Israel that if Israel retaliates the US will sit on their hands? 

This would be the time for Israel to do a little threatening of itself. The worst thing for a sitting President running for re-election is a summer gasoline price spike. Israel could certainly threaten to destroy Iran’s oil facilities and help push the price of oil. High gallon gasoline prices this summer will lose Biden more votes than he can gain in Dearborn, Michigan. In exchange for leaving Iran untouched, Israel can demand a free hand in Gaza, including Rafah as well as in Lebanon.  

Would that be worth letting Iran off the hook? It might. Iran was defeated in this battle, but it still believes it will win the war. Giving Israel free reign to destroy Hamas and then Hezbollah means that Iran will lose the war, too. Without Hezbollah, Iran will lose its most important asset in its overall goal of destroying Israel, chasing the US from the Middle East and establishing Shiite dominance in the region. It would turn October 7th into the day that Iran started on its road to defeat.

Israel needs to be opportunistic and aggressive in its dealings with its allies and its enemies. It has to let its allies know that it too is playing the long game and that it will not only hurt those who hurt it – as Netanyahu loves saying – but that it will destroy all who even try to harm it.

More importantly it needs to show its enemies with actions and not with words that threatening Israel means you will be destroyed. 

The Biden-Blinken team must be told in no uncertain terms that Israel is not a vassal.  The end result of this war cannot only be the destruction of Hamas, it must also be the destruction of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a regional power. By sending over nearly 60 tons of explosives to Israel, they have put themselves front and center.

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/ 

postN99

Regional War Spreads: Will Blinken Wake Up to the Reality?

by with No Comment Featured HighlightsRisk AnalysisRisk Management

Regional War Spreads: Will Blinken Wake Up to the Reality?

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

Despite the denial of reality by the Blinken State Department the Middle East war gets hotter and spreads eastward (even without) Israel’s intervention. After spending years appeasing the Iranians the world is now faced with the results of that policy. 

Iran has trained and funded terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank where the high intensity battles continue. In Lebanon-Israel there are close to 100,000 Israelis displaced, and it seems more Lebanese have left the area south of the Litani as heavy rocket, tank, artillery and air attacks continue from both sides of the border. Attacks have intensified against Israel from Syria and Yemen, and Iranians and their militias are attacking U.S forces in Iraq and Syria. Turkey, Russia and Syrian forces continue bombing areas of northern Syria and now both Iran and Turkey are bombing Kurdish lands.  

We know what is going on in Yemen and the surrounding seas with global shipping coming to a standstill there, and diminishing Suez Canal traffic is slowly crippling an already disastrous Egyptian economy. The U.S and the U.K have been forced to bomb Houthi areas, but this of course is after the total failure of the Blinken foreign policy of ‘ending’ the war in Yemen by cutting arms sales to the side that was pro-West while encouraging Iran to continue funding, arming and training of their Houthi allies.

A new front has now opened between Pakistan and Iran. We spoke earlier of the Sunni-Shiite war heating up, but it has spread faster and more violently than we expected. 

Over the last few days fighting on the Iran-Pakistan border has heated up. It started with heavy fire between the Pakistani group Jaish ul-Adl and Iranian border guards in the Sistan-Baluchestan border area, and included the assassination of Iranian Hussain Gwadanfur on the Khash-Saravan road.

In other clashes between Iranian and Pakistani forces at least two Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG) soldiers were killed, and the IRG has shot rockets into Pakistan hitting Turbat and surrounding areas near the coast.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement claiming that they “undertook a series of highly coordinated …. precision military strikes against terrorist hideouts in Siestan-o-Baluchistan province of Iran”. At the end of the press release they speak of Iran being a “brotherly country” with “great respect and admiration for the Iranian people”. It seems that Pakistan does not want to publicly admit that official Iranian forces were involved in the attacks.

postN99

What is incredible about Iran is that they have now attacked three nuclear armed states – the U.S, Pakistan and Israel – without fear of retaliation. We can only imagine what the Revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iran will do once they too have a nuclear weapon.

We are in a regional war with fighting going on daily from Pakistan to Libya. Iran, not Israel, is at the center and is the cause of nearly all the fighting and tough statements and tough actions need to be taken against Iran – not Israel. Senate majority leader Schumer has been quoted as saying that he wants to put extra conditions upon the sale of arms to Israel, but where was he when Obama sent planeloads of cash to Iran and Biden-Blinken released further billions in November of 2023? Where are the conditions placed on a terrorist state?  

The Biden-Blinken foreign policy of appeasing enemies and threatening allies that is at the core of its operation continues apace. First with the cutoff of arms to Saudi Arabia and their Yemeni allies in order to “end the war” and then to “advice” the Ukrainians not to provoke the Russians, and next heavy pressure on Israel to ‘surrender’ to Hamas by leaving them in power.  

One can make deals with countries that are interested in their people. One cannot make deals with terrorist groups or revolutionary states that are looking to upend the global order. That is Iran in a nutshell. 

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/ 

postN19

Preventing WWIII: This is a 1936 Moment for the Middle East

by with No Comment Featured HighlightsRisk AnalysisRisk Management

Preventing WWIII: This is a 1936 Moment for the Middle East

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

The wonderful historian and public intellectual Niall Ferguson has aptly called the current US-China relationship a “Cold War II” and the current debate in the punditry is if the Israel-Hamas war lead to a WWIII. But what if we are already in WWIII? While Russia and the rest of the world did not expect the war in Ukraine to still be fought nearly three years later, the Russia-Ukraine war is now clearly a part of the fight of the West vs the new Axis – Russia/Iran/China/North Korea. But it was the Hamas attack of Israel on October 7 and the response of the Axis and its allies that have more clearly established the battle lines.

We have Russian and Iranian weaponry vs. American and Israeli weaponry. The Russians and the Iranians are using what we so quaintly call “proxies” for a plausible (un)deniability, sheltering them from retaliation. Iran has its various Shiite militias, with Hezbollah being the strongest and most lethal. Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIF) are the Sunni useful idiots helping the Shiite empire to destroy their Sunni cousins by dying for the cause. The Shiite militias formed and fighting in Iraq and Syria along with the Houthis in Yemen round out Iran’s ability to pretend it is not fighting while creating a genocide of Sunnis in Syria and Iraq and Jews in Israel. On the Russian side we have of course the infamous Wagner Group which in its racist undertaking is taking over and subjugating sub-Saharan Africa in its run to control minerals, gold and diamonds. They are now helping Hezbollah with weaponry and training by providing anti-aircraft weapons. The two groups fought hand in hand saving Bashir Assad, the leader and butcher of Syria, to stay in power so they already have close ties. Wagner is Russia and Russia is Wagner. Hezbollah is Iran and Iran is Hezbollah. The quicker we understand this the better off we will be.

postN19

We don’t have any details on Chinese or North Korean weaponry being used by Hamas or Hezbollah, but that might just be a timing issue. China has already decided not to report Hamas atrocities to its people in its official Chinese language news service and are eliminating Israel from its maps. It only reports Israeli’s response and has taken a clear stance supporting its ally, Iran. Will they learn from their Axis allies and also form proxies in Asia to destabilize countries like the Philippines or Vietnam while being immune to retaliation? They don’t need to conquer or even blockade Taiwan if they can destabilize their neighbors while still selling the West all that it wants to buy and inundate our youth via Tik-Tok propaganda.

Japan has realized what this war is about, and is supporting Israel like it never has. Being totally dependent upon the Mideast for its oil, Japan has never been a close friend of Israel. But they have now condemned the Hamas attack while refusing the criticize Israel’s massive response. The Japanese understand well that an Israeli defeat can lead to Chinese dominance in the Indo-Pacific.

Back to the Mideast – it seems we always go back to the Mideast.

Iranian backed Hamas and PIJ launched a brutal attack on Israel.

The Iranian backed Houthis in Yemen declared war on Israel and launched cruise missiles and drones in their opening attack.

Iranian backed and financed Shiite militias are moving to Syria and Lebanon hoping to open two new fronts against Israel.

Iranian backed and financed Hezbollah is attacking from the north in what, for some reason, we are not yet considering a war.

And Iran itself is feeling safe from attack from Israel or the US/West since “only” its proxies are fighting.

This is the remilitarization of the Rhineland of 1936 and a Western betrayal of Israel by hamstringing the IDF by allowing gasoline into Gaza or by a forced cease fire, will be the Munich, 1938.

Are we in WWIII yet? Not being an expert, I don’t know. But the main link tying the Axis together is Iran. They are the most experienced in exporting terror and supporting anti-Western regimes from the Mideast to Africa to America’s doorstep – Latin America. They support and are supported by the Castroite regimes in Cuba and Venezuela and have made deep inroads in Argentina, Brazil and now even Mexico. They are currently nearly as great a threat to the west as is China and probably a greater threat than Russia. A nuclear Iran would create three nuclear powers that could threaten the West as an Axis or independently. The Obama-Biden Iranian policy has been proven a total disaster and its seems that the Biden team is finally understanding this. But they can, in Margaret Thatcher’s famous warning to the first President Bush, “go wobbly” at any moment.

The only way to prevent a full fledged WWIII is Iranian regime change. This would bring the entire Persian Gulf (and its oil) into the Western sphere of influence as China does not yet have the naval power to challenge the US. Hezbollah would be instantly neutralized reducing the threat of war and denying the anti-Western powers another presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. Although the Syrian butcher, Bashir Assad would still have Russia to back him, it is not clear that Russian power alone could keep him in power. In Latin America, Iranian export of terror would stop instantly.

This does not mean that the US needs to invade Iran in order to defeat it. A majority of the Iranian people are sick of the Islamist regime and sick of paying the price for their being ruled by terrorists. The destruction of Iranian nuclear and missile facilities along with the destruction, by air and cruise missiles, of the main Revolutionary Guard bases will be enough. It is not an easy task -but one within the capabilities of the US Navy and Air Force. It is only the Revolutionary Guards that keep the terrorists in power in Iran – the regular Iranian armed forces can be left alone to decide if they want to help overthrow the regime or stay in their barracks. Once they see that the Guards are weakened it is a good bet they will take the side of the Iranian people and help topple the Islamist-terrorist regime.

Regime change in Iran in 2023 will change the global dynamic just as regime change in Nazi Germany in 1936 would have saved 70 million lives in WWII. A failure to act against the source of evil and to cut off the main link in the current Axis will just kick the can down the road – once again. We have appeased Iran enough and if the West and the US don’t act quickly it will have to act while simultaneously fighting off a Chinese attack in the Indo-Pacific – on its own or with its very own proxies – as well as terrorist attempts coming from Latin America and Russian nuclear blackmail in Europe.

And we haven’t even spoken of the West’s moral obligation to prevent a second holocaust, which will be the very first task of a nuclear Iranian regime.

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/