What is going on with Carter?

JHS · May 29, 2008, 11:31am

Hunt: That’s an even more reasonable hypothesis than mine! Or maybe he even read the 2007 public NGO report that’s cited for the figure on Wikipedia! Either way, Carter wasn’t revealing any secrets unless you think he has access to them, and I don’t.

Also, that Wikipedia article reminds one that Time Magazine, in 1976, said that Israel had a small number of nuclear weapons in both 1967 and 1973 (although it seems unclear it had any missile delivery system then, certainly not in 1967).

Bullet · May 29, 2008, 11:36am

I also have to disagree here. In 67, the Israelis faced combined armies almost three times their size in tanks and planes. It was their decision to act first by attacking the Egyptian airfields in a concentrated effort at the onset that enabled them to go after the rest of the armies piecemeal, allowing them to ensure victory. I’m pretty sure they had to sweat out the days prior and the first few hours in the hopes that their gamble worked. Who knows what they would have decided to do next if it didn’t?

As to 73, the Israelis took it on the chin the first few days. Only by rushing in re-inforcements of American made tanks were they able to stop the advances in the Sinai and Golan Heights. Pretty nerve racking times if you’re the leader of the people praying for a miralce to stop the enemy from “pushing you into the sea”. Almost nerve racking enough to consider any option.

Bullet · May 29, 2008, 11:47am

And as to whether Carter actually knew or was just quoting specualtion from the internet; that’s not the point. The point is the rest of the world will look at his words and realize he “was in the know” due to his position. They’ll look at his words as proof and confirmation. I mean, he was priviledged to this information (at least in the world’s eyes), was he not? His words provide legitimacy to claims that Israel is nuclear capable.

Now, if he had said “it is speculated that Israel has 150 nuclear weapons”, he would only adding to rumor and speculation: a little different. His statements will now be instead taken as facts.

JHS · May 29, 2008, 12:26pm

I remember sitting by the radio during both wars. If the outcome in 1967 was ever in doubt, it was before the war started, not after. In 1973, things were different, but I don’t think hostile troops ever got anywhere near what were, then, still regarded as Israel’s borders, and they didn’t advance at all after the first few hours. U.S. resupply was important, but it didn’t happen until most of the war was over.

I’m certain that Israeli leaders considered all their options in the run-up to both wars, just as any nation’s leaders would. I’m certain that, if they really had some kind of effective nuclear capacity then, they also had a fairly precise sense of the circumstances under which they might use it, or explicitly threaten to use it. And I’m equally certain that those circumstances remained reasonably distant throughout both wars.

As for “providing legitimacy to claims that Israel is nuclear capable”: How much more legitimacy is necessary? Who – not also believing in Santa Claus and/or the Tooth Fairy – believes the question is in doubt? Who believes that it is not in Israel’s interest for its neighbors to believe it has nuclear capability? (Anyway, if Saddam Hussein could fool Bush, Cheney et al. into believing that he had an effective nuclear program, who’s to say the Israelis haven’t pulled the same trick? A sitting President saying it doesn’t make it so; a former President saying it about current circumstances is just another talking head.)

Really, it damages discussion of these issues to have to tiptoe around the artificial groundrules. I certainly don’t agree with Carter on everything, but I appreciate his willingness to talk plainly, something that no active politician in the U.S., Israel, or any Muslim country can afford to do in public. It really is worthwhile that SOMEONE does it publicly, even though Israeli and Palestinian middle-management leaders do it privately (or used to do it privately) all the time.

bullwinkle · May 29, 2008, 12:28pm

Look at his Presidency and you’re just wondering now what is wrong with him.

icantfindaname · May 29, 2008, 12:32pm

THE THIRD TEMPLE’S HOLY OF HOLIES:
ISRAEL’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army

The Counterproliferation Papers

Future Warfare Series No. 2

USAF Counterproliferation Center

Air War College

Air University

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama

September 1999

Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, obviously not at his best at a press briefing, was, according to Time magazine, rattled enough to later tell the prime minister that “this is the end of the third temple,” referring to an impending collapse of the state of Israel. “Temple” was also the code word for nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Golda Meir and her “kitchen cabinet” made the decision on the night of 8 October. The Israelis assembled 13 twenty-kiloton atomic bombs. The number and in fact the entire story was later leaked by the Israelis as a great psychological warfare tool. Although most probably plutonium devices, one source reports they were enriched uranium bombs. The Jericho missiles at Hirbat Zachariah and the nuclear strike F-4s at Tel Nof were armed and prepared for action against Syrian and Egyptian targets. They also targeted Damascus with nuclear capable long-range artillery although it is not certain they had nuclear artillery shells.[62]

U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was notified of the alert several hours later on the morning of 9 October. The U.S. decided to open an aerial resupply pipeline to Israel, and Israeli aircraft began picking up supplies that day. Although stockpile depletion remained a concern, the military situation stabilized on October 8th and 9th as Israeli reserves poured into the battle and averted disaster. Well before significant American resupply had reached Israeli forces, the Israelis counterattacked and turned the tide on both fronts.

On 11 October, a counterattack on the Golan broke the back of Syria’s offensive, and on 15 and 16 October, Israel launched a surprise crossing of the Suez Canal into Africa. Soon the Israelis encircled the Egyptian Third Army and it was faced with annihilation on the east bank of the Suez Canal, with no protective forces remaining between the Israeli Army and Cairo. The first U.S. flights arrived on 14 October.[63] Israeli commandos flew to Fort Benning, Georgia to train with the new American TOW anti-tank missiles and return with a C-130 Hercules aircraft full of them in time for the decisive Golan battle. American commanders in Germany depleted their stocks of missiles, at that time only shared with the British and West Germans, and sent them forward to Israel.[64]

Thus started the subtle, opaque use of the Israeli bomb to ensure that the United States kept its pledge to maintain Israel’s conventional weapons edge over its foes.[65] There is significant anecdotal evidence that Henry Kissinger told President of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, that the reason for the U.S. airlift was that the Israelis were close to “going nuclear.”[66]

Everybody knows they have them the oddity of the Carter comments was that the press was “forced” into talking about a subject that normally no one in the press will talk about. It leads to questions like in the general public like; if they can protect themselves why are we sending billions upon billions every year.

Bullet · May 29, 2008, 12:41pm

JHS,

I agree. Israel’s nuclear capability was a not-so-well hidden “dirty little secret” that everyone was sure was true, but didn’t have “proof” (i.e. public confirmation from Israel that they did indeed possess these weapons).

What you have to ask is “Why didn’t Israel just come our and tell the world they were nuclear armed”. I mean, it would be a great deterrent, wouldn’t it?

Pretty simple answer. If they refuse to acknowledge they are nuclear capable, it gives them legitimacy in the court of public / world opinion when they STRONGLY protest any other neighboring country from trying to develop their own nuclear capability. Now, Carter’s confirmation on Israel’s nuclear capability is the justification each of these countries can use to justify their own programs. They didn’t have proof before; they do now!

speedo · May 29, 2008, 12:45pm

so if Carter had said Russia has 20,023 nuclear missiles
would it be a problem? Or France has 1275? No, it is because
we confuse Israel’s interests with our own. Carter can say
whatever he wants about Israel. He is not a citizen, owes
them nothing. They are, after all, a nation that spies on the US
regularly. Contrary to Dershowitz’s opinion and many on this
thread, we are the United States of America not the United
States of Israel. They, like most other countries in the world will
sell us out in a minute. Outside of votes and political fundraising
it may not be in our best interests as a nation to support Israel
any longer. We need to look at our foreign policy as what’s best
for the USA and not what’s best for Israel or a small segment of
our population. The idea that Carter has committed some sort of
crime is ludicrous and the idea that he’s old and feeble is probably
not true. I suspect Carter knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s
an American and a patriot.

Bullet · May 29, 2008, 12:54pm

And when Israel decides to start World War III because they feel they have no other choice, don’t you think we would be dragged into the conflict? We would be there to protect Israel, yes. But more importantly, we couldn’t stand aside and let the globally strategic area just turn into a glass bowl. Our economy is too reliant on the flow of oil out of that region.

Do we care about Israel? Sure, and we can argue the merits on that ad nuseum. But we care that our cars and factories keep running more.

No, he’s a loose cannon with his mouth, who just added fuel to the fire.

icantfindaname · May 29, 2008, 1:02pm

“And when Israel decides to start World War III because they feel they have no other choice, don’t you think we would be dragged into the conflict? We would be there to protect Israel, yes. But more importantly, we couldn’t stand aside and let the globally strategic area just turn into a glass bowl. Our economy is too reliant on the flow of oil out of that region.”

Carefull because another way to deal with that threat would be to disarm Israel the way we did when we thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. As a matter of fact it is our stated policy to do so (for everyone else).

Bullet · May 29, 2008, 1:15pm

Speedo / icantfindaname,

I’m game. Let’s wargame this. I’ll let you be the President of the US. I’ll be Israel and Iran. We’ll let other join in as the rest of the world when they feel it’s appropriate. The premise is you, as the POTUS, has decided to withdraw support for Israel, to include all financial and military aid. The challenge for us is to keep each of our decisions logical and likely.

My move: Israel is now cut-off form American backing. Boldened by the fact that Israel lost this level of protection, Arab states start ratcheting up the rhetoric, especially on Al Jezeera. Hamas has withdrawn all support of peace-talks, and is demanding the all Isreali leave the west bank and Jerueselum (-5 sp?). Israel puts it’sforces on a higher level off alert (cancels all leave, mobilizes it’s reserves) and uses agressive force to disband a riot in occupied Palestine, which is captured on video and played world-wide. The UN condems the action.

Your move…

Hunt · May 29, 2008, 1:20pm

I’ll be Russia. I sign a new mutual defense pact with Syria.

JHS · May 29, 2008, 1:27pm

Israel’s failure to claim nuclear capability publicly (except when they did it by mistake, then took it back) doesn’t give it any legitimacy in arguing against its neighbors nuclear programs. If it has any legitimacy, it has the same kind of legitimacy the U.S. has: You can trust us not to use our weapons, but we can’t trust you. We have a lot more to lose than you do. And you are hostile and unstable, while we are peaceful. (Weird, ambiguous legitimacy, in other words. But that’s the way things go.)

Israel has avoided public claims of nuclear capability only because that has spared the U.S. and its (erstwhile) European allies the embarassment of having to acknowledge publicly that they treat Israel somewhat differently than they treat North Korea or Pakistan on this issue. That’s fine. But it’s awfully difficult to discuss security in the region without mentioning it.

Bullet, I think if you read your last paragraph in #67 over again, carefully, you will realize that it’s about 180 degrees from reality. Israel is one of four countries not to have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has no credibility on nonproliferation, except for the argument above, and except also for the very real argument that if its neighbors are nuclear-capable, that increases exponentially the risk Israel will feel forced to use its nukes. Israel has pretty much given up on the “court of world/public opinion”, which is pretty solidly against it. It does, however, care about Israeli domestic politics and the U.S. Israel’s neighbors who are capable of it have not been hanging around waiting for confirmation from Jimmy Carter to pursue nuclear weapons, and they haven’t been shy about calling Israel’s nuclear capacity to the attention of the world in the meantime.

Bullet · May 29, 2008, 1:26pm

Hunt,
Do you also start sending in resources like military aid, or are you just giving vebal support at this time?

Bullet · May 29, 2008, 1:34pm

JHS,

You are right, Israel’s actions do nothing more than confrim to the world that they have nukes. But, just like you can’t go into court and have your neighbor arrested because you heard rumors that he has an illegal cache of automatic wepaons without actual proof (you need a search warrant, something I don’t think Israel is ready to just give out), the rest of the world can’t go to the UN to demand withdrawal of support because they are nuclear capable and haven’t signed on to the non-poliferation treaty. Israel kept quiet about this to save American face, which has been backing them for a while.

Subtle differnces, but legal all the same. AND THATS part of what diplomacy on the international stage is all about (soemthing this administration has dropped the ball on sometimes, IMO)

1of42 · May 29, 2008, 1:50pm

I know Hitler comparisons are fun. They work every time, right? Well, not actually.

The difference here is that the demented lunatic is not the iron-fisted leader of the country - as Hitler was - but rather a pseudo-figurehead who serves essentially at the beck and call of the Supreme Leader. So his saying things like this is minimally interesting, given his almost total lack of authority. Moreover, evidence is that Ahmadinejad is swiftly losing favor with Khameini anyways (landslide election of Larijani to speaker of the Iranian Majlis, over Ahmadinejad’s favored candidate), which makes it even less likely that his remarks are of any substance whatsoever.

I know it’s kind of gratifying to respond with proclamations of fire and brimstone to Ahmadinejad’s comments, but the bottom line is that Iran knows there is no chance it could get away with anything major against Israel and there is no chance it will push it in that regard. Ahmadinejad’s lunatic comments are just that - pure lunacy.

As for Israel, obviously it has the right to be skittish and probably should be, given its position. But if the US still wants to be the peace broker in the Middle East (looking increasingly unlikely), there needs to be real reluctance to waste political capital running interference for Israel all over the world stage. It’s not doing anybody any good, and every time the US vetoes another resolution or gets drawn into Iran’s little geopolitical games, US time and effectiveness are wasted.

bulletandpima · May 29, 2008, 3:24pm

So we should just let him spew his hatred, and ignore him?

Do you do that with your children, when they make ignorant and arrogant comments? Do you just say…not a big deal nobody listens to him anyway? Well nobody listened to McVeigh, Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold. How did that plan of ignoring work?

1of42 · May 29, 2008, 3:40pm

No, America should condemn the statement and move on. Ahmadinejad is like the playground loudmouth - he has no real power to affect any of what he thrashes around pontificating about, and is basically ignored by the power brokers in his own country.

The only thing that responding to him accomplishes is his goal of distracting Iranians from all the domestic failings of his regime by trying to create overtones of a grand clash of civilizations, which thoroughly succeed in keeping his domestic failings on the back burner in Iran.

I’m a big believer in pragmatic foreign policy. Your nonsensical comparison to McVeigh, Harris and Klebold aside, it is neither pragmatic nor useful to dwell on Ahmadinejad’s ravings. That’s exactly what he wants.

LaxAttack09 · May 29, 2008, 3:42pm

If you don’t think Ahmadinejad has any real power in his own country I suggest you take a course on Iranian politics over there in New Jersey. This is one of the most common misconceptions I’ve heard yet, when you educate yourself, you’ll find it is very wrong.

Bullet · May 29, 2008, 3:50pm

Your may be right 1of42. Maybe Ahmedinejad is not the iron-firsted lunatic ruler that Hitler was. But his bosses on the ruling council are. And worse, they are iron-firsted rulers with the stated intent of becoming a nuclear power to demonstrate their ability to be players on the world stage.

We might be better and can afford to just ignore him as you suggest. But do you really think Isreal is willing to do so? As I said before, that is the scenario that keeps me up at night. An IMO, that is wh we need to continue to publically show support to Israel. If they start feeling threatened and ALONE, that is when Israel may decide to do something “drastic”.

What is going on with Carter?

CONNECT WITH US