Saturday, June 21, 2025
The Nordic Times

Polaris of Enlightenment

Saturday, June 21, 2025

Polaris of Enlightenment

Breaking News

https://nordictimes.com/analysis/how-fanaticism-fuels-americas-christian-supporters-of-israel/

Analysis

How fanaticism fuels America’s Christian supporters of Israel

A major factor behind America's abnormal subservience to Israel is the Zionist evangelical movement, whose influence has been strengthened by Trump's return to the White House.

Published today 15:44
– By Editorial Staff
The right-wing Christian movement in the United States is intimately linked to unlimited support for Israel.
8 minute read

The relationship between Christian Europe and Judaism has varied and been complex over the centuries. It has often been marked by strong hostility, with Jews not only being regarded as having rejected Jesus as the true Messiah, but also often accused of being responsible for his crucifixion through the Jewish party and the sect of the Pharisees.

The Jewish diaspora was also generally viewed with great suspicion and was often forced to live in special quarters or areas so that the authorities could control them. Financial activities such as money lending and gold trading also led to them being associated with usury, which was greatly despised in traditional Christian society.

During the Middle Ages, relations between Christians and Jews deteriorated further in many places. In a number of European countries, Jewish residents were expelled, among other things on charges of causing disease outbreaks, poisoning wells, or ritually murdering Christian children. In several cases, there were also outright pogroms in which Jews were physically driven out or executed.

The Pope demanded separation, Luther advocated expulsion

Over the centuries, Jews continued to be regarded as an undesirable group in many places. In 1555, for example, Pope Paul IV declared that they must live separately from Christians, wear symbols that clearly showed which group they belonged to, and were even forbidden from selling anything other than food and second-hand clothes.

In his now highly controversial work The Jews and Their Lies, the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, went even further, claiming that the Jews were a godless people “who seek to destroy the foundation of our faith” and who, from childhood, are taught to harbor a “poisonous hatred of the goyim” (non-Jews).

Luther therefore advocated either expelling the Jews or forcing them into labor, while burning down their synagogues and schools.

Martin Luther and Pope Paul IV were both strongly critical of Judaism. Montage. Painting: Lucas Cranach the Elder, Jacopino Conte

The contrast in attitude toward the Jewish diaspora between Martin Luther and Paul IV is particularly striking when compared to modern evangelical Christian Zionists, who have their strongest foothold in the US but are also reflected in Nordic Pentecostal movements.

Scofield and the Jews as the chosen people

During the 19th century, a new Christian movement began to emerge in the US and Britain, inspired by biblical prophecies about the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, which was also linked to the return of Jesus to Earth. Some evangelical groups soon began to regard the re-establishment of Israel as a necessary and divine plan.

Similar ideas had been put forward before, but now they would have a broad impact. In 1909, the American theologian and preacher Cyrus Ingerson Scofield wrote a study and reference Bible, the so-called Scofield Bible, which soon became widely read in the United States. It focused heavily on proclaiming that every good Christian must also support Israel and the Jewish people – and that anti-Semitism was to be considered a particularly grave sin.

Scofield’s Bible has had a huge influence on the Christian movement in the United States. Montage. Photo: Geogozz/CC BY-SA 4.0, Unknown

“A man or nation that lifts a voice or hand against Israel invites the wrath of God“, is one of the statements made in the writings, where biblical texts are interpreted very literally. It is repeatedly emphasized that the return of the Jews to Jerusalem is a central part of God’s plan for the salvation of mankind.

It is also proclaimed that Israel will play a decisive role in the apocalyptic events of the end times, which, according to evangelicals, will precede Jesus’ return to earth, and that God’s prophecies in the Old Testament are about the Jews – not about Christians.

As a rule, the book is interpreted as saying that it is the moral and spiritual duty of every Christian to support Israel at all costs. According to this interpretation, if this is not done, the biblical prophecies will not be fulfilled and Christians themselves will not receive God’s salvation and blessing.

“God has promised to bless those who bless the Jews. I believe, as an Evangelical Christian, that the Jewish return to their current homeland in the twentieth century was, and is, a fulfillment of biblical prophecy”, explains prominent evangelical leader Richard Land, for example, explaining his conviction.

The influence of the Scofield Bible on evangelical movements has contributed to what is often described as almost unconditional support for Israel – something that has attracted renewed attention in the wake of international criticism of Israel for its hardline policy in Gaza, which has included accusations of genocide and led to calls for the country’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to be brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Israel supporters demonstrate in New York. Photo: shavnya.com/Unsplash

Evangelical Christians are a big deal in the US, making up over 25% of the population, and they’ve been seen as pretty influential in politics for a long time.

AIPAC finances evangelical candidates

As early as the first half of the 20th century, Christian Zionists supported Jewish immigration to Palestine and the establishment of the State of Israel, and their support has continued ever since. Today, Israel is considered an important “alliance partner” – not only for geopolitical reasons, but also for theological ones. These voices are considered by most analysts to be crucial in pushing through the extensive US support for Israel.

The US has also long had an influential Jewish diaspora with a lobby that, for obvious reasons, has appreciated the support of evangelicals. In many cases, large sums of money have been donated to finance the election campaigns of Christian supporters of Israel and to ensure that the US legislative assemblies are dominated by allies of Israel.

AIPAC, together with the ADL, is perhaps the best-known Jewish lobby organization in the US, and after the last election, it declared with satisfaction that almost all of “its” candidates had won their respective elections – while also managing to “stop” a number of Israel-critical challengers.

Both during Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, Christian Zionist influence on American politics intensified – but also during Donald Trump’s first term, when the disputed city of Jerusalem was recognised as the capital of Israel and the US embassy was moved there.

Apocalyptic motives

Christian Zionists are mainly found within the Republican Party, where some examples of prominent evangelical-oriented leaders include Trump’s former vice president Mike Pence, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Trump’s former vice president Mike Pence is Christian and a very strong supporter of Israel. Photo: US Embassy in Jerusalem/CC BY 2.0

James Lankford, John Thune, Tim Scott, Joni Ernst, and Josh Hawley are some other names belonging to the same movement and representing the same party. Its dominance has contributed to the Republicans pursuing an even more pro-Israel line than their competitors in the Democratic Party – although they too profess to see Israel as an indispensable ally.

Analysts often point out that Christian Zionists’ support for Israel is more ideological than pragmatic, and that they are driven by apocalyptic motives rather than strategic considerations. The movement has also long been accused of exacerbating conflicts in the Middle East, where it has tended to advocate escalation rather than peace talks with regional power Iran.

Here, too, the view is often based on biblical interpretations, where the conflicts in the Middle East are viewed through an apocalyptic lens. Reference is made above all to the Book of Revelation and its prophecies of a “final battle” in which Israel is surrounded by hostile nations that are ultimately defeated. Sometimes Iran, for example, is identified as part of the armies of “Gog and Magog” that will attack Israel – but also be destroyed by fire from the sky.

In a similar vein, Israel’s expulsion of Palestinians is generally seen as part of God’s will, as the Jews are the chosen people who have the right to reclaim the territory promised to them and partially occupied thousands of years ago.

Christian Zionists often identify Iran as part of the armies of “Gog and Magog.” Montage. Painting: unknown (early 13th century), photo: Khamenei.ir

When it comes to US foreign and security policy, evangelicals stand almost exclusively on Israel’s side, and in international forums there is also an agreement to always stand behind their allies and block any attempts at sanctions or condemnation from, for example, the UN.

Family of threatened chief prosecutor

There are many examples of the Christian right’s unconditional support for Israel. When it was first reported that the International Criminal Court was considering issuing an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, 12 Republican senators – including Ted Cruz and incoming Secretary of State Marco Rubio – responded by declaring that such an order would have direct consequences for the court’s chief prosecutor, his employees, and their family members.

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are two prominent Christian Zionists. Montage. Photo: U.S. Senate Photographic Studio, Gage Skidmore/CC BY-SA 2.0

“Target Israel and we will target you”, they threatened, promising “strong sanctions” against the court’s employees and associates, as well as to “bar you and your families from the United States”.

“You have been warned”, the Republicans declared, adding that the US would withdraw all support for the ICC if the court took action against Israel.

Similarly, prominent evangelicals have repeatedly claimed that the UN and its various bodies are “anti-Israel” or even “anti-Semitic” when Israeli crimes have been condemned, and senators such as Ted Cruz have declared that the US must leave the organization entirely if Israel is expelled.

Although there are a few dissenting voices, there is also much to suggest that the US under Donald Trump’s administration will pursue a more pro-Israel policy than has been the case under the Biden administration.

“No one is safe from their wrath”

Critics argue that it is very difficult in practice for US politicians to advocate a line where the US puts its own national interests ahead of Israel’s, given the strong influence of the pro-Israel lobby, which devotes considerable resources to fighting candidates who are not perceived as sufficiently loyal to Israel.

– No one is safe from their wrath, explains left-wing figure Connor Farrell.

To ensure that politicians truly promote Israel’s interests on all issues, it has emerged, for example, that all Republican members of Congress have a personal lobbyist from AIPAC with whom they are in close contact and who influences how they vote on various issues. However, this is something that politicians generally prefer not to tell voters, according to libertarian Congressman Thomas Massie.

–It doesn’t benefit anybody. Why would they want to tell their constituents that they’ve basically got a buddy system with somebody who’s representing a foreign country? It doesn’t benefit the congressman for people to know that. So they’re not going to tell you that, says Massie.

TNT is truly independent!

We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.

Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…

https://nordictimes.com/analysis/the-myth-of-irans-nuclear-weapons/

Analysis

The myth of Iran’s nuclear weapons

The escalation in the Middle East

For over 40 years, Israeli and US leaders have repeatedly sounded the alarm about an imminent Iranian nuclear threat, without ever producing a single piece of credible evidence. These lies have not only misled the public, they have also paved the way for repressive sanctions, assassinations, and a military intervention that is now very close to escalating into a catastrophic major war.

Published 19 June 2025
– By Editorial Staff
For more than 40 years, the world has been threatened by Iranian nuclear weapons – at least if Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies are to be believed.
10 minute read

The Bush administration’s lies about Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons of mass destruction were used as a pretext to invade Iraq – a war project estimated to have cost between 500,000 and one million lives. In hindsight, it turned out that no such weapons existed – they were simply lies to force through a desired regime change and assert power over the region.

Today, the invasion of Iraq is considered one of the worst betrayals by Western leaders in modern times and is often cited as a textbook example of how those in power will not shy away from manipulating their own citizens or the rest of the world to get their way. Although the case of Iraq is extreme in terms of suffering and scale, the approach is by no means unique.

Forty-one years ago, during the Cold War, the British defense magazine Jane’s Defense Weekly sounded the alarm with an unexpected report. “Iran is engaged in the production of an atomic bomb, likely to be ready within two years”, it claimed. The same claims were trumpeted by the Israeli media and US Senator Alan Cranston, who insisted that Iran was about seven years away from being able to manufacture its own nuclear weapons.

However, there was never any real basis for these claims, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also dismissed the alarm as unfounded. In retrospect, it was also clear that the statements were politically motivated scare tactics rather than serious predictions. Iran did not acquire nuclear weapons, either in the 1980s or later.

The fact that the alarms about Iran’s supposedly imminent nuclear threat had no grounding in reality mattered little. The steady stream of similar pronouncements continued to pour out from high-ranking Israeli and American officials.

For more than 40 years, Israeli and American leaders have profited from alarmist claims about an imminent Iranian nuclear threat. Photo: facsimile/X

All predictions were wrong

Israel’s current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared in the early and mid-1990s, when he was a member of parliament, that Iran could be only a few years away from acquiring nuclear weapons and demanded decisive action. During the same period, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres claimed that Iran would have a nuclear warhead by 1999, and in the US, a report by the House of Representatives’ Republican Research Committee claimed that Iran was “98 percent certain” to already have all the components needed to build “two or three operational nuclear weapons”.

At around the same time, under President George H.W. Bush, the CIA assessed that Iran had all the components needed for a couple of bombs, and predicted that Iran would have nuclear weapons by 2000 – a forecast that was later postponed to 2003.

These forecasts were also completely divorced from reality. The key was to portray the Iranian regime as a global threat that must be fought – and crushed with military force if necessary. This has continued, with constant alarmist and propagandistic warnings rather than serious and objective analysis. In 1995, for example, the New York Times reported that high-ranking US and Israeli officials warned that Iran would acquire a nuclear bomb by 2000.

“Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought”, the newspaper trumpeted, citing information from US and Israeli officials, and it was claimed that Iran’s atomic bomb was “at the top of the list” of dangers for the coming decade.

The warnings about Iranian nuclear bombs year after year after year have been likened to climate alarmists’ recurring warnings about global warming. Photo: facsimile/New York Times

Not yet – but soon?

When these deadlines passed without anything actually happening, the timeframes were pushed forward. In 1997, new estimates suggested that the Iranian bomb would not be ready until around 2007–2009.

During the 2000s, the warning signals and doomsday messages continued to echo. In 2005, Israel’s defense minister (Shaul Mofaz) stated that Iran would pass a “point of no return” in its nuclear weapons program within two years – which placed the critical date around 2007. In 2007, the Israeli intelligence service Mossad claimed that Iran could achieve nuclear weapons capability by 2009.

A 2009 forecast was even more alarming, claiming that Iran would be “nuclear armed” within a year. At the same time, more and more analysts began to question the credibility of the timelines and question why the forecasts were constantly being pushed forward, and why the new estimates should be more credible than the incorrect ones that had been made previously.

Despite the 2015 international nuclear agreement, leaders in Israel and the US continued to warn of Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions. In September 2012, Netanyahu made a high-profile appearance at the UN General Assembly: he held up a sketch of a bomb and drew a red line with a red pen at 90 percent enrichment, warning that Iran would reach this final stage toward a bomb by spring or summer 2013 unless it was stopped.

In 2015, Netanyahu addressed the US Congress and criticized the new nuclear agreement, saying: “It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, it paves Iran’s path to the bomb”.

In August 2021, it was time once again for Israel’s Defense Minister Benny Gantz to sound the alarm that Iran was only “about 10 weeks away” from obtaining enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear warhead.

Powerful interests want to see Iran burn

This, it should be emphasized, is only a small selection of all the statements and warnings about alleged threats that have never materialized. Over the past four decades, both American and Israeli leaders have had an even stronger incentive to portray Iran’s nuclear program as an urgent, global threat. First, the threat creates a political and strategic basis for justifying massive military support for Israel and permanent US military operations in the region.

Every warning about “imminent” nuclear weapons provides justification for congressional decisions on increased defense spending, arms exports, and a military presence in the Gulf region, which benefits arms manufacturers and maintains a powerful US presence in the oil-rich region.

Furthermore, the threatening rhetoric also strengthens Israel’s demands for international support against Tehran, which consolidates the country’s position of power in the region and legitimizes “preventive” military operations against Iran. By constantly repeating that “we only have weeks or months left”, it has been possible to maintain a permanent high-risk situation that facilitates quick decisions on sanctions or military threats whenever political leaders want to take a harder line against Iran.

At the same time, political financing in the US has also played a decisive role. Many members of Congress receive large contributions from pro-Israel lobby groups such as AIPAC, which consistently advocate a tough line against Iran to protect Israel’s security and interests. The Israel lobby’s ads in US election campaigns often portray any negotiations with Tehran as a moral failure, which has pushed US foreign policy in an extremely pro-Israel and neoconservative direction.

Similarly, Christian groups in the US, especially evangelicals, have long viewed Israel’s continued existence as a religious duty, whereby “those who bless Israel shall be blessed themselves” – and constitute a significant voter base that demands a tough confrontation with Iran. For these groups, a potential major war is not only a geopolitical possibility but also a step in prophetic eschatological patterns.

All in all, there are several influential groups that, for economic, geopolitical, or religious reasons, have an interest in keeping Iran’s “imminent” nuclear threat alive – even though none of the predictions have ever come true and there is no indication that they have ever been close to doing so.

What is Trump basing his decisions on?

Many had hoped that things would be different with Donald Trump, given his claims that he would be the one to “end all wars”.

– My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier, he has confidently declared.

In reality, however, a different picture emerges, with Trump choosing to completely ignore the assessment of his own intelligence chief when the latter states that there is no indication that Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.

– Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003, DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard recently stated, referring to the intelligence community’s collective assessment.

– I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having one (nuclear weapon), Trump stated, when journalists asked him why he was ignoring the assessments of his own experts and advisors.

The fact that IAEA chief Rafel Grossi also confirms that there is no evidence “of a systematic effort (by Iran) to move toward a nuclear weapon” does not seem to matter to the US’s top leaders either. Trump has, by all accounts, decided to follow Netanyahu’s war line – despite the fact that it has been proven false for decades.

A betrayal of the movement

Trump’s popularity has been largely built on promises to end expensive, protracted, and globalist wars. Now, the capricious president is dismissing his promises with vague neoconservative arguments that the US cannot become “great” as long as Iran has or could obtain nuclear weapons, and that this should therefore be the top priority for all American patriots.

During his previous term, Trump was heavily criticized for failing to deliver on his campaign promises. Many analysts explained this by saying that they were blocked by political opponents, but other critics also pointed out early on that he chose to surround himself with advisors with questionable agendas that were directly harmful to the US, such as his ultra-Zionist son-in-law Jared Kushner and the neoconservative hawk John Bolton.

This time, it would be different. Now, the administration would be made up of reliable and stable people who put the US first and prioritized what was good for the American people –not powerful special interests or foreign regimes.

That does not seem to have been the case. When it comes to Iran and the Middle East, the Americans and the world have, on the contrary, got a president in Trump who in practice may be even more belligerent than several of his despised predecessors. In recent days, his feed has been filled with warmongering neoconservative rhetoric and demands for Iranian submission.

“UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” he thunders in a post on Truth Social, among other things.

“We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin”, he threatens in another.

“AMERICA FIRST means many GREAT things, including the fact that, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”, he proclaims in a third.

Trump rants about Iranian nuclear weapons. Photo: facsimile/Truth Social

Who makes the decisions?

Trump has certainly long had an eccentric public persona, but even many of his own supporters on social media are wondering what is really going on. Wasn’t Joe Biden the crazy president who was dragging the US into war and misery – not Trump?

Others cannot understand why the US president continues to shout about Iranian nuclear weapons when all relevant experts have already stated that there is no evidence whatsoever that such a threat is imminent. Where did he actually get his information from, how does he make his assessments, and why are they so irrational? These are the questions being asked. No answers seem to be forthcoming, except that the US is sticking to its line that Israel’s wishes take precedence over everything else.

Therefore, it does not matter to Trump that it is Israel – not Iran – that has illegally and in the utmost secrecy acquired a large number of nuclear weapons and used them to press for US military support or deter hostile neighbors in conflicts.

There is widespread concern among Trump’s voter base that, despite all his promises of peace, Trump once again appears to be throwing the US into a major war based on lies and disinformation – exactly as was the case with the invasion following the fabricated chemical weapons allegations in Iraq in 2003. Many Americans are resigned to the fact that this is not at all what they voted for.

Opponents of US involvement in Israel’s war against Iran also point out that those who are most vocal in calling for another US war are power brokers who do not actually support Trump or the MAGA movement, but see the war as an opportunity to split or crush the movement that has built up around him.

The coming days and weeks will not only define Trump’s political legacy, but the future of the entire Middle East. Perhaps even the world’s.

A selection of warnings about an imminent Iranian nuclear threat:

1984 – Jane’s Defense Weekly: Iran may have nuclear weapons within two years.
1992 – Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran close to having a bomb by 1999.
1993 – Yitzhak Rabin: Iran is building nuclear weapons, the world must act.
1995 – US government: Iran's nuclear weapons plans must be stopped
1998 – Madeleine Albright: Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons.
2000 – Bill Clinton: Law against support for Iran's weapons program.
2002 – George W. Bush: Iran threatens with nuclear weapons plans.
2004 – U.S. National Intelligence Estimate: Iran probably moving toward nuclear weapons.
2005 – Ariel Sharon: Iran close to technical solution for bomb.
2006 – George W. Bush: Iran's nuclear plans threaten peace.
2007 – US intelligence: Iran paused its weapons program in 2003 but is rebuilding capacity.
2008 – Ehud Olmert: Iran close to irreversible nuclear weapons point.
2009 – Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran three to five years from bomb.
2010 – Barack Obama: Iran's nuclear program a major threat.
2011 – Leon Panetta: Iran could have a bomb within a year.
2012 – Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran close to the “red line” for nuclear weapons.
2013 – Moshe Ya’alon: Iran very close to the nuclear threshold.
2014 – Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
2015 – Benjamin Netanyahu: JCPOA (nuclear agreement with Iran) paves the way for Iran's bomb.
2017 – Donald Trump: Iran could quickly obtain nuclear weapons.
2018 – Mike Pompeo: Iran is seeking nuclear weapons despite JCPOA.
2019 – Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran close to manufacturing an atomic bomb.
2020 – Donald Trump: Iran economically weak but nuclear threat remains.
2021 – Joe Biden: Iran must comply with JCPOA to stop nuclear weapons.
2023 – Yoav Gallant: Iran closer to the bomb than ever.
2024 – US intelligence: Iran months away from nuclear weapons.
2025 – Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran could build nine nuclear weapons.
2025 – Donald Trump: US could bomb Iran if nuclear program is not stopped.

https://nordictimes.com/analysis/why-does-the-international-community-not-question-israels-goals/

Analysis

Why does the international community not question Israel’s goals?

The escalation in the Middle East

Jenny Piper

If the Samson option really exists, it reveals much about the basis for Israel's disproportionate influence and the silence of the international community. The fact that Israel is repeatedly allowed to act without consequences is rooted in a form of blackmail, with world leaders cowering in fear that the “nuclear card” will be played.

Published 18 June 2025
– By Jenny Piper
Analysts believe that the “Samson option” means that Israel, faced with the threat of annihilation, intends to take as much of the surrounding world with it as possible—including countries in Europe.
5 minute read

After the G7 summit reaffirmed that Iran must never acquire nuclear weapons and that Israel has the right to defend itself, I once again express criticism of the double standards being applied and question why Israel’s nuclear capabilities do not provoke the same kind of mania. I’m reading an analysis that sheds light on this complex situation.

Although it is a fact accepted by experts around the world that Israel has had nuclear bombs since shortly before the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel still maintains a facade of deliberate ambiguity regarding its nuclear capabilities.

According to recent estimates by the independent Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which has been monitoring the world’s nuclear weapons and the states that possess them since 1966, Israel appears to have at least 90 nuclear warheads that are believed to be capable of being launched anywhere within a maximum radius of 4,500 km with their F-15, F-16I and F-35I “Adir” aircraft, their 50 land-based Jericho II and III missiles, and approximately 20 Popeye Turbo cruise missiles launched from submarines.

The relevant question that arises is why the international community does not question Israel’s objectives, given that Iran has signed the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which Israel has refused to do.

There have been international efforts to bring all Israeli nuclear facilities under the protection of the International Atomic Energy Agency, but Israel refuses to sign an agreement to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state.

Another fact that is not disputed is that Israel has attacked Iran with the stated aim of crippling its nuclear weapons programme, which is supported by large parts of the international community, but at the same time the International Atomic Energy Agency has been unable to establish that this is not about energy. Fundamentally, Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but not to develop nuclear weapons, and so far there is no concrete evidence to support the allegations circulating in the media.

Another unexplored question is why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons without having to commit to any agreements, while Iran, if it wanted to, is not allowed to possess nuclear weapons at all.

Another interesting aspect is that Israel has been in violation of UN Resolution 487 since 1981. This originated in an attack on a nuclear research facility in Iraq carried out by Israel on June 7, 1981, which was condemned by the UN Security Council as a “clear violation of the UN Charter and the norms of international conduct”. According to the Security Council, Iraq had been a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty since it came into force in 1970.

The resolution, which is still in force, called on Israel to “place its nuclear facilities under the protection of the International Atomic Energy Agency”, but as already mentioned, Israel has never complied with Resolution 487.

Israel has no nuclear power plants, but experts agree that there is a huge nuclear facility. The Shimon Peres Negev Nuclear Research Center was built in the late 1950s/early 1960s and is said to have received French assistance and was named after the former Israeli prime minister after his death in 2016. The facility is a heavily guarded complex in the Negev desert, less than 70 km from the border with Egypt.

Iran has ballistic missiles that can reach the nuclear research center about 1,500 km from Tehran, so why would Tehran attack Israeli cities in retaliation for Israel’s attempts to destroy Iran’s nuclear industry when they could instead attack Israel’s nuclear facility?

The answer probably lies in the “Samson Option”, a protocol for mutual destruction whose existence has never been acknowledged by Israel, but never denied either. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh, who also investigated the Nord Stream attack, was the first to report on the Samson Option, which concerns Israel’s deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a “last resort” against a country whose military has invaded and/or destroyed large parts of Israel. But it will not only be its enemies that are attacked, but several of the world’s major cities under the motto “we fall, we all fall”.

Israel has twice come close to using its nuclear weapons. In 2017, it was claimed that Israel had been on the verge of launching a “demonstration” nuclear explosion shortly before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war in order to scare its enemies.

The plan was revealed in interviews with retired General Itzhak Yaakov, conducted by Avner Cohen, an Israeli-American historian and leading researcher on Israel’s nuclear history, which were published only after Yaakov’s death.

In 2003, Cohen revealed that during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when it once again appeared that Israeli forces were about to be overrun, then-Prime Minister Golda Meir had approved the use of nuclear bombs and missiles as a last resort. This doomsday plan, codenamed Samson, was named after the Israelite strongman who, captured by the Philistines, tore down the pillars of their temple and destroyed himself along with his enemies.

Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear engineer and peace activist, revealed Israel’s nuclear secrets back in 1986. Mordechai was lured to Rome, where he was kidnapped by Mossad agents and taken back to Israel on an Israeli navy ship, where he was charged with treason. He was sentenced to 18 years in prison and spent much of his time in solitary confinement. In April 2004, he was released but remains subject to a series of strictly enforced restrictions that prevent him from leaving Israel and speaking to foreigners.

Ahron Bregman, senior lecturer at the Department of War Studies at King’s College London’s Institute of Middle East Studies, who served in the Israeli army for six years in the 1980s, has said that everyone believes Israel has nuclear weapons and that the fact that Israel found it necessary to arrest Vanunu and put him in prison, and continues to impose strict restrictions on him, only proves this.

If the Samson option is true, it explains much of Israel’s influence and the passive attitude of the international community towards Israel. Israel’s ability to get away with carte blanche, no matter what it does, is based on a kind of blackmail where no one dares to oppose it for fear of the “nuclear card”. The few countries that have missiles capable of shooting down Israel’s missiles today are probably Russia, China, and North Korea, as their missiles are faster.

It therefore remains to be seen how this will end, but given that Trump has already given Israel his full support, I find it difficult to see how the outcome could be any different this time. And while those in power make their moves, more people will die on both sides, but the winner laughing all the way to the bank will be the war industry, which, as usual, is profiting from the ongoing chaos.

All Jenny Piper's articles can be found on her blog.

https://nordictimes.com/analysis/would-israel-take-the-world-with-it-in-its-demise/

Analysis

Would Israel take the world with it in its demise?

The escalation in the Middle East

The Israeli nuclear arsenal and the so-called "Samson option" have become increasingly discussed in the context of the escalating situation in the Middle East.

Published 15 June 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Will nuclear weapons be used as large-scale retaliation if Israel is threatened?
6 minute read
Editorial Staff
editorial@nordictimes.com

In 1986, Israel’s nuclear weapons program was revealed – although to this day the country’s authorities have refused to acknowledge that it possesses any weapons of mass destruction. Israel’s nuclear arsenal has even been called “the world’s worst-kept secret” and, with French help, began to be developed in great secrecy as early as the 1950s.

Israeli nuclear engineer Mordechai Vanunu was the one who exposed the program in the British press, before he was kidnapped by the Mossad intelligence service, brought back to Israel and spent the next 18 years in an Israeli prison. To this day, Vanunu is banned from leaving the country and has also been sentenced to several short prison terms for “forbidden speech” related to the nuclear weapons program.

This article was originally published on March 18, 2025.

It is difficult to say with certainty how many nuclear weapons Israel actually has. In 2008, former US President Jimmy Carter speculated that at the time there were at least 150 warheads “or more”.

Samson and the Philistines

Closely related to the Israeli nuclear doctrine is the so-called “Samson option” – which refers to Israel’s strategy of retaliation in the event of a major attack on its own country, or in a situation where the very existence of the nation is deemed to be under threat.

The name is taken from the biblical character Samson, who, blinded and captured by the Philistines, finally managed to tear apart the pillars of the temple in which he was held captive – whereupon the roof collapsed, killing not only him, but also thousands of the Philistines who had tormented him.

Samson destroys the Philistine temple. Painting: Giovanni Benedetto Castiglione.

The Samson option, according to many analysts, is something like this – that Israel would respond with large-scale nuclear attacks if its existence were threatened or if, for example, Jerusalem were bombed to pieces.

Threatening Nixon with nuclear weapons

As early as 1967, during the Six-Day War, Israel planned to detonate a nuclear device on a mountain in the Sinai Desert to warn the surrounding Arab states in the area. However, this never materialized, as Israel was able to defeat its opponents through conventional warfare.

During the Yom Kippur War in 1973, it was time again when the then Prime Minister Golda Meir chose to blackmail the US and President Nixon by preparing and threatening to use nuclear weapons against his enemies – unless the US immediately delivered war material and assistance of various kinds. Again, no nuclear bombs were detonated – according to analysts, simply because Nixon agreed to the demands.

Richard Nixon and Golda Meir. Montage. Photo: Willem van de Poll/Nationaal Archief/CC BY-SA 4.0

According to award-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, during the 1970s, Israel considered the Soviet Union as the main threat, and a number of nuclear warheads were also aimed at Soviet cities – while the Soviets had several Israeli cities on their list of potential nuclear targets.

Hersh argues that the nuclear doctrine changed when right-wing leader Menachem Begin took power in 1977, and that an ambition emerged not only to acquire a large number of nuclear weapons to respond to a possible attack, but also with the aim to “use Israeli might to redraw the political map of the Middle East”.

“The power to destroy the world”

After all, the most commonly held view is that the purpose of the so-called Samson option is to destroy or annihilate states that attack Israel. However, others go further and argue that it is instead about “taking revenge on the world” and that Israel, if it perceives an existential threat, wants to cause as much damage and devastation as possible even to countries not directly involved in the attack against them. For example, Jewish professor David Perlmutter of Louisiana State University expressed such a view in the LA Times in 2002.

“Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow – it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Samson in Gaza? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens?” wrote Perlmutter.

“For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away – unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans – have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?” Perlmutter asked himself further.

“Destroying the pillars of the world”

Jewish writer and journalist Ron Rosenbaum also argues that Israel, in the “aftermath of a second Holocaust”, could not only attack its aggressors but also “bring down the pillars of the world (attack Moscow and European capitals for instance)” on the grounds that anti-Semitism associated with past persecutions in history must be avenged. Even “the holy places of Islam” could be attacked with nuclear weapons in such a situation, according to Rosenbaum, who emphasizes that “abandonment of proportionality is the essence” of the Samson option.

Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld takes a similar line. In the context of the second intifada, he said that Israel had “hundreds of nuclear weapons” – and that these could also be aimed at European capitals, which he said were in the line of fire of the Israeli military.

“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: ‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother'”.

“I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under”, Mr. van Creveld further declared.

Moshe Dayan (former Minister of Defense and Foreign Affairs) said that Israel must act “like a mad dog”. Photo: National Library of Israel/ CC BY 4.0

Jerusalem Post journalist Gil Ronen has also described the Samson option as a way for Israel to annihilate its enemies and “possibly causing irreparable damage to the entire world” in a situation where “Israel faces annihilation”.

Unwavering support from the West?

Since Israeli officials will not even acknowledge that they have nuclear weapons – or how many, it is of course impossible at this stage for the country’s leaders to be clear about their strategy with regard to them. Furthermore, it is of course unlikely that Israel – or any other country for that matter – would admit that it intends to “take the world with it if it falls” – even if that were the case. This is rarely the case, although Russian President Vladimir Putin, for example, admitted during Oliver Stone’s visit to Moscow that he believes a nuclear war between Russia and the United States “would probably have no winners”.

What the Samson option actually means in a “worst case scenario” will be the subject of further discussion – not least as the situation across the Middle East continues to become increasingly risky and escalatory, with Israel now attacking Iranian targets (and vice versa).

Western support for Israel seems unwavering – despite the tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Gaza and alerts from human rights organizations about violations of international law. Can this be explained by historical loyalty to Israel alone? Or is there possibly also a fear somewhere in the picture, a fear that, to quote Moshe Dayan, the country’s political leadership would actually act “like a mad dog” if left to its own devices?

Editorial Staff
editorial@nordictimes.com

https://nordictimes.com/analysis/welcome-back-to-poor-sweden/

Analysis

Welcome back to Poor Sweden

The destruction of the European economy

We live in a system that is showing increasingly clear signs of bankruptcy, not only morally but also in practical economic terms.

Published 15 March 2025
– By Editorial Staff
The return of "Poor Sweden" is largely the result of decisions by those in power.
8 minute read

The little guy is struggling harder and harder to pay the rent, buy food and avoid getting into debt. Meanwhile, the political establishment in Stockholm and Brussels continues to throw money around like the boy with the gold pants.

Taxpayers’ money is being spent on huge projects that seem increasingly disconnected from reality, in the form of sums of money that are almost unfathomable. Recently, for example, the European Commission, headed by Ursula von der Leyen, announced that it wants to spend an additional €800 billion on the military in the proxy war against Russia. For some concrete reference, this is more than seven times the entire Swedish state budget. It is also stressed that “Europe is ready to massively increase its defense spending”.

On the editorial pages of the establishment media, the mood is mostly excited about the line that Europe is cutting back on welfare and spending the money on military rearmament instead. Part of the funding, von der Leyen explains, will come from even more loans (what else?). At home in Sweden, Swedes must be reminded that it is for freedom that this war is being waged, not for the benefit of big business or the military-industrial complex, no not at all. For what could be more democratically invaluable for Sweden and Europe than to lull the countries of Europe deeper into the safe embrace of Wall Street and buy weapons with the money?

The specifically Swedish contributions in the form of money and material being channelled out of the country to war-torn Ukraine, alongside the fact that we, like other EU countries, are bearing the brunt of Miss Ursula’s generous donations, have now surpassed the state budget’s item for pensions.

Against this backdrop, it is hardly surprising that alarms are sounding about the increasing number of families with children being evicted, single parents and pensioners not being able to afford to eat, and many people resorting to desperate measures such as text message loans or turning to the church and voluntary organizations to help them cope with everyday life.

Rent increases, electricity price shocks, soaring food costs and eroding wages are examples of economic phenomena that can all be directly linked to the policies being pursued. All in all, this has made it impossible for many people to live with dignity and has driven households into acute debt. Last spring, Swedes owed almost €11 billion to the Swedish Enforcement Authority – a 17% increase in just one year. For many young couples who want to start a family, a house, something that used to be a given, is now almost a naive utopia. It is a sign of the times that neoliberal think tanks such as Timbro want the government to open up for the construction of slum housing without kitchens or windows.

One idea that has characterized the Nordic countries for a long time has been that subsequent generations have generally had better material conditions than their parents and grandparents. However, it is difficult to interpret this development in any other way than to say that we are in fact living in a time when the Poor Sweden of the history books is now on its way back, and with a vengeance.

For this we can thank all those in power who have consistently shown that they prioritize opportunistic ideology and short-term self-interest over the long-term welfare of the people. “What the hell do I get for my money?”, as the industrialist Leif Östling put it, is a question that more and more Swedes are rightly asking themselves.

War, “climate” and covid

The price of the breakneck investments that those in power have embarked on just since the turn of the millennium, or even in the last five years, is difficult to grasp at all. It involves thousands upon thousands of citizens’ billions being pumped into projects where inputs and costs are distributed in many different ways and levels. Although they are often difficult to grasp in their complexity, it is not rocket science to establish where the money has gone, because they are very open about it.

Before 2022, the Ukraine debacle was widely regarded as one of Europe’s most failed and corrupt countries. Unsurprisingly, it is now correctly stated that a large part of the money sent to the country has “disappeared”, as well as that the military equipment sent is now in the hands of criminal networks in Latin America, among other places, and certainly also in Europe. In this context, the media does not, of course, remind us that the last three years of war have been a completely pointless enterprise in themselves and, especially against this background, were very close to ending with a peace agreement as early as March 2022 with largely unanimous diplomatic delegations from Ukraine and Russia after the talks in Istanbul. The fact that credible testimonies have stated that the agreement was sabotaged by the Western bloc, with UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson as the hitman, is an increasingly heavy burden to bear.

Meanwhile, the habit of the political coterie to spend money on national economic black holes precedes, and unfortunately will also follow, Ukraine. Among previous investments made, to the benefit of democracy, we must assume, is the mass immigration policy, which, according to estimates, has cost the Swedes at least €22.5 billion annually. Apart from sweeping humanitarian reasons, this has generally been justified above all by the need for a greater choice of new restaurants.

Tens of billions of euros are paid to the EU colossus in Brussels, which, in addition to war, has now developed its civic offer into new and innovative forms of totalitarianism, such as the Chat Control project. Mention should also be made, of course, of the billions that have been spent, and continue to be spent, on “climate initiatives” at EU level, such as giving strong drugs to dairy cows to try to stop them farting. The reason is that this is environmentally friendly, guaranteed healthy for the cows and certainly, by extension, good for the dairy products and the people who eat them.

The food supply is well on the way to being destroyed and it is now not only in the Netherlands that there are good reasons for farmers to revolt. In the name of climate policy, sanctions and the energy crisis, Swedish farms are being forced to close down on a regular basis, and how the situation for dairy farmers in Norrland is critical and that there will soon be no dairy farms left in the northern parts of the country.

The “compensation” that we are offered for this by those in power, alongside vague promises to avoid the end of the world, consists primarily of wind farms that are very poorly adapted to the actual needs of the economy. For some segments of the population, part of the compensation also consists of improved night’s sleep over the fact that the bad guy in the Kremlin cannot buy Swedish crispbread, at least not without importing it via transit countries, in other words, in much the same way as we buy Russian oil.

The lockdown policy during the coronavirus was not free either, or rather, it damaged the economy at its foundations. In retrospect, it is also clear that, as many critics pointed out at the time, it was largely irrelevant in epidemiological terms. If you also take into account public health aspects, mental and physical, the final bill for the covid policy is still very unclear – that is, alongside the installment plan for the pharmaceutical giants that Ursula von der Leyen imposed on the EU member states via her text message shopping with Pfizer boss Albert Bourla.

This, it should be added, is only a superficial look at a system that shows far more signs of turning its moral bankruptcy into an economic one.

A crisis of leadership

Sweden and many other European countries have historically experienced periods of extreme poverty – although no one alive today is old enough to remember this. There was a time when poverty was so widespread that almost a third of the population no longer saw a future in their home country and chose to flee famine and deprivation in search of a better life on the other side of the Atlantic.

There are, of course, significant differences between contemporary and 19th-century Sweden, but even the basic economic standards we take for granted can and do get taken away. All trends also indicate that we are at the beginning of a similar period of economic decline, but this time it is not due to agricultural failure, but to the failure of the ruling class.

There is, unfortunately, no easy or quick (realistic) solution to that problem – but nonetheless, it is of the utmost importance that a radical change takes place. The basic principle is simple and well known to anyone who can see beyond the fog of the mainstream media: as long as those in power do not have the will or the competence to serve the good of the citizens, the citizens will not benefit from the policies pursued.

The little people will pay for Ulf Kristersson’s poor decisions. Montage. Photo: Magnus Liljegren/Government Offices of Sweden, Monkeybusinessimages/iStock

Today’s Swedish and European establishments have long since shown beyond reasonable doubt that they are driven by motives other than serving the people of Sweden and Europe, regardless of whether their names are Ulf Kristersson, Magdalena Andersson or Ursula von der Leyen. Unfortunately, the same type of inept leaders can be found not only in politics, but also in other sectors of society such as big banks and mass media. Their spiritual poverty manifests itself in many ways, now also on an increasingly tangible economic level.

It would be quite possible to point to a long list of individual reforms that could change the economic situation, but that is secondary in a situation where what is really needed is a profound systemic change. What is needed is a political leadership that fulfills its real responsibility and function to serve citizens rather than superficial mass media narratives and ultra-globalist interest groups.

It does not have to be this way. Of course, if and when the will is there, it will be perfectly possible to prioritize the same money in areas and projects that genuinely benefit the national interest and development. The example of El Salvador, previously highlighted on TNT Analysis, is of particular relevance in this context because it shows that a political change of this magnitude is not only possible, but can also happen very quickly, especially in a small country like Sweden.

N

Polaris of Enlightenment

News

Other

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Follow TNT socials!

X-twitter Facebook Telegram Instagram

© 2022-2025 The Nordic Times TNT.
All rights reserved.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Donate

Our independent journalism needs your support!
Consider a donation.

You can donate any amount of your choosing, one-time payment or even monthly.
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Donate
Dont miss another article!

Sign up for our newsletter today!

Take part of uncensored news – free from industry interests and political correctness from the Polaris of Enlightenment – every week.