Israel Should Defer Direct Retaliation Against Iran

Many people that I respect are calling for a massive retaliation from Israel against Iran after Iran’s missile and drone attack on April 13. While I disagree, Israel will do what it will do. I think that context has been dropped leading to an overreaction.

Having called for the US to attack Iran since 1979, I don’t see yesterday’s attack as being cataclysmic. Reported damage includes an injured 10 year old girl and ineffective damage to an airbase.

While I agree that ending the Iranian regime is the crux of de-escalation of instability in the region, now is an inopportune time. Europe is obsessed with Ukraine while the US has higher priority issues in east Asia. Thus Iran remains as a low priority for the West with focus on containment and occasional efforts at détente.

For the sake of argument, what can Israel do immediately against Iran if the US doesn’t lead? Without going green glass, Israel has limited capability to strike Iran directly with missiles and bombers. Depleting such resources would make them unavailable against Hamas and Hezbollah. Further such attacks risk retaliation from Iran which would further degrade Israeli missile defense capabilities.

At this time, it is better for Israel to not be tricked by Iran into being distracted from its Gaza mission against Hamas. Israel has already had a 6 month mobilization just to pacify Gaza, which remains incomplete. Meanwhile, Israel is busy deterring Hezbollah when in the past Israel failed to take out Hezbollah in a one-on-one fight. Currently strained to fight on one front while holding on another front, Israel doesn’t have the capacity to open a third military front against Iran. Thus in context, in the near term, Israel’s best strategy is to defeat Hamas, Iran’s proxy, while holding off Iran’s other proxies in Lebanon and Syria.

In the longer term, after Hamas has been ended, Israel can retaliate against Iran. Such an attack should scale in a way that cripples Iran’s ability to project power against Israel either by proxies or missile/drone attack. Ukraine has demonstrated the effectiveness of drone attacks against oil infrastructure. From a ship in the Gulf of Oman, Israel could launch a swarm of drone attacks to cripple Iran’s economy by hitting critical constraints in Iran’s oil infrastructure: ports, pipelines, refineries, and storage facilities.

Obviously, Israel attacking Iranian oil infrastructure is contrary to the US’ important interests related to the free flow of commerce in the region, but so are Houthi (Iran’s proxy) attacks on Red Sea shipping. However, Israel will act in Israel’s interest when the US fails to lead, or leads irresponsibly as the feckless Biden Administration has. While I generally focus on the US’ many interests, I can’t pretend that other countries will not pursue their own vital interests when their people are threatened by military force.

This brief Israel versus Iran case study is useful in that it points out that reality limits capacity, even of US military power. If we don’t plan to start throwing around mushroom clouds to solve our foreign policy problems, we need to understand that the US military is structured to fight in only one war theater while holding in another as was demonstrated by Afghanistan and Iraq. In the 80s, Secretary of State Schultz and Secretary of Defense Weinberger would have conflicts when State wanted to threaten more than Defense could do. In today’s woke-crippled US military, we have a similar problem of utopian overpromisers in State getting the US into more messes at the same time than Defense can solve by destruction.

Extra point: In fairness to those calling for an immediate and robust Israeli retaliation against Iran, here is an example of their argument:

Israel Ending Hamas Is in US Vital Interests

Since Israel invaded Gaza in response to Hamas’ 10/7/2023 terrorist attack, many Americans have been questioning the US role in the war. Specifically, why should we be involved at all?

So far, US support to Israel has been limited to military aid, intelligence sharing, and staging forces in the area to prevent an escalation of the conflict to include counterattacks from other countries against Israel. Additionally, the US has provided humanitarian aid to Gazans. Diplomatically, the US has been inconsistent in a fashion that undermines US interests in the conflict.

While the US has many relevant interests let me focus on the two that are vital: international terrorism and nuclear proliferation. US interests are hierarchical: vital, important, tertiary. Our humanitarian interests are tertiary (lesser value but still of value) so I will not discuss. Only our vital interests are so important that the US would go to war, but will prefer to achieve without using our military power.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. While some may disagree, officially the US has recognized Hamas as a terrorist organization since 10/8/1997. Further, the US has an official national interest in ending international terrorism. Hamas is an international terrorist organization with ties to Iran and operations around the world including the US. For an overview of official US interests see National Security Strategy 2000.

Israel’s war aim is to end Hamas. Thus Israeli success achieves US interests related to international terrorism by ending an officially recognized terrorist organization.

When al Qaeda adopted a franchise model for expanding the War on Terror beyond US military resources, as a force multiplier, the US adapted by providing financial aid and training to governments facing terrorism threats so US forces would not be diluted by spreading conflicts. Our current financial and military aid to Israel in their invasion of Gaza is a continuation of that policy. Instead of Israel getting special treatment, they are getting less than we have given other countries in significant ways because they need less aid.

Frankly without technical and financial aid from the US, Israel could not be as precise in many of their attacks so there would be more civilian casualties in Gaza. Contrary to critics’ propaganda, without US aid Israel would still be in Gaza with the same objective, see what Israel did to Beirut in the 80s.

Some may say that the US shouldn’t be fighting international terrorism and shouldn’t be helping Israel end Hamas. However US foreign policy isn’t rendered de novo based upon feelings. US policies are a bipartisan continuity directed by precedent and agreements. Such is not immutable but should be changed based in principles instead of whim or feelings or the opinion poll of the moment.

Consider Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon in which they drove out the PLO. During the invasion, Reagan’s advisor Mike Deaver got weak kneed and weepy eyed over the brutal Israeli bombardment of Beirut; he threatened to resign if Reagan didn’t make the Israelis stop. Consequently an evacuation by the PLO to Libya was negotiated and executed. Thus all of those killed subsequently by PLO/Fatah, Hamas, and other Palestinian terrorist organizations are the fault of a man unwilling to stomach the brutal work required to end a terrorist organization. After the PLO evacuated, moderate Arab leaders emerged in the West Bank and Gaza. What happened to those peaceful moderate leaders? The Palestinian terrorists killed them, which led to the return of the PLO and subsequent civil war between Fatah and Hamas for control of international humanitarian relief resources and money.

We should learn from the failure and deaths from the US previously restraining Israeli efforts to end an Arab terrorist organization.

Let’s talk about the elephant in the room: nuclear weapons vs. from the river to the sea.

Hamas’ objective is to conquer Israel and kill the Jews. How do you negotiate with that? In the name of moderation and compromise, should Hamas get to kill half the Israelis? For Hamas, violence will not stop until Israel is destroyed. Israel believes Hamas when the terrorists say this, but useful idiots do not. This is not a conflict in which both sides can win; either one wins, they both lose, or a stalemate peace-process-war continues with more dead civilians on both sides. The peaceful outcome with the least collateral damage is Hamas destroyed by Israel.

Let’s assume Hamas wins. Israel has nuclear weapons…shhhh, it is a secret that everyone knows. Does the US want a terrorist organization with ties to Iran to have nuclear weapons? That is potentially a green glass scenario with the US at war.

One of the overarching reasons for US interventions in the world is to prevent nuclear proliferation. Despite setbacks, the US has been better at doing so than one would have expected after the US lost its nuclear monopoly. Even the threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan relates to US’ nuclear non-proliferation vital interest. If Taiwan doesn’t trust in US protection, they may restart their research program into nuclear weapons. If Taiwan is conquered because the US was unreliable, both Japan and South Korea could quickly become nuclear armed states.

Back to Israeli nukes in Hamas’ hands. How long before a terrorist organization like Hamas would use that weapon? How long before Iran acquired the nuclear technology from Hamas? Consider that Iran has nuclear scientists but Hamas doesn’t so they would call in the Iranians immediately.

The US giving aid to Israel in this conflict will not only advance the US’ vital interest in ending international terrorism but reduce the risk of further nuclear proliferation. With US vital interests at stake and the Israelis doing the fighting, aiding Israel against Hamas is putting America first.

You Let Him Hit It Raw, Now You Are a Single Mom

Several years ago, Warren Farrell published The Boy Crisis, which documented the negative life outcomes for kids who grew up without an actively engaged dad. From it, I noted the causal link between dad deprivation and a broad range of public policy issues like criminality, gun violence, terrorism, mass shootings, poverty, child abuse, mental illness, suicide, drug abuse, welfare dependency, education failure, and health problems. I am just saying a little common-sense single mom control could solve a lot of expensive problems.

This week on X the sex war in politics focused for a moment on Fresh unintentionally putting a bun in the oven.

For those wise enough to not know, Fresh (Walter Weekes) is part of a podcasting duo called Fresh & Fit. Their stick is to bring many Miami party girls, Instagram thots, and OnlyFans sex workers on their show where the guys neg them and explain to the girls why women are awful and dumb. On the Fresh & Fit podcast, what is best in life for a man in current year is to have sex with many women without commitment. While media types and commentators incorrectly label them as Red Pill, it is accurate to call them pickup artists or dating coaches who seek to profit by teaching men how to get chicks. Reportedly for Fresh & Fit that includes in practice propositioning their show’s guests and paying prostitutes. Basically Fresh & Fit are low self-esteem posers who convince too many women to have sex with them.

That is not exactly news as this diagnosis of them is years old. However, audio of a conversation has been made public between Fresh and Daisy Chen claiming to be pregnant by him. Maybe he is the daddy, but he should ask Maury because a third of paternity tests are negative. In the recording, Fresh tells her to get an abortion. When he isn’t offering marriage, she goes for the bag by threatening him with child support, then she immediately put him on blast.

While this should be a private matter between Fresh and his reported baby momma, it is of political significance because of child support in the courts, welfare for irresponsible single mothers, and the public debate over abortion. Meanwhile the usual collection of women (feminists, trad wives, and trad-influencer single moms) are using Fresh’s failures as a man to dismiss the legitimacy of all complaints that men have about legal issues related to heterosexual relationships in current year (see Cassie Jaye’s documentary “The Red Pill”).

Most importantly for the young guys, let me start with a safety briefing (HT: Terrence Popp of Redonkulas). Guys, don’t have sex with a woman who you don’t intend to have a family with; not because “God” says so but because women tend to be untrustworthy, especially related to contraception such as putting holes in your condom or sperm jacking your man juice from a condom in the trash. That said if your biological urge compels you to work on your stroke game, don’t be a fool and wrap your tool then destroy the biological material before she can steal it. The life you save will be your own so be selfish.

Next let’s deal with a point that is more controversial than abortion: this unwanted pregnancy is her fault based on her bad judgement in a lover. She let a promiscuous braggart, who was having sex with four other women at the same time, raw dog her. Despite his public statement about his financial success, in the recording, Fresh tells her that he is broke so she shouldn’t expect any child support. If he doesn’t pay for her bad judgement, then the taxpayers may be stuck funding her bastard. In a polity where a woman’s bad judgement is subsidized by others, only a fool would be surprised that female bad judgement proliferates. Note that as soon as he rejected her child by telling her to abort it, she opted to call on the surrogate violence of the court and police to force him to pay her. If Fresh is broke, how long before she uses the government to pick the pocket of every man in our country through welfare?

This later point may be complicated as she is Chinese in the US on a tourist visa. Did she just make herself an anchor baby for public benefits and to become a legal immigrant? Is baby trap tourism to the US going to become a thing? Such is speculative but is referenced to highlight how our broken immigration system also potentially impacts what should be a private matter between Fresh & the self-proclaimed baby momma.

Finally let’s address abortion. In the audio, he tells her he doesn’t want a kid so she should see the doctor for an abortion pill. They do not agree about an abortion, but his opinion doesn’t matter as she has legally baby trapped him with only her judgement now deciding. Fresh isn’t a victim but allegedly a fool who allowed himself to be trapped; such short-term thinking has consequences. I am not talking about what should be, but what is.

Anti-abortion women are dancing on the grave of Fresh’s future because his reported baby mama isn’t going to abort but will try to stick it to him financially. While abortion is legal and should be legal, woman too often choose abortion for immoral reasons, which in the long term often cause those women future guilt and emotional distress. As Fresh’s reported baby momma appears to have gotten pregnant on purpose thinking that it would lead to marriage, her choosing not to abort the embryo is morally responsible. Without an involved dad in that child’s life, hopefully she will consider adoption as in the child’s best interest.

The big picture of this private situation is that bad parental choices have long term public policy consequences. Public policies that we have in place are broken for child support, child custody, welfare, adoption, and foster care as they do not work to protect the best interest of affected kids. These areas require reform, but our useless politicians evade these problems and their negative impact on kids. Hopefully Fresh’s alleged kid likely to be raised by a single mom doesn’t grow up to carjack you.

Acknowledgement: YT character & comedian Undead Chronic’s review of the facts of Fresh’s reportedly weak pullout game informed me of the relevant details.

Extra point:

The Battle of the Sexes Election?

Previously women activists have shrieked about engaging in sex strikes over political issues and refusing to date men who vote for the other party. How are these female activists’ efforts to politicize sex going? Women are recently getting punched in the face on the streets of NYC with many men responding “we told you so.” Maybe those ladies should have listened when they were being manslained to about the dangers of keeping violent criminals and the mentally ill on the streets. 🙂

Obviously this is bad, but it is also important to look at what is and not just what should be. Increasingly men have begun to clapback in response to women sexualizing politics; that is to say men are treating women as equals and many women don’t like being held accountable for the consequences of the bad policies these women support.

Of course everyone is an individual but from a marketing perspective political affiliation can track to demographics. If you segment voters by sex and marriage, only single women have majority support for Democrats. Single men, married men, and married women have majority support for Republicans. That is to say single women vote so overwhelmingly Democrat that it can wipe out the advantage Republicans have with everyone else.

While this can make single women feel empowered and heard by Democrats who cater to them, these women don’t recognize that Democrats have an incentive for women to not be married and Democrats pursue economic policies that undermine marriage. The demographic trend in the US is for more women not to get or stay married; especially middle-aged women. While 5% of women are not interested in marriage, Democrats have left many single middle-aged women crying into their glass of boxed wine, “Where have all the good men gone?”

Increasingly men are on strike. On strike from marriage and engaging in a productive life that is penalized by Democrat economic, regulatory, and tax policies. Now men are becoming increasingly vocally disagreeable with women in politics as this coming election begins to focus.

Today I saw several women tone policing men about political discussions on X. Those female commentators said that men shouldn’t talk to women as they do if they want women on their side. However there is a growing cohort of men that aren’t interested in convincing those women but instead to correct them and judge women for the negative consequences of idiotic political policies that those women support.

The geriatric presidential candidates are unresponsive to, and likely unaware of, this male frustration and growing hostility because efforts have been made to suppress its expression on social media. Thus excluded from public discussion, those alienated men have talked to each other IRL and in the hidden corners of the internet. Now more and more of that male frustration is breaking out into public.

Women increasingly feel frustrated by receiving disagreement from men. Sometimes women feel like they are good women catching strays intended for bad women. However men increasingly have frustration with both single and married women for different reasons. For married women, it is the lack of reform to divorce laws and the terrible consequences kids suffer in divorce. For single women, it is their tendency to know nothing and do nothing but have an ignorant opinion about how men should do things as women direct.

Should sex be a politicized battlefield? No. Is it? Increasingly yes.

How has this happened? The totalitarian Left are the intellectual leaders of the Democratic Party. As with all totalitarians, like communists and fascists, these totalitarian Leftists (sometime referred to as Woke) believe that everything should be political and subjected to state control. In current year, it isn’t just green haired obese women championing totalitarianism but more generally single women tend to be in the vanguard mindlessly repeating the thoughts of their ideological puppet masters. Such women aren’t thinking for themselves but thoughtlessly repeat the mantra without the capacity to engage with reality or discussion.

I don’t have a ready answer to this problem as it is drifting into becoming a life boat situation. How does one deal with the irrational? In small doses, irrational people can be avoided, but this isn’t small. Women (#NotAll but as a demographic), especially single women, are increasingly unhappy, depressed, anxious, and mentally ill. Meanwhile they are supporting a political party whose policies are destroying both our economy and our justice system. Perhaps the tough love of rhetorical correction and punishment is not unjustified.

Merge NBA and WNBA for Equal Pay

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the wage gap between men and women remains a vacuous slogan. Famously the US Women’s soccer team sued for pay inequity despite having rejected the contract terms negotiated for the men’s team.

I have a modest proposal to settle this debate in response to claims the women who play for the perpetual money losing WNBA are underpaid compared to men in the NBA. Let’s merge the NBA and WNBA.

Each team will have both male and female players. Men and women will play equal minutes. A lineup of women will play against women and men against men so competition is fair. Meanwhile there will be no more separate but unequal treatment. Men and women will play before the same paying audience under the same television contract so the same revenue stream to get equal pay.

Shouldn’t the starting female power forward get the same pay as the male one for playing equal minutes?

Of course the NBA plays more games than the WNBA; 82 vs 40 regular season and best of 7 vs 5 game series in the playoffs. That can’t really change as it would depress revenue thus pay. The ladies will just need to put on their big girl panties and ignore the consequences of the longer season’s physical toll. How does the line from Rocky IV go? If they die, they die.

Unfortunately, fans will not like this product. As the corporate mantra in current year is “Going broke, so go woke,” professional basketball should just power into that iceberg and like Disney ignore the interests of their paying customers. As the Critical Drinker jibes, “it will be fine” to ignore the obvious problems.

As with Swift’s modest proposal this one is intended to be absurd. While proclaiming equal the nonessential and ignoring the important, it only emphasizes the gap in productivity which drives compensation. The audience is there to see the men play not the women. Most points will be scored by the men, not the women. Men’s jerseys will outsell women’s. The most popular players will continue to be men, not women.

I am not intending to dunk on women. With some jobs women can out earn men and in others they get the jobs because they will work for less money. I am however saying that when political activists say that government should force equal pay for men and women in similarly categorized jobs that the context of productivity driving compensation is evaded.