The Samson Option was first spoken of in 1973 about Israel’s plan to fire off all their nukes and initiate a global nuclear holocaust if their existence is threatened. Israel’s nuclear doctrine dictates that a “nonconventional” attack requires one in response, meaning, a nuclear one - the Samson Option is a grand strategy that entails mutually assured destruction and a scorched earth policy. Do people truly understand how this is turning into a geopolitical nightmare? If this Armageddon-like scenario comes to fruition, U.S. and European capitals would be annihilated and the world would face an extinction-level event. Tonight on Ground Zero, Clyde Lewis talks about THE SAMSON OPTION.
SHOW PREVIEW:
SHOW SAMPLE:
SHOW PODCAST:
https://aftermath.media/podcast/10-18-23-the-samson-option/
SHOW TRANSCRIPT:
The world at war and the idea of a depopulation agenda are nightmare fodder for those who worry about these apocalyptic times.
According to the theory of Near-Term Extinction the human race is about to go the way of the Dinosaurs. Though polls on the subject are scarce, it is safe to assume that the majority of humanity disagrees. Most of us remain at least cautiously optimistic about our long-term survival prospects.
The ideas of end-of-the-world scenarios remind us of the little boy who cried wolf undefined there have been close calls, and there have been calls for alarm that have been unfounded.
Just a series of stories that include saber rattling and fear porn.
To many people who have studied the Bible, it becomes a matter of faith that there will be divine intervention during an all-out war or Armageddon.
When it comes to international affairs, rationalist models generally fall under the heading realpolitik, a term used to denote both cynical amorality and unflinching “realism” by political leaders acting for a perceived greater good.
Yes, decisions are made without any thought of morality on behalf of the people they are to protect undefined The powers in charge are far more cruel as we see them prepare the troops for a suicide mission fighting or ideologies they do not understand.
This is no longer a question of freedom or democracy undefined it is a matter of world hegemony and the constant battles in a forever war that appears to be Orwellian in scope.
In the book, 1984, we read:
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but its very structureundefinedundefined
Machiavelli wrote, “How we live is so far removed from how we ought to live, that [the ruler] who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather bring about his own ruin rather than his preservation.”
As you can understand, Machiavelli did not usher in a new political philosophy; he merely articulated what had always been understood by rulers anywhere and everywhere.
That most are psychopaths that would bring down themselves and their own followers if they felt it was for the greater good.
Which brings us to current events.
The attacks by Hamas fighters in southern Israel on 7 October, and the Israeli air attacks on Gaza that have followed, and now the unfolding humanitarian disaster there, once again is dividing the world as we are seeing pro-Hamas supporters taking to the streets of the United States and all over Europe.
It seems that protest and unrest are becoming the great American pastime as justice warriors, needing to connect, find it in their best interest to rebel and destroy undefined turning things upside down and the argument becomes just another ugly page in world history.
It is a sad reality that the establishment news media’s coverage of the Israel-Hamas fight maybe even more shallow, biased, and hawkish than the coverage of the Russia-Ukraine war or previous international conflicts.
The willingness of most prominent news outlets to serve as little more than conduits for pro-war propaganda and cheerleaders for misery and suffering is nothing new undefined but with the Ukraine war still on our minds, we can see how the media is actually doing a repeat performance of gathering together women and children and interviewing them as they mourn the dead.
Yes, the death is real, and the hardships are obvious, but the media goes from reporting the war - to becoming a documentary of death and sadness- it talking about ending the war or finding a spokesperson who wants peace and hope.
We are also seeing an onslaught of propaganda as both sides try to doctor the war information to fit their political bias.
Similar defects were evident during the Persian Gulf War, the U.S.-NATO air wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, and at least the early stages of the Vietnam and Iraq wars.
Prominent publications even tried to sell the Obama administration’s blatantly false portrayal of Syrian insurgents trying to unseat Bashar al-Assad’s government as democratic freedom fighters.
Most of those insurgents were, in fact, Sunni jihadists. Even in the cases of Vietnam and Iraq, major players in the establishment press turned against those missions only when it became obvious to all except the most obtuse individuals that U.S. policy had become a fiasco.
If you take the time to observe, you cannot ignore how there has been a weird sense of unity and consensus in U.S. political and media circles. It is as close to a unanimous without dissent. or opendiscourse as anything in memory- well if you look back at 9/11 in the aftermath the majority of Americans were pro-war undefined until it became apparent that it was more than just retaliation for the attacks on American soil.
Some of the press accounts during the Ukraine war have proven to be downright embarrassing. During the early weeks of the fighting, Ukrainian officials highlighted the supposed bravery of marines defending Snake Island, who allegedly died rather than surrender to a heavily armed Russian flotilla. The supposed martyrs of Snake Island, who allegedly were blown to smithereens after defying and cursing a Russian warship, turned out to be very much alive.
Other popular propaganda messages circulated in the Western press proved to be equally bogus. Some footage of aerial combat between Ukrainian pilots and Russian aggressors was from video games. 2015’s Miss Ukraine was not taking up arms against the Russian invaders, despite a well-covered photo op.
A closer examination of the image even showed that she was brandishing an Airsoft gun. A widely circulated image of a Ukrainian girl verbally confronting Russian troops actually was an older clip of a Palestinian girl confronting Israeli troops.
It once again solidifies the axiom that the biggest casualty of war is truth. It is also unfortunate that independent views that try to be objective in the matter are once again facing the cancel culture and there is also an insane misunderstanding when someone tries to see the point of view of one side or the other.
Both sides are reporting that both sides are killing each other undefined the media tends to use careful phraseology while reporting these stories and make it a point to report the deaths of the most fragile.
Given that history, one might think that responsible journalists would be very cautious about regurgitating accounts – especially atrocities stories – put forth by one faction waging a war. However, with respect to both Ukrainian and Israeli accounts, most establishment media outlets have displayed very little prudent skepticism. Such unprofessionalism has embarrassed previous generations of editors, columnists and reporters. The same dismal outcome is likely this time.
The enemy has been called out and the other has been realized and sympathies are turned into political tripe.
Again people are dying undefined children are being slaughtered and Peace again is nothing but a rainbow chased by idealists who want to somehow find the good in people.
Well, I can assure you that the people do not want war undefined it is the leaders who order Armies to commit atrocities, and when the terrorists are in the seats of power, you see wars that are so inhumane, that you canundefinedt broadcast images because they are so brutal.
The new normal we see is barbaric and brutal undefined and many people are waiting for the next shoe to drop.
Despite the extensive military capabilities, Israel would undoubtedly face a challenging situation in a direct military confrontation with Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.
With a distance of more than 600 miles between Israel and Iran, launching air strikes against the Islamic Republic, and having to travel through the hostile skies of Syria and Iraq to do so, would prove next to impossible without the assistance of the United States and its allies, which leads to a grim possibility – a deliberately provoked Pearl Harbor like attack on American forces, intended to galvanize US support for entry into what could quickly become a global conflict.
If you believe in the idea of History rhyming then you can see that historical precedent exists for such a scenario.
Now, with the provocative deployment of US and British Naval Destroyers to the Mediterranean amidst the current hostilities, the recent build-up of US Forces in the Persian Gulf, and Israel’s history of involvement in false flag operations intended to incite a US military response, from the USS Liberty to 9/11, it appears that the stage is now being set for a deliberately provoked or staged attack on US Forces in the region in order to draw Washington into a wider conflict with Iran, and the catastrophic consequences that will follow.
For many years, Israel’s open secret is that it’s one of eight known nuclear powers, including America and Russia with about 97% of the world’s arsenal. That is according to researcher Helen Caldicott in her book Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer. The others are Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel — North Korea is a declared but unverified one.
In her January 20, 2009, Canadian Medical Association Journal article titled “Obama and the opportunity to eliminate nuclear weapons,” Caldicott wrote:
“The Cold War is over, but the threat of nuclear war is not. Little progress has been made since 1989 when the Berlin Wall collapsed. In fact, the threat of nuclear annihilation has escalated. In 1972, when 5 nuclear nations… signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, they agreed to rapidly disarm. They have done the opposite,” resulting in a greater than ever threat, the Pentagon’s new Nuclear Posture Review and US-Russia deal doing nothing to reverse it.
In his 1991 book, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and America Foreign Policy, Seymour Hersh discussed Israelundefineds strategy to launch a massive nuclear counterattack if it felt its existence threatened, the stark message being the next regional war may be nuclear.
The Samson Option was first spoken of in 1973 about Israel’s plan to fire off all their nukes and initiate a global nuclear holocaust if their existence is threatened
Israel’s nuclear doctrine dictates that a “nonconventional” attack requires one in response, meaning a nuclear one, the Samson Option os a grand strategy and a scorched earth policy.
According to Hebrew University’s Professor of Military History Martin Van Creveld, Israel has the capability to take the world down with it. And he assures that it will happen before Israel goes under.
Before we think that the Samson option is far from being carried out undefined this Option was actually brought up on Fox News when Mark Levin was being interviewed live.
“What is Israel going to do if they’re surrounded?” Levin said. “What are they going to do if 150,000 advanced missiles are going to be shot? What are they going to do if Iran gets involved? Well, they can’t win a conventional war. What are they going to do?”
“I think I know what they’d do,” Levin continued. “I know what we would do, we would destroy the enemy, because otherwise we’re exterminated. That’s all I have to say!”
Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy after she suggested that America can’t afford another war and told Levin it’s “not anti-Semitic to say that we as Americans should take a pause.”
Levin barked back:
“Look, I didn’t say it was anti-Semitic, that’s number one, so I don’t appreciate that either, number two, the Israelis haven’t asked us to get involved, they told us to give them equipment. Number three, they have their own nuclear arsenal, which they never admit.”
“If Israel is going to face annihilation, you think they have those nukes in there to collect dust?” Levin said.
“If you’re a country that has that type of weaponry, and your people are going to be slaughtered as they were — except this time totally destroyed, they need to be thinking about all their options,” he said, alluding to the Samson Option.
“So when we go on TV and say ‘what are they going to do, what are they going to do, they’re surrounded, they’re going to wipe them out, we can’t send troops, we can’t do–‘ fine! But if I’m the president or prime minister of Israel I’ve got to think it all through — all of it!” Levin said.
“As far as the US military being stretched, that’s not Israel’s fault! It’s got nothing to do with Israel!” he insisted.
Ben Shapiro, in so many words, similarly floated the Samson Option as a reason for the US to provide additional aid to Israel on his show last week.
Now the question is undefined how far do we have to go? How much is too much undefined Ben Shapiro and Levin are now implying that Israel’s threat to wipe out the entire planet if their war winds up backfiring.
This is outrageous. Would the world support this? The Samson Option would result in mutually assured destruction.
Do people understand just how volatile this can get?
Strong words notwithstanding it is hard to hear two patriotic talk show hosts supporting such a scorched earth policy.
The U.S. and European capitals would be annihilated undefined and the world would face an extinction-level event.
By the early 1970s, Israel had advanced nuclear technology, world-class scientists, and several dozen bombs ready to launch. Today it’s believed it has hundreds and a delivery system able to hit distant targets accurately.
Israel was, and today is, a world nuclear power, possessing sophisticated technology and weapons.
Iran, has openly, explicitly and publicly, threatened to wipe Israel off the map.
If they attempt to do so undefined Israel will have no other alternative than to use the Samson Option.
The “Samson Option” refers not just to a last-resort spasm of pure national vengeance, but to a purposeful set of specific operational threats. When examined together with Israel’s still intentionally ambiguous nuclear strategy it becomes evident that these carefully fashioned threat postures are designed to enhance Israeli nuclear deterrence.
But what if Iran calls their bluff?
Because strategic crises in other parts of the world could sometimes “spill over” into the ever-unpredictable Middle East, dedicated strategic planners in Tel Aviv should already begin their preparations to “think Samson.” This is especially the case wherever the possible “spill” could concern the threat or actual use of nuclear weapons.
But then everything has the potential to go nuclear -all it takes is one big mistake, or misunderstood cue -and we have a nuclear conflict that will be used to bring the war to the last man standing.
Accordingly, Israel must clearly recognize that a nuclear attack or exchange in any one part of the world could sometimes meaningfully impact its own nuclear war planning and related obligations.
Among other things, this means meticulously conceptualizing—or perhaps re-conceptualizing—the prospective role of any calculated Samson Option.
Talking tough could trigger an offense that leads to a dealy defense.
Unfotunately the tough talk has already begun and the troops are on the ready undefined all the ships have gathered -and the air is thicker than what it was during the Cuban Missile crisis.
Significantly, the Samson Option could never protect Israel as a fully comprehensive nuclear strategy unto itself. This option must also never be confused with Israel’s more generalized, or “broad spectrum,” nuclear strategy, one which must always seek to maximize national deterrence at recognizably less apocalyptic levels of possible military engagement.
Addressing Israel’s nuclear arsenal must be part of a peace process settlement.
The Samson Option literally puts Israel as a Nuclear threat- so far we have not heard anyone except unhinged talk show hosts speak of using it.
Israel won’t die alone”—the Samson Option could continuously serve Israel as a distinctly meaningful adjunct to nuclear deterrence and also to certain more-or-less corollary preemption options.
You need to understand that its first-strike doctrine is to destroy the entire region if threatened. The possibility is too great to ignore and too important not to confront given the consequences if initiated.
It is the very thing that nightmares are made of.
